Latest / The Late Debate / The Late Debate | 20 August

Transcript

The Late Debate | 20 August · The Late Debate

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Wait, wait, wait, thanks for joining us.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and Anika the Georgio,
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: who I must say has shoes that threaten to steal
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: the show tonight. You know, they are the biggest bows
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: I've seen on a pair of shoes.
• 0:18
  Speaker 3: You know, the more that you mentioned my shoes, the
• 0:20
  Speaker 3: more people actually comment. I get a lot of messages
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: about my shoes, So thank you and thank you for
• 0:25
  Speaker 3: noticing it.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Jane, How could I not I've noticed nothing else.
• 0:29
  Speaker 3: I honest, I've been speaking about him for the last
• 0:31
  Speaker 3: half hour up the walls.
• 0:33
  Speaker 4: It's like a bit of a beacon. I'm glad people
• 0:35
  Speaker 4: are paying attention to your shoes because people pay attention
• 0:38
  Speaker 4: to my socks now as well. I meet people and
• 0:40
  Speaker 4: they go, oh, we watch every night to see what
• 0:42
  Speaker 4: pair of socks you're wearing.
• 0:43
  Speaker 3: Well, yeah, that's a lot, Caleb, you are quite a
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: fashionable man.
• 0:46
  Speaker 4: Oh look, I try my best.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: We've got to get on with you.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: But before we do, people should know we caught up
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: with your parents recently.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Yes, and what did they brought you? A gift?
• 0:54
  Speaker 4: Calebas parents, and I'm not I will wear them? Well,
• 0:58
  Speaker 4: actually I won't give it all a you'll see them
• 1:01
  Speaker 4: next week. They also they did it also give me
• 1:03
  Speaker 4: a little bottle of Scotch, which was nice. Took home
• 1:06
  Speaker 4: the head that after dinner.
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: It was suck it. They like you more than they
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: like me, clearly.
• 1:10
  Speaker 4: Well, they got you a gift to James, didn't they.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Dnika's mother bought me a massive bag.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: Of chewing, which was a reference to some earlier chats
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: we had.
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and the kurd has point out that James walked
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: into our We have a nightly meeting every night, and
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: James walked into the late debate tonight, late, running and
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: chewing like a cow as you entered the room. Why'd
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: you say, blame your mum and dad?
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: Exactly? All right, let's get on with the show. Here's
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: what's coming up tonight.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Adelaide Council moves to expel sex shops from the CBD.
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: Is this a wise move from civic minded leaders or
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: needless moralizing by a bunch of prudes. Remember Julia Gillard's
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: promise there will be no carbon tax. Well, Chris Powart
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: is having another look at the idea. If you think
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: petrol prices are high, now just wait and Harry and
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: Meghan are moving back to the UK, which begs the
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: question why We'll get to all of that shortly. But
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: first A former LD store assistant has lost an unfair
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: dismissal claim after using AI to prepare his case. The
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: Fair Work Commission found a Sydney man's application contained numerous
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: mistakes and was filled with irrelevant arguments. Commissioned Deputy President
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: Michael Easton said it's quite possible that mister Kahan adopted
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: AI as his quasillegal advisor and then blindly submitted AI
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: generated outputs as his own material. If mister Khan had
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: properly read for himself the AI generated material on which
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: he relied so heavily, he would have realized his AI
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: arguments were just plain wrong. Mister Kahan could have and
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: should have chosen to cut his losses when he had
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: the chance. The Fair Work Commission ordered sad Nan Kahan
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: to pay one two hundred and thirty dollars in costs.
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: Can I just say I actually don't think this story.
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: A lot of people are saying it proves that it's
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: wrong to use AI in preparing legal cases. I don't
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: agree with that. I think AI is a wonderful tool Caleb.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: But that's the lesson. It's a tool, not a substitute
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: for using your own brain, which clearly this man did not.
• 3:08
  Speaker 4: Well, that is also true. I think this chap is
• 3:11
  Speaker 4: himself a tool for wasting the Fair Work Commission's time.
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: And this is my major problem with the use of
• 3:17
  Speaker 4: AI and this stuff.
• 3:18
  Speaker 5: Now.
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: I get that lawyers are using it to make their
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: tasks easier. I get that lots of people are using
• 3:25
  Speaker 4: AI to make their tasks easier, and there is nothing
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: necessarily inherently wrong with that, even though I have my
• 3:32
  Speaker 4: issues with AI that I've talked about here extensively. But
• 3:35
  Speaker 4: if you're locking up to court and you are substantially
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: using artificial intelligence as the basis of your argument, I
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: reckon there needs to be an AI. Fine, you know,
• 3:47
  Speaker 4: because what we're going to see. There's always been idiots
• 3:50
  Speaker 4: who go in and sort of you know, come up
• 3:52
  Speaker 4: with stupid cases and self represent and the court works
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: out pretty quickly that this ain't going anywhere fast. But
• 3:58
  Speaker 4: now that you've got AI, every man and his dog,
• 4:02
  Speaker 4: well maybe every second man and his dog, to be
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: fair to most of the population, will start to think
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: that he's a bush lawyer and we'll be using AI
• 4:11
  Speaker 4: and they'll all be running off to the Fair Work
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: Commission or the Small Claims Court or wherever it is
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: and putting up all this gear that they got out
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: of Chat GPT or claud or Jim and I or
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: whatever service they use and saying, here you go, mister judge,
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: this is how it is. And it will waste so
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: much of the court's time, I believe, because people are
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: going to do this stuff more and more frequently. And
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: so I would say, if it's found that you have
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: used AI fundamentally to put together your case and you lose,
• 4:43
  Speaker 4: you should not only have to pay the legal fees
• 4:46
  Speaker 4: for the mob you've gone up against, you should have
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: to pay another fine on top for using AI. And
• 4:50
  Speaker 4: maybe that will discourage people from ways.
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: I don't think it's fine for using AI is yeah,
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: but no, no, I don't think. I don't think you
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: have to go as far as a fine cayler because
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: look this chap. You know, Look, I think that the
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: problem when it comes, and I'm going to try and
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: put this in the nice, polite of way possible, the
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: fact that this chap was using AI to respond to
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: the most basic of emails you know, maybe he obviously
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: just didn't know how to write emails, and that to
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: me is a big problem in general in the workforce,
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: that if you can't write a basic email, you've got
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: a problem or two. Right. I don't think you should
• 5:25
  Speaker 3: find somebody for giving it a go. Okay, My actual
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: critique is with the Fair Work Commission. It's my understanding
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: that for the Fair Work Commission to take on an
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: unfair dismissal case, that person has to be have been
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: employed at the company for six months. This guy was
• 5:39
  Speaker 3: only there for five months, So I'm not sure why
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: the Fair Work Commission even bothered to take it on.
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: Wouldn't you've just thrown it out from the very beginning
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: and saved all of these court costs. I don't have
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: an issue, and I am very pro AI. I know
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: you're the ANTIAI guy on this panel. I'm very pro AI.
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: So if a person is going to do their research
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: and they're going to try and put together a case
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: as best they can because perhaps don't have legal means,
• 6:01
  Speaker 3: then fine. But I wouldn't say that you can just
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: know that your case is going to get thrown out.
