Latest / Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps / THE PANEL: Taxpayer-Funded Prostitutes, Elon vs Australia, and Snakes in a Car with Claire Lehmann and Peter van Onselen

Transcript

THE PANEL: Taxpayer-Funded Prostitutes, Elon vs Australia, and Snakes in a Car with Claire Lehmann and Peter van Onselen · Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

• 0:00
  G'day, humans. Welcome to the safe space for dangerous ideas. Today, a panel with two of
• 0:09
  the most illustrious and thoughtful Australian commentators, Claire Lehman, is the editor
• 0:13
  of Quillette, the online magazine, of Big Ideas, and Peter Van Onson, is the political
• 0:19
  editor of Daily Mail Australia, and their political professor at the University of
• 0:23
  Western Australia. They're Claire, G'day, Peter.
• 0:25
  Hey, Josh. Good to be here. Twitter's at war with the Australian Government. I'm just
• 0:29
  can we call it Twitter? Is that all right? Do I have to call it X?
• 0:31
  Well, you do, Claire.
• 0:32
  Is anyone ever going to call it X? I call it Twitter.
• 0:35
  Yeah, I call it Twitter. All right. So Australia's e-safety commissioner, which is actually
• 0:39
  a real role, if you're not in Australia. There is an e-safety commissioner, which Elon
• 0:43
  likes to call like an Australian censorship commissar. That's what he calls it, a commissar
• 0:48
  of censorship. They took Twitter to court to try to force the company to take down about
• 0:54
  60 instances of footage of the stabbing of a bishop in a church attack. That happened
• 1:01
  two days after the Bondi stabbing. At the time, Twitter agreed to geo block the posts
• 1:06
  so that Australian users couldn't see them, but it refused the ruling from the e-safety
• 1:12
  commissioner to remove them altogether from Twitter. That would have had a global effect.
• 1:17
  Elon Musk said that the Australian censorship commissar was demanding global content bans
• 1:24
  and X released an official statement saying that the order was not within the scope of Australian
• 1:28
  law. Now, what's happened this week is that the federal court has basically given Elon
• 1:32
  an early win. It has rejected the Australian government's request to extend the temporary
• 1:38
  order for Twitter to hide videos of the terrorist stabbing globally until a proper court date
• 1:44
  resolves the issue once and for all in a few weeks' time. Claire, this is like one of
• 1:49
  those issues that keeps coming up all over the world, like our social media platforms write
• 1:54
  to resist government censorship of things that they put on their platform or that users do
• 1:59
  or a government's right to rein in extreme content.
• 2:03
  Yeah, well, extreme content's a broad term, but I think in this situation, I'm definitely
• 2:09
  with Elon because it was a real event. It happened. The footage was not confected by
• 2:17
  some AI-generated tool and the Australian government has no right to tell social media
• 2:24
  uses around the world what they can and can't watch. I would argue that they don't have
• 2:29
  a right to censor true content in Australia either. I think the role that governments
• 2:32
  can have or should have is enforcing these companies to have strict rules around false content,
• 2:41
  such as AI-generated content and malicious lies.
• 2:45
  What if it's real but horrible and grizzly and offensive to the people who were affected,
• 2:50
  like the GoPro video of the Christchurch shooter walking in a mass-faring people or something?