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: I think you raise a great point when you talk
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: about people using AI because they don't have the finances
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: to get a solicitor a barrister. So I would counter Caleb.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: For every one person who uses AI to launch a
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: frivolous case and waste time, there may well be ten
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: people who use AI because they literally can't afford to
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: be represented in a court of law, which these days
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: costs an absolute mozza. Even if your case is right,
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: a lot of people just can't afford to go to
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: court because of lawyer fees. AI allows people to become
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: bush lawyers, but at least they've got the ability to
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: be sensible provided, as I said, unlike this guy who literally,
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: I mean he still had AI prompts on the documents
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: that he submitted to the Fair Work Commission, So he
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: had literally typed into AI, just taken whatever was produced
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: and submitted it without giving it.
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: And he's still from all the day himself. Even he
• 7:01
  Speaker 3: still fumbled the dates, even though so he didn't even
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: plug them into the AI bot correctly, which it is.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Most people could use it to save money on representation.
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: Maybe, But if this, as I suspected, will leads to
• 7:13
  Speaker 4: an onslaught of frivolous and vexatious cases coming before courts
• 7:19
  Speaker 4: and Fair Work Commission and whatever and the tribunals, and
• 7:22
  Speaker 4: they start getting clocked up with these cases, they're going
• 7:25
  Speaker 4: to have to do something about it. And in much
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: the same way that you know, they changed defamation law
• 7:31
  Speaker 4: a few years ago basically to prevent everyone running off
• 7:34
  Speaker 4: because one person had left a comment on social media
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: and saying, okay, well, and I'm now going to sue
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: you because you said something defamatory about me. It became
• 7:42
  Speaker 4: that you had to prove actual damage as a result
• 7:45
  Speaker 4: of those comments. So, you know, you call someone a
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: peter phile, you've got a case. But if you just
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: in some little corner of the Internet where five people
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: have read it, put something up that's tofamatory about someone,
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: you're not going to get a case because the courts
• 7:58
  Speaker 4: are being clogged up with all these people saying that
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: I got a case to run, So they sought that out,
• 8:02
  Speaker 4: and I suspect that's where we're going to end up
• 8:04
  Speaker 4: with AI clogging up our courts and tribute.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: But this guy was made to pay court costs, so
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: in effect he was penalized for using spurious arguments. Albeit
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: with AI, there's your penalty.
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: But the other stuff.
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: Also, I also think there is an element of personal
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: quite a big element of personal responsibility. Right, this guy's
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: been there for five months. Let bygones be bygones. If
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: you've been unfairly dismissed, as you claim, go find another job.
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: Why would you bother and take the risk that you
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: are going to go to the tribunal, to the fair
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: Work Commission and that you might lose and it's actually
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: going to cost you more over time. Personal responsibility, a
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: little bit of common sense should be should prevail in
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: these circumstances. You use your brain a little bit.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: I would suggest AI told him to do it.
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: I told him to do it. This is what happens though,
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: when you do plug yourself your AI bots, if you
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: use chat GPT, they get to know you. You know,
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: chat GPT called me mate the other night. I couldn't
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: believe it.
• 9:00
  Speaker 4: Mate, get baggage. Check your calling you nowdates.
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: It said name, we're laughing aboutji, find mate?
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: What have you been calling? Chet GPT Dollsit such a.
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: And I was trying to figure where it came from.
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: And I don't know, but see tries to become your buddy.
• 9:15
  Speaker 3: Opow next minute you're in front of a tribunal and
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: you're losing a lot of money that you go. Now, look,
• 9:21
  Speaker 3: let's go to Adelaide now, where new strip clubs and
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: sex shops will be banned from city centers as part
• 9:27
  Speaker 3: of new planning regulations approved by the state government. So
• 9:31
  Speaker 3: the Adult Entertainment Premises Code is now going to prevent
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: premises from operating in exclusion areas across what are considered
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: to be prominent as well as highly visible parts of
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: the Adelaide CBD. The amendments to the code will also
• 9:46
  Speaker 3: impact adult products and service stores, which will face closest
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: scrutiny from the Adelaide Council in terms of what they
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: are able to advertise in their shop front. Now, the
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: South Australian Planning Minister Nick Champion says, it's a really
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: important thing. If we want people to live in the city,
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: if we want people to frequent the city, if we
• 10:06
  Speaker 3: want it to be a lively, vibrant, sophisticated and cultural place,
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: we will need to protect these boulevards from inappropriate developments. Now,
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: this is not the first time that the South Australian
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: government or governments of the past have come out strong
• 10:20
  Speaker 3: on this Back in twenty nineteen, a Upper House state
• 10:24
  Speaker 3: MP by the name of Frank Pangello. He got involved
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: in an advertising debacle with an Adelaide's Strip Club and
• 10:33
  Speaker 3: that strip club was ordered to remove its advertising after
• 10:37
  Speaker 3: it was accused of having displaying soft pawn. There By
• 10:41
  Speaker 3: the city can sort of see little picture behind him
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: there if you look a bit closely into that picture.
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: As just as a side to the background of this story.
• 10:51
  Speaker 4: Please so Frank, God love him, an easy, great bloke. Frank.
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: When they were doing up the developing around Parliament House,
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: right and so as part of that, they couldn't use
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: the car park at Parliament House, so they gave car
• 11:07
  Speaker 4: parking in Hinley Street, which is sort of the next
• 11:09
  Speaker 4: street over from North Terrace where the Parliament House is,
• 11:13
  Speaker 4: and so in order to get to your car, Frank
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: was having to walk past the firm this strip club
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: every day and obviously started to take notice of the
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: fact that this stuff was out the front. So it
• 11:24
  Speaker 4: was the moving of the car park that caused Trent
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: Bengalo to launch his moral crusade against the But anyway,
• 11:30
  Speaker 4: just just a fun little.
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: Stuff background that was back. I mean you could see
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: a little bit of what the soft pawn as he
• 11:36
  Speaker 3: was referring to it back in twenty nineteen, so it's
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: not the first time that. Obviously, the state's taken quite
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: a strong stance when it comes to this. Now here's
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: my take on this. I look in the middle of
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: the strip, part of the part probably not the highway
• 11:51
  Speaker 3: right well, in the middle of the strip of Sayer CBD.
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: I don't agree with those sorts of images adult store
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: being able to display their items in the front window.
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: To be fair, if you do walk past adult stores,
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: they don't have whatever they're selling in those stores on display.
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: I mean, and the ones that I've walked past, I
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: don't see. You don't see what's on display. But I
• 12:14
  Speaker 3: do not have an issue with them being in city areas.
• 12:18
  Speaker 3: Now Here in Sydney we have multiple adult stores and
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: multiple strip clubs. All you have to do is walk
• 12:25
  Speaker 3: down King's Cross, very close to the city. Darlinghurst again,
• 12:29
  Speaker 3: very close to the city, and that is an area
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: with a high gay population too, So there's a lot
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: of stuff going on in Darlinghurst. Why should people be offended?
• 12:37
  Speaker 3: I don't understand. While we've got this culture, if you
• 12:39
  Speaker 3: walk past, oh well that can't be there every carrying
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: out there. Oh that's offensive to me. I don't like it.
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: Don't look, don't go in, don't go in.
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's got anything to do with people
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: being offended. I think it's got to do with local
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: businesses and the council representing their interests that they want
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: to preserve the character of certain areas. They want it
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: to be somewhere people don't think twice about taking their
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: family and that's important because they want the long term
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: economic prosperity of those areas to be guaranteed. They want
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: major stores to be there because they know families will
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: will come if you start having these stores in those locations.
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: It's not a matter of prudes being offended. It's a
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: matter of pure economics. They don't want mainstream businesses to
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: go elsewhere.
• 13:23
  Speaker 3: So do you stop going to shopping centers every time
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: because you walk past, say Honeybirdette, which is a very
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: well known laingerie brand in Australia, who have been criticized
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: in the past for their advertising when they have got
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: basically billboards at the front of their stores with women
• 13:39
  Speaker 3: in very not wearing a lot in their lingerie. So
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: what do you stop going to shopping centers.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with that particular brand, but the.
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: Point is is that they've been accused of being soft porn.
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: So when you're saying it brings down the viability of
• 13:54
  Speaker 3: a business, So okay, for example, there's one that's one
• 13:58
  Speaker 3: that's very closely.
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: Into illustration, right, So if that's in a major shopping center,
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: multiple shopping centers, okay, so it would become an issue
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: for center management where if they get enough complaints and
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: people stop frequent frequenting that center because of it, well,
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: then that'd make.
• 14:12
  Speaker 3: It cost It's nassarily what people are not going to
• 14:14
  Speaker 3: go to a shopping center because of an ad of lingerie?
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: Are you're actually seriously saying people would not go to
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: shopping centers and multiple story, multiple floor shopping centers because
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: of an advertisement with.
• 14:26
  Speaker 4: With all, Well, who knows what people may or may
• 14:28
  Speaker 4: not do, But it would be up to as jmec's
• 14:31
  Speaker 4: center management to make a decision about whether that's the
• 14:34
  Speaker 4: tenants they want in their shopping center and what they
• 14:36
  Speaker 4: allow them to display. So by the same token, you know,
• 14:39
  Speaker 4: I've got no issues with script clubs existing. As you say,
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: you know, you go down to King's Cross. Plenty often
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: down there, but King's Cross is known as a party strip,
• 14:48
  Speaker 4: just like in Adelaide there is Hinley Street, which is
• 14:50
  Speaker 4: a party strip. There's nightclubs and strippers and whatever. Right,
• 14:53
  Speaker 4: you know what you're in for when you go to
• 14:55
  Speaker 4: Heinley Street, particularly after twelve am. But if a council
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: sides or state government decides that there are certain parts
• 15:03
  Speaker 4: of a city they'd rather not have six shops and strippers,
• 15:07
  Speaker 4: I think that's their prerogative. They're not banning them. They're
• 15:10
  Speaker 4: not saying that they can't exist in the CBD. They're
• 15:12
  Speaker 4: not saying that Heinley Street cannot continue to have strip clubs.
• 15:15
  Speaker 4: They're not even saying that strip clubs or six shops
• 15:18
  Speaker 4: in these areas that already exist will be forced to close.
• 15:21
  Speaker 4: They're simply saying, we just want some areas of the
• 15:23
  Speaker 4: city where they don't exist. And I don't really see
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: why a council or a government shouldn't be able to
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: dictate that.
• 15:30
  Speaker 3: I don't have an issue, as I said, in terms
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: of the CBD, I agree are probably not the best
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: place to be having these sorts of things. But in
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: city areas, why not. Why not? I mean, all you
• 15:39
  Speaker 3: have to do is walk past Club X. And again,
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: a lot of the adult stores don't advertise what they're
• 15:45
  Speaker 3: selling out of the fronts. Out of the front of
• 15:47
  Speaker 3: their stores anyway, you just know that it is an
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: adult shop by the name of the business.
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: What what you ended up with is is you don't have
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: a problem with these places, and you can understand people
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: who do. So it's your morality versus them. In the end,
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: it's decided by economics.
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, but none of them have gone out of business,
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: and whether we like it or not, I'm pretty sure
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: that they're doing quite well.
• 16:09
  Speaker 4: You know what I reckon they should ban is all
• 16:10
  Speaker 4: the tobacconists, all the bloody you know, the dodgy tobacconists
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: that pop up. They're littering the landscape. I reckon far
• 16:18
  Speaker 4: more than probably any six job is. So if they
• 16:20
  Speaker 4: want to get around to changing a few development laws,
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: I'd be going and starting on that one. Speaking of
• 16:25
  Speaker 4: changing laws, I mean remember sixteen years ago. Can you
• 16:29
  Speaker 4: believe it that then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, or was
• 16:33
  Speaker 4: running for PM anyway, said this, there.
• 16:36
  Speaker 3: Will be no carbon tax under the government. High lead.
• 16:41
  Speaker 4: I know famous last words, weren't they And you would
• 16:44
  Speaker 4: have thought to borrow another phrase from the other side
• 16:47
  Speaker 4: of the political aisle, that the idea, after all of
• 16:50
  Speaker 4: that kafuffle which pretty much lost them the election, certainly
• 16:53
  Speaker 4: in part anyway in twenty thirteen, that the idea of
• 16:56
  Speaker 4: a carbon tax would be dead, buried and crematedks to
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: turn the abbot for that one. But no, apparently it
• 17:03
  Speaker 4: is now back on the agenda. The Climate Change Minister
• 17:06
  Speaker 4: Chris Bowen has gone off to the bureaucrats and asked
• 17:09
  Speaker 4: them to write up a document that includes a potential
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: carbon tax. This is now going out as a consultation paper.
• 17:17
  Speaker 4: This was reported today in the News Court Papers by
• 17:20
  Speaker 4: John Rolf and he writes that the consultation paper states
• 17:23
  Speaker 4: that initially the government intends to imposed volume based targets
• 17:27
  Speaker 4: for low carbon fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol. So
• 17:30
  Speaker 4: this would then affect you know, trucking companies and airlines
• 17:33
  Speaker 4: and even new going to buy fuel. But from twenty
• 17:36
  Speaker 4: thirty five, to increase certainty about the emissions reduction trajectory,
• 17:40
  Speaker 4: there would be a switch to carbon intensity goals and
• 17:43
  Speaker 4: a credit trading system. This is the carbon tax element
• 17:48
  Speaker 4: they quote directly from the consultation paper. This would see
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: obligated entities required to demonstrate that the average carbon intensity
• 17:55
  Speaker 4: of obligation fuels remains below the applicable benchmark in each
• 18:00
  Speaker 4: reporting period. In other words, they start creating a benchmark
• 18:03
  Speaker 4: you have to meet. You have to reduce your fuel
• 18:05
  Speaker 4: use or use a less carbon intensive fuel. Failure to
• 18:09
  Speaker 4: meet obligations may result in enforcement action, including financial penalties.
• 18:14
  Speaker 4: In other words, the government will find you if you
• 18:16
  Speaker 4: use too much fuel. Obligated entities can choose how they
• 18:19
  Speaker 4: achieve the target, including by using different types and amounts
• 18:23
  Speaker 4: of low carbon liquid fuel and where permitted credits generated
• 18:27
  Speaker 4: or purchased within the scheme, and this is the carbon
• 18:30
  Speaker 4: tax itself. So basically what the federal government would say
• 18:35
  Speaker 4: to people who are consuming fuel and people who are
• 18:38
  Speaker 4: supplying fuel is that you have to move to lower
• 18:42
  Speaker 4: carbon options like E ten ethanol fuel, etc. And if
• 18:47
  Speaker 4: you don't do that, if you go over a certain
• 18:50
  Speaker 4: amount that has been used, will find you. In order
• 18:54
  Speaker 4: to get around that fine, you have an emissions trading
• 18:57
  Speaker 4: scheme which means the government creates carbon credits which if
• 19:01
  Speaker 4: you then go over your limit, you can buy from
• 19:04
  Speaker 4: another company or outfit that has gone under their limit
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: their share of what is left over, right, So essentially
• 19:11
  Speaker 4: you're horse trading so that everyone ends up using less
• 19:14
  Speaker 4: fuel in one year prior to the one before. But
• 19:18
  Speaker 4: you know what that means, right, means you've got to
• 19:20
  Speaker 4: pay for it. They've got to pay a fine for
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: going over the limit if they go over the limit,
• 19:25
  Speaker 4: or they have to pay to trade these carbon credits.
• 19:28
  Speaker 4: So this is airlines, Quantas, jet Star, Virgin, it's trucking
• 19:33
  Speaker 4: companies that move all of the food and all the
• 19:36
  Speaker 4: gear around Australia, and of course they're going to end
• 19:38
  Speaker 4: up going over their limits, aren't they, because they're using
• 19:40
  Speaker 4: a hell of a lot of fuel. So then they've
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: got to pay for it in some way, and then
• 19:44
  Speaker 4: who pays for that? You pay for it, So basically
• 19:47
  Speaker 4: we end up with fuel becomes more expensive because once
• 19:51
  Speaker 4: the government has set a target for twenty thirty five,
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: which is where they'll start, the target's going to get
• 19:56
  Speaker 4: lower in thirty six and thirty seven and thirty eight
• 19:58
  Speaker 4: and so on and so forth, and so basically they
• 20:01
  Speaker 4: will create by stealth another carbon tax that on paper
• 20:06
  Speaker 4: is paid by big fuel consumers like airlines and drucking companies,
• 20:10
  Speaker 4: but it's us, We're the ones who end up paying
• 20:13
  Speaker 4: for more expensive fuel.
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: The good thing about this, Caleb, though, is it's going
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: to make a dramatic difference to global temperatures.
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: Oh wow, it will makes zero difference.
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: And for that zero difference, they tried this in California,
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: fuel prices went up by around five percent. They did
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: this in Europe and airline tickets went up by eighteen percent.
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: To think that the government would do this in the
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: middle of a fuel crisis, when we're already paying through
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: the nose for petrol, having removed the or put the
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: excess back on, removing the excess discount to try and
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: make it easier for people, that's now been taken off,
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: and so to think that they will now take steps
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: to make fuel even more expensive. That there's nothing this
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: government touches that doesn't get worse.
• 21:01
  Speaker 3: You know, how the hell would they sell this because
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: the Labor Party has a blueprint of how it fails dramatically.
• 21:08
  Speaker 3: This carbon tax, as you mentioned, Caleb, under Julia Gillard
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: destroyed her political career and completely destroyed the Labor Party politically.
• 21:17
  Speaker 3: So the fact that they're even thinking about going back there.
• 21:19
  Speaker 3: I mean, good on them, great, go for it, go
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: for it absolutely, but by all means, but just goes
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: to show how stupid they are, that they don't have
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: the full sight to plan for the future. Their immediate
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: thought is tax, because this is exactly what the carbon
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: tax is. It is a tax, It is a pox
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: on the country. It will have no economic benefit. In fact,
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: it will do the exact opposite. And yet what on
• 21:41
  Speaker 3: earth is it going to do for climate change? And
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: my heart goes out to the farmers who will be
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: impacted by a carbon tax as they have been in
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: the past, and farmers are already the ones who are
• 21:51
  Speaker 3: being massively impacted by this renewables only facad journey that
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: we're on. And then what they're going to go after miners?
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: Thank god we've got the mine in this country. Thank
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: god we've got mining companies because right now they are
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: helping to prop up our economy. Without the mining sector,
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: we would be absolutely screwed. So you know, they can
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: put slogans on it, which they will if they do
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: go ahead with this, prepare for it now label will
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: try and sell this just like they've tried to sell
• 22:18
  Speaker 3: all of their taxes, like the taxes in the budget.
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: We know it's going to be a failure.
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: Well, I wonder if they'll sell it by making it
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: so full of gobbledygook and so difficult to understand. And
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: I thought you did a great job explaining something that
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: is quite complicated. And I think that's the genius of Labor.
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: They make these things so complicated that people don't even
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: try to get their head around it and just sort
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: of breezes by them, and that will be Labour's hope. Well,
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: you know what the genius of Tony Abbott was to
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: simplify what Labor were doing into a three word statement
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: that cut through. Whether Angus Taylor can do that, we'll see.
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: But they don't even need that. All they need is
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: that bit of audio from Julia Gillard. There will be
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: no carbon tax because that is what Ozzies resonate the
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: carbon tax with. The advertisement speaks for itself.
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: All right, let's move on to our most important subject
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: of the night, and that is the AFL finals, which
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: are only a week and a bit away. It's going
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: to be an exciting series, but there's something interesting about
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: this series and historic. It'll be the first time in
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: AFL history that five hundred players will take the field
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: for the finals and not a single player will.
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: Be ensured for concussion injuries. Now.
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: Up until just recently they were covered by Zurich insurance,
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: but Zurich have withdrawn their cover because they can't establish
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: a direct link between concussion and development of permanent brain
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: injury later in life. They're not saying there's not a link,
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: They're just saying they can't definitively establish it.
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: Now.
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: If you can't.
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: Definitively find a link, then you can't pry the risk.
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: And so they're saying we will.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: Not ensure AFL players for injuries later in life as
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: a result of concussion suffered during games. And so the
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: question becomes where does this leave players. For instance, just
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: the other week, Melbourne footballer Jacob Van Ryan suffered this concussion.
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: Have a look at how he gets taken out in
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: the game against Port Adelie.
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: I think we've got the vision here and.
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: Stabs it in nice till everybody leah.
• 24:32
  Speaker 4: He's playing on.
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: Here we go.
• 24:42
  Speaker 4: What's become this?
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: And you need to miss around with.
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: Sorry it was a Leah who got taken out by
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: Van Ryan. You got absolutely pole axed. If that happens
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: from now on, there's no insurance. So it makes Geelong
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: who with the subject of much scandal couple of weeks
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: ago when it was revealed they had gotten one of
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: their star players who'd been cancust multiple times to sign
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: a waiver, essentially saying if he's concust again or suffers
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: long term injuries in the future, he will not hold
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: the club responsible all of a sudden. It doesn't make
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: that look so silly. It might not be nice, Caleb,
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: but these guys are not ensured by anybody. The AFL
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: does have a scheme, but it caps the payout at
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: six hundred thousand dollars, which if you're suffering dementia later
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: in life, six hundred grand is nothing. The NFL in
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: the United States have a scheme. The cap is five
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: million dollars, but over the course of the last number
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: of years, the NFL in the United States have paid
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: out one point five billion dollars in compensation to players.
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: So the AFL have got a big decision to make
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: about whether this becomes play your own risk, which I
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: don't think is going to be palatable to anybody.
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: You can't say we put player.
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: Well, first you're on your own boys, or they put
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: a whole lot of money aside to look after players
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: in their old age.
• 26:09
  Speaker 4: I think there has to be an element of both
• 26:12
  Speaker 4: in that. And I made this argument a couple of
• 26:15
  Speaker 4: weeks ago when the drawing stuff was happening, that there
• 26:18
  Speaker 4: has to be personal responsibility taken by players, but also
• 26:23
  Speaker 4: responsibility taken by the league and the clubs. And the
• 26:27
  Speaker 4: same thing will go for rugby league as well, because
• 26:29
  Speaker 4: you know, concussions happened in rugby league too. It's all
• 26:32
  Speaker 4: sort of contact sports. Right now, I'm not sure what
• 26:34
  Speaker 4: exactly the numbers are in rugby league, but I know
• 26:36
  Speaker 4: in AFL concussion is the second most common injury right
• 26:41
  Speaker 4: so of all the injuries in Aussie rules, concussion is
• 26:45
  Speaker 4: the second most common. And there was a study in
• 26:47
  Speaker 4: twenty thirteen where they took to I think it was
• 26:50
  Speaker 4: thousands of ex players and seventy three percent of them
• 26:53
  Speaker 4: had had at least one concussion in their career. So
• 26:56
  Speaker 4: it's not so much that concussion, you know, might happen
• 26:59
  Speaker 4: if you play football. Basically you accept if you play
• 27:02
  Speaker 4: football you're going to be concussed. Now, how many times
• 27:06
  Speaker 4: you'll can cast how you particularly react to a concussion
• 27:09
  Speaker 4: or all these different variables that will affect what may
• 27:13
  Speaker 4: or may not happen to your brain in the future.
• 27:15
  Speaker 4: But it's basically part and pass or of playing football.
• 27:19
  Speaker 4: Might be nice to recognize it, but it's just the truth.
• 27:22
  Speaker 4: And so in the middle of all of that, we
• 27:25
  Speaker 4: somehow have to come up with a way unless we
• 27:28
  Speaker 4: want to lose sports like Aussie rules and rugby league
• 27:30
  Speaker 4: in Australia, where we accept that head knocks are going
• 27:33
  Speaker 4: to happen and that is going to cause issues potentially,
• 27:36
  Speaker 4: what can we do to mitigate those issues, but also
• 27:39
  Speaker 4: how do we get through this without it basically bankrupting
• 27:42
  Speaker 4: the leagues? Because I think this is the biggest potential
• 27:45
  Speaker 4: threat to organize contact sports in this country is concussion.
• 27:51
  Speaker 4: And if the leagues don't get on top of it
• 27:53
  Speaker 4: soon and come up with the financial plans for the future,
• 27:58
  Speaker 4: who's taking responsibility the numbers at which there's no more
• 28:02
  Speaker 4: you know, can it Gelong do what a Geelong did,
• 28:04
  Speaker 4: et cetera. This needs to be done imminently because I
• 28:07
  Speaker 4: think it's a big threat to football.
• 28:09
  Speaker 3: Well, I feel like we've spoken about concussions on the
• 28:11
  Speaker 3: late debate every week now because there seems to be
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: chronic issues within the AFL, and I do take Caleb's point.
• 28:18
  Speaker 3: I think that there is an element of personal responsibility
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: when you sign up to play any sort of sport
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: like this or rug whether it's rugby league, this, you
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: know that there could be a very high risk that
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: you're going to be concussed, perhaps your front teeth might
• 28:32
  Speaker 3: be knocked out. You sign up to it knowing the risks,
• 28:35
  Speaker 3: as you would with any sort of contact sport or
• 28:38
  Speaker 3: other professions. I guess the problem for insurers are is
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: how do you determine what the threshold is? How do
• 28:44
  Speaker 3: you know? And that is why it's now falling back
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: on the AFL. And I do believe that the AFL
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: does need to do something because they need to protect
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: themselves from future payers. I'm curious to know the statistics
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: about how many players have now taken the AFL on
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: for concuss or for any sort of future brain injury
• 29:01
  Speaker 3: that they've developed down the line, or any precursors to
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: do class actually aside from a class action, but I
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: wonder how many figured how many in total? How many
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: in total would there be?
• 29:11
  Speaker 2: Do you think you know, Eddie McGuire had a really
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: interesting suggestion where because this Geelong player has been concussed
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: multiple times who I mentioned earlier, and he signed a
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: waiver saying I want to keep playing if I end
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: up with brain injuries down the track, okay, I won't
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: hold the club responsible. And people said, well, how can
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: he make that decision because he's not in the position
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: of power. Maybe he needs to play on because the
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: money is providing for his family, et cetera. Eddie McGuire
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: has suggested that clubs should have a fund whereby any
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: player who's been knocked unconscious three times could be offered
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: we want you to retire, but we will pay you
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: to retire, so they're not tempted to sign away their
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: future health you get pinched off based So really good idea.
• 29:56
  Speaker 3: The other problem is is that I would say that
• 29:58
  Speaker 3: there are a lot of players they go, no, I'm fine,
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: I want to get back out there. They want to play,
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: They want to be part of the team, playing with
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: the boys. So that's the other element. But it's worth
• 30:08
  Speaker 3: noting though the AFL does have streach concussion protocols as
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: it is, and I think that they've gotten stronger over
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: recent years. I think they're only revamped a couple of
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: years ago. And they do and they do testing, and
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: they make sure that the player is one hundred percent,
• 30:20
  Speaker 3: but there is an element of the boys on the
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: field going, get me back out there.
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: There is one solution that I've not heard anybody suggest,
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: and it would a little bit change the asthetic of AFL.
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: But I don't know that we've ever had a concussed
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: player who was wearing a helmet. There's two players from
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: my beloved North Melbourne Kangaroos who wear helmets, Caleb Daniel
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: and Tristan Cherry. Why is no one suggesting and it
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: won't look the same because we pride ourselves on this
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: no padding, no helmets. But what if they just got
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: all these guys to wear helmets? Would that remove the problem.
• 30:54
  Speaker 4: I'm not sure there's been a great deal of evidence
• 30:56
  Speaker 4: from NFL in the US that it's made a huge
• 30:59
  Speaker 4: difference because they do wear helmets, and I don't think
• 31:02
  Speaker 4: it stopped concussions there.
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: I haven't seen the AFL guy wearing a helmet get content.
• 31:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I couldn't tell you, to be honest, but I'm
• 31:09
  Speaker 4: wary of how effective they actually are. I don't think
• 31:12
  Speaker 4: it would be a catch all that sort of solved
• 31:14
  Speaker 4: the problem.
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: I don't think no, no, all right, well, look I've
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: brought a little prop in for our next topic. Boys.
• 31:20
  Speaker 3: You know I love this. You ready, everyone? I brought
• 31:22
  Speaker 3: a prop? Oh no, remember this classic? Do you remember
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: this cracker of a novel written by Prince Harry.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: It's to the book. I thought it was a teacoaster.
• 31:31
  Speaker 4: Hang on, where's guest match here somewhere?
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: Well, let's said it. Well, you know what Spared two
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: point zero could possibly be in the works because you
• 31:40
  Speaker 3: may have heard the news overnight that Harry and Meghan
• 31:43
  Speaker 3: are actually moving back to the UK. It is a
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: reverse Meghan of sorts, goodbye to the Palatio Gates of
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: Montecito and back into London. Of course, this comes six
• 31:54
  Speaker 3: years after Megsitt. It comes six years after they've taken
• 31:57
  Speaker 3: every opportunity to bag out the Royal family, six years
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: after they said that they didn't like the Royal family
• 32:03
  Speaker 3: that want to be part of it because you know,
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: apparently the Royal family is racist and took every opportunity,
• 32:08
  Speaker 3: including this one, to say bad things.
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: This is not a surprise to anybody.
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: It's really sad that it's got to this point, but
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: I've got to do something for my own mental health,
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: for my wife, my father, and my brother.
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: They are trapped for.
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: Sation with you with Harry about how dark your baby
• 32:29
  Speaker 3: is going to be. So they have apparently made this
• 32:32
  Speaker 3: decision and completely blind sided the King. They just visited
• 32:36
  Speaker 3: him a couple of weeks ago, back in July. When
• 32:38
  Speaker 3: they went to London. They didn't even tell the King.
• 32:40
  Speaker 3: This has just come as a surprise. He was only
• 32:43
  Speaker 3: informed in the last couple of days. And yet the
• 32:45
  Speaker 3: kids are already enrolled in school to start in September.
• 32:48
  Speaker 3: So this wasn't an ad hoc decision by mister and
• 32:51
  Speaker 3: missus Grifter. This is clearly something that has been in
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: the pipeline for some time. Extraordinary when you think that.
• 32:56
  Speaker 3: You know, Harry said he could never step foot back
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: in London again because he doesn't feel safe. He then
• 33:00
  Speaker 3: claim that he could be the victim of a terror
• 33:01
  Speaker 3: attack if he was to return to London, and you
• 33:04
  Speaker 3: know what an incredible turnaround. They're broke, aren't they. They
• 33:08
  Speaker 3: need the money. Harry just lost his daily mail case.
• 33:10
  Speaker 3: Megan hasn't sold enough jams. They're sitting in warehouses around
• 33:13
  Speaker 3: the country. So, oh dear, Now I've gone through the receipts.
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: So I've got a couple of receipts. This is how
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: Harry was talking about fleeing the UK. This is how
• 33:23
  Speaker 3: imminent it sounded. I'm not going to read chapters, by
• 33:26
  Speaker 3: the way, I'm not going to bore everyone to death.
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: But when I was going through it just to do
• 33:30
  Speaker 3: a bit of research, you know, the language was, once
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: upon a time this was going to be my forever home.
• 33:36
  Speaker 3: Instead it had proved to be just another brief stop.
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: My wife and I fled this place. So there was
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: always this imminent, But then there was this one. It
• 33:45
  Speaker 3: was a cracker. I'd fled the land of my birth,
• 33:48
  Speaker 3: the land for which I'd fought and been ready to
• 33:50
  Speaker 3: die for my mother country. I took the drastic step
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: of picking up our child and running like hell, leaving
• 33:56
  Speaker 3: behind now for somebody, for somebody who was running like hell,
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: and wrote dramatically about freeing the royal family, amongst other
• 34:05
  Speaker 3: things that he's written about and here which wen't go into.
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: He's certainly done a bit of a turnaround, hasn't he?
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: In recent weeks so do.
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: You think it's entirely a commercial decision or corse, are
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: they looking to set their kids back up in the UK,
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: go to school and become part of the royal family
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: so that they have that option.
• 34:24
  Speaker 3: I'm going to put it. I'm going to put it
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: on camera now. A spare two point zero will absolutely
• 34:29
  Speaker 3: be in the works, and then there'll be the Netflix specials.
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: It will be Harry and Meghan, My Life in the Country,
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: Harry and Meghan and the chickens, Harry and Meghan on
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: the farm. Heck, they may as well make an appearance
• 34:39
  Speaker 3: on Love Island while they're in search of a Dutch chess.
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: The farmer wants a wife style. I mean, this is
• 34:45
  Speaker 3: the kind of crap that they would do to make money.
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: And I know the three of us are going to
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: be sitting there reviewing it. I mean, Meghan on the farm, Caleb.
• 34:54
  Speaker 4: Maybe maybe it's not going to be as good as
• 34:55
  Speaker 4: Clarkson's farm, is it. Maybe it just opens the door
• 34:58
  Speaker 4: for him to, you eventu get away from Meghan and then,
• 35:02
  Speaker 4: you know, put himself back into the royal family. I
• 35:04
  Speaker 4: don't know. It wouldn't it be nice if maybe he
• 35:07
  Speaker 4: was able to get his life back as it used
• 35:09
  Speaker 4: to be, away from the clutches of Meghan. Very quickly
• 35:12
  Speaker 4: before we get to a break, you might have seen
• 35:14
  Speaker 4: this story today about Golf Australia is now saying that
• 35:17
  Speaker 4: it doesn't matter what your biological sex is, you can
• 35:21
  Speaker 4: choose your handicap and the competition you play in based
• 35:25
  Speaker 4: on your gender identity. I find it extraordinary that you
• 35:29
  Speaker 4: know you've got basically every other world sporting organization has
• 35:35
  Speaker 4: started to crack down on this stuff. Of course, FENA
• 35:37
  Speaker 4: was the first one about five years ago. I think
• 35:40
  Speaker 4: to say, no, no, we're not going to have transgender
• 35:42
  Speaker 4: people competing in men's and women's sport. It's for men
• 35:44
  Speaker 4: and women only. And the Golf Australia's coming out and
• 35:47
  Speaker 4: completely bucking the global trend what is going on over there.
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: So as long as you have not played as a
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: man in the past four years, you can play as
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: a woman.
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: So you and I could rock up tomorrow.
• 36:00
  Speaker 2: So we identify as women and tea off from the
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: woman's tea, and suddenly our golfing career looks a lot brighter,
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: isn't it.
• 36:06
  Speaker 4: Oh?
• 36:07
  Speaker 3: I guess the problem is no one would know if
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: I got a hole in one.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: Thank you for that, Tanika, appreciate your contribution today.
• 36:13
  Speaker 4: Check how many bold you've got.
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: I'm going to go to a break when we come back.
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: Anthony Albanezi has finally addressed that ill fated podcast.
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: We'll play you his comments from earlier this evening, after
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: this well, after a couple of weeks doing everything to
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: avoid the subject, Anthony Alberanisi has finally addressed his appearance
• 36:38
  Speaker 2: on that ill fated podcast.
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: Here he was on the ABC earlier this evening, specifically
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: in relation to that what did you learn?
• 36:46
  Speaker 6: Well, I learned that I need to do better every day.
• 36:51
  Speaker 6: And of course if if I have the time again,
• 36:55
  Speaker 6: which you don't, then I wouldn't have done that podcast.
• 36:58
  Speaker 6: You know, we have a view which is trying to
• 37:00
  Speaker 6: talk to as many people as possible, but clearly that
• 37:08
  Speaker 6: was an error.
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: Whatever, I don't think that means much at all. I
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: think what everyone expects him to do is apologize for
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: the comments he made regarding the Japanese Prime minister.
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: This sort of foreshadows what he said almost a week ago,
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: where he goes on this ramble. Instead of just cutting
• 37:27
  Speaker 3: to the chase saying sorry, he tries to divert it
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: off into this extraterrestrial realm, and it ends up just
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: not making any sense and he ends up making a
• 37:37
  Speaker 3: fool of himself again Anthony Abernezi. All he needs to
• 37:40
  Speaker 3: do is come out and say sorry, and everybody moves on,
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: and he.
• 37:43
  Speaker 4: Still hasn't When is an apology not an apology when
• 37:46
  Speaker 4: it's done like that, Oh you know I could do better,
• 37:50
  Speaker 4: just say I'm sorry. Like it's not hard right, clearly
• 37:54
  Speaker 4: it's become an elbow tross around his neck and he's like, Okay,
• 37:58
  Speaker 4: I need to, you know, address it a little bit.
• 38:00
  Speaker 4: But like, why can't you just go the whole hog
• 38:03
  Speaker 4: say yep, sorry, I bug it up?
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: Because he's dragging it on. It's just dragging it out for.
• 38:07
  Speaker 4: Another day of edlines about it.
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: So give me your opinion.
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: Did Sarah Ferguson Was she smart to just leave it
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: at that with an entirely inadequate answer, which we'll talk
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: about for the next number of days, or should she
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: have pressed harder or was the genius to just leave it?
• 38:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 38:22
  Speaker 4: Look, I think that was his in his mind, his
• 38:27
  Speaker 4: version of an apology without having to apologize, and she
• 38:30
  Speaker 4: was never going to get it out of him anyway,
• 38:32
  Speaker 4: So she could have pressed him, but we all know
• 38:34
  Speaker 4: what the answer was going to be, the same answer
• 38:36
  Speaker 4: is given to everyone else.
• 38:37
  Speaker 3: So I suppose, why wouldn't you press it as an erroform?
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: You know you're a journalist. Can you press it?
• 38:42
  Speaker 4: It probably depends. I don't know what I watched the
• 38:44
  Speaker 4: whole interview. I don't know what point in the interview.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: That that was pretty much it.
• 38:47
  Speaker 4: But if I had, you know, a couple of minutes
• 38:51
  Speaker 4: left with the Prime Minister, and I knew I was
• 38:52
  Speaker 4: going to get thirty seconds of him saying what he'd
• 38:54
  Speaker 4: already said, I probably would have gone in another direction.
• 38:57
  Speaker 4: But he's not going to apologize. That's the problem, Like,
• 39:00
  Speaker 4: just why can't he do it? I just I don't
• 39:04
  Speaker 4: get it. And on the front of the Herald's Son tomorrow,
• 39:06
  Speaker 4: of course the biggest story of the week, and really
• 39:09
  Speaker 4: it gives you some indication of how big this story
• 39:11
  Speaker 4: is that down the bottom of the Herald's Son it
• 39:14
  Speaker 4: says jan just into a Dan sorry and just into
• 39:17
  Speaker 4: incorruption probe cross here is because they've now gone and
• 39:20
  Speaker 4: set up this royal commission that Daniel Andrews and Dicenta
• 39:24
  Speaker 4: Allen will be called or can be called to go
• 39:27
  Speaker 4: and face any other day, that would have been the
• 39:30
  Speaker 4: splash on the front of the Herald's Sun, but instead
• 39:32
  Speaker 4: it's I don't want money, I want justice. Swan's sex
• 39:36
  Speaker 4: assault bombshell exclusive the alleged victim has broken her silence
• 39:40
  Speaker 4: on the footy scandal. And the same story, of course,
• 39:44
  Speaker 4: on the front of the Daily Telegraph tomorrow in Sydney,
• 39:46
  Speaker 4: where it says alleged one Swan's victim, I want justice.
• 39:50
  Speaker 4: They won't get away with it. And the same story
• 39:53
  Speaker 4: on the front of the Advertiser no surprise, and of
• 39:57
  Speaker 4: course the big photo there Zacheni, the vask captain of
• 40:01
  Speaker 4: the Swans and his fiance Steffy Waters. She's apparently left
• 40:05
  Speaker 4: Sydney for the time being. Anyway, the headline here, I
• 40:09
  Speaker 4: just want justice. The woman who alleges she was sexually
• 40:12
  Speaker 4: assaulted in a Melbourne hotel after being hired by Swan's
• 40:15
  Speaker 4: players to perform lap dancers says all I care about
• 40:18
  Speaker 4: is justice. Speaking exclusively to the advertised so the exotic
• 40:22
  Speaker 4: dancer says there were nine men in the hotel room.
• 40:25
  Speaker 4: Of course, to this point I've only heard A five
• 40:28
  Speaker 4: and she gave them a discount because they claimed they
• 40:31
  Speaker 4: were carpenters and could not afford to pay the full rate.
• 40:36
  Speaker 7: Oh oh, honestly, And of course this is her telling
• 40:43
  Speaker 7: of the story, and she's obviously been very careful in
• 40:45
  Speaker 7: the comments she's made because this is now before police.
• 40:48
  Speaker 4: But if that is true that they did said they
• 40:54
  Speaker 4: were not AFIL players, So there were carpenters and couldn't
• 40:56
  Speaker 4: have Like you're paying for something, I just what level
• 41:02
  Speaker 4: of entitlement do you have that you would think? Oh, well,
• 41:06
  Speaker 4: I might claim that I had another job and I
• 41:08
  Speaker 4: can't afford to pay the full tariff. There is no
• 41:11
  Speaker 4: angle in which this story works out well for the club,
• 41:14
  Speaker 4: or the league or the players.
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: Absolutely right about that.
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: Let's go to the front page of tomorrow's Canberra Times.
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: Really sad story is leading the news there. Family wrongly
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: told daughter alive, hope turns to despair. The family of
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: an eighteen year old hiker who vanished in a national
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: park was mistakenly told by police she was alive after
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: her body was found yesterday.
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: Lily Hooper, from Oakdale and.
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: Sydney Southwest, disappeared on August twelve after going on a
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: hike in the Natai National Park in the Southern Highlands.
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: I cannot imagine your child missing and just the anguish
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: that you'd be going through and then you find out
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: it's okay, she's alive, only to realize they've made a
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: mistake and she's actually deceased. To talk about an emotional rollercoat,
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: I can't.
• 42:03
  Speaker 3: Even fathom what that family is going through right now.
• 42:06
  Speaker 3: And I mean, look, I'm sure there's going to be
• 42:08
  Speaker 3: investigations into where there was that communication breakdown because it's
• 42:12
  Speaker 3: a pretty significant communication breakdown, and I believe it had
• 42:16
  Speaker 3: to do with a bottle of water that was found.
• 42:18
  Speaker 4: It's code, the code language that they used to refer
• 42:22
  Speaker 4: to bodies. And if you didn't see David Elliott talking
• 42:26
  Speaker 4: about it on Shary tonight, I'd go back and find
• 42:28
  Speaker 4: it because he explains quite well. But it's they use
• 42:31
  Speaker 4: codes about a full bottle of water, a half empty
• 42:34
  Speaker 4: bottle of water, an empty bottle of water in the
• 42:36
  Speaker 4: sees to refer to bodies so that they're not on
• 42:40
  Speaker 4: their pager systems referring directly to a dead body or
• 42:44
  Speaker 4: an injured body, et cetera. Right, and apparently what had
• 42:48
  Speaker 4: happened was that they used the wrong code that was
• 42:51
  Speaker 4: the code for alive, when they should have used the
• 42:55
  Speaker 4: code that meant dead.
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: Is this a verbal code or is it like an emoji?
• 42:58
  Speaker 4: No, it's written thing right on their page. And David
• 43:03
  Speaker 4: pointed out that the SEES, of course is mostly his volunteers, right,
• 43:07
  Speaker 4: And so someone has made a mistake, it would seem
• 43:10
  Speaker 4: at some point, and the communication probably went out faster
• 43:13
  Speaker 4: than it should have and it led to this situation.
• 43:16
  Speaker 4: But just so tragic from every end.
• 43:19
  Speaker 3: It's unfathomable. Let's take a look now at the towns
• 43:22
  Speaker 3: of Bulletin and let's actually light and light it up
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: a little bit. How is this for a headline? Now
• 43:28
  Speaker 3: that's barking mad, it says neighbor from hell, Hell's flaming
• 43:33
  Speaker 3: dog poo and petrol in feud. Actually we've got the
• 43:37
  Speaker 3: wrong story up on now I can't even there. We go.
• 43:42
  Speaker 3: Now that's barking mad, neighbor from hell, Hell's flaming dog
• 43:46
  Speaker 3: poo and petrol and feud over noisy pet story. Well,
• 43:49
  Speaker 3: I want to know what the flaming what was flaming
• 43:51
  Speaker 3: dog poo? Do we know what? That is?
• 43:54
  Speaker 4: A fresh one?
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: A fresh one, noisy, noisy. It sounds like it's a
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: noisy neighbor dispute over a dog as barking mad, I'd say.
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the word flaming there is not as in,
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: you know, are you flame? An idiot? Flame? And dog PreO.
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: I think it literally was on fire. Oh okay, that's
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: that's they've lit it on fire and thrown it.
• 44:15
  Speaker 4: That's quite something, isn't well? You know, at least something's
• 44:19
  Speaker 4: going on up there? I suppose on the front of
• 44:21
  Speaker 4: the NT news tomorrow, tougher new laws target drunks and
• 44:25
  Speaker 4: hoon's more bit for police. A new offense will be
• 44:27
  Speaker 4: created for a person found to be high range drink
• 44:30
  Speaker 4: and drug driving. It's just one of the new traffic
• 44:33
  Speaker 4: laws the for Nookiero Salp government will introduce to give
• 44:36
  Speaker 4: police and court stronger powers and penalties for drink and
• 44:39
  Speaker 4: drag driving and hooning and fair enough, I suppose. I mean,
• 44:42
  Speaker 4: if you get around with you know, drugs and booze
• 44:45
  Speaker 4: in your system at the same time, it makes sense
• 44:48
  Speaker 4: that there would be a separate offense to deal with
• 44:50
  Speaker 4: all of that because it's well, what do you say,
• 44:52
  Speaker 4: it's pretty.
• 44:53
  Speaker 3: Extraordinary, absolutely a quick look at the Australian now sixty
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: percent of kids mistreated exclusive there by page. It is
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: not practical nor affordable for Australian governments to remove every
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: neglected or abused child from their families, because as many
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: as sixty two percent have been beaten, sexually abused or
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: exposed to forms of harm that could trigger intervention from authorities.
• 45:14
  Speaker 3: According to one of the nation's most accomplished child protection researchers,
• 45:19
  Speaker 3: in predictions that new child protection laws in Queensland and
• 45:22
  Speaker 3: the Northern Territory will put many more Indigenous children into homes,
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: foster care and other forms of out of home care.
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: Former social worker Jacinta Krakua has warned that Australia's burdening
• 45:32
  Speaker 3: eleven point three billion dollar child protection services network is
• 45:35
  Speaker 3: not even keeping children safe. Well, that is a massive
• 45:38
  Speaker 3: light on this country.
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: Absolutely. All right, We're going to go to a break.
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: When we come back, people call emergency services for all
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: kinds of reasons. You won't believe the story Caleb has
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: got after this. Welcome back to the program.
• 45:54
  Speaker 1: Caleb.
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: You have got the most awesome emergency services story.
• 45:58
  Speaker 4: You know what this could have been made be perfect
• 46:00
  Speaker 4: here because I would feel pretty aggrieved in this situation.
• 46:04
  Speaker 4: Chap in the UK, it's nice sunny days. We know
• 46:06
  Speaker 4: it's been nice and warm over there recently, right, And
• 46:09
  Speaker 4: so he'sa I'm going to get myself a gin and
• 46:12
  Speaker 4: tonic and I'm going to sit in the park on
• 46:14
  Speaker 4: the bench under the trees in the sun. How beautiful.
• 46:17
  Speaker 4: So he goes into Tisco, he buys himself a gin
• 46:20
  Speaker 4: and tonic, but then he discovers it's zero alcohol, and well,
• 46:25
  Speaker 4: he was not happy.
• 46:29
  Speaker 5: To sender please call. They've got this Minitia golden gin
• 46:34
  Speaker 5: with tonic. It's in the alcohol section. It's zero alcohol.
• 46:40
  Speaker 5: Really angry, so I'll get arrested because why do you
• 46:45
  Speaker 5: get arrested because I'm not? Haven't it?
• 46:49
  Speaker 4: That's a phone call with Drible nine, which is their
• 46:52
  Speaker 4: equipment of dribbles. He's called the emergency services to report
• 46:55
  Speaker 4: the crime of I've been sold as zero alcohol.
• 47:00
  Speaker 3: Wasn't talking to a kid?
• 47:01
  Speaker 4: No, they've changed they've changed their voices so that you
• 47:04
  Speaker 4: can't tell who it is. But you know, I understand
• 47:07
  Speaker 4: how he feels. I would feel pretty aggrieved if I
• 47:10
  Speaker 4: bought a gin and tonic and it turned out it
• 47:12
  Speaker 4: was zero alcohol.
• 47:13
  Speaker 3: Gin, give it ago. It might wish to be drink
• 47:15
  Speaker 3: that stuff better for your health Fuck at that, you
• 47:18
  Speaker 3: never know it might be better for your health care.
• 47:20
  Speaker 4: Have you seen the You can get the non alcoholic
• 47:22
  Speaker 4: gin and they want to charge you.
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: Forty dollars for it because it's a specialty.
• 47:26
  Speaker 4: But it's got no alcohol.
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: What are you paying forty dollars?
• 47:29
  Speaker 3: I've a non alcoholic beverage calib get a monster.
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: To call imogenity services. Obviously that had something else.
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: But yeah, let's have a look at this story. More
• 47:39
  Speaker 3: than twenty tons of squid has builled over from a
• 47:43
  Speaker 3: truck on a Rhode Island highway during a traffic incident,
• 47:46
  Speaker 3: and it's something's very fishy. I'd say call it a
• 47:50
  Speaker 3: colomary catastrophe. Thousands of pounds of squid spilling onto the
• 47:55
  Speaker 3: road in there against it Rhode Island when a tractor
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: trailer tipped over at an intersect traffic must have been
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: shell sharked. You know what I would just say, thinking
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: about the cost of that fish is bloody expensive. I'll
• 48:08
  Speaker 3: be thinking that's a lot of money.
• 48:09
  Speaker 4: Can you imagine the smell? Oh in the sun. You
• 48:13
  Speaker 4: need a gin for that bloody ell, you'd need a gin.
• 48:15
  Speaker 4: You'd be really upset if you got the zero gin
• 48:17
  Speaker 4: you lead across the road from that.
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: All right, very unusual protest took place earlier this week.
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: Let me set it up for you.
• 48:23
  Speaker 2: There's an entrepreneur named Peter Teal. He found that a
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: software company. All you need to know is the company
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: was named after references to Lord of the Rings. Now,
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: this same Peter Teal has just invested in an oil company.
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: So when people protested his involvement in fossil fuels, they
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: stormed his house dressed as Gandorf.
• 48:45
  Speaker 3: So wowo.
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: The media reported that it was unclear exactly what the
• 48:51
  Speaker 2: protesters were demanding, but they were shouting you shall not
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: pass ah.
• 48:58
  Speaker 3: So the Left, ever seas to amaze, don't they. They're
• 49:02
  Speaker 3: finding also a lucrative ways.
• 49:04
  Speaker 4: And look, I don't particularly like someone's house being protested,
• 49:07
  Speaker 4: but can I say at least they have a sense
• 49:09
  Speaker 4: of humor, because so many of these protesters are usually
• 49:13
  Speaker 4: humorous bums. At least they do have a sense.
• 49:15
  Speaker 3: Well, I look forward to your appearance on the Late
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: Debate wearing Gandalf outfit next week.
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: That's it from us, don't misopinionated, and the bond report
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: tomorrow night. Here's REDA. Pennehee. Good night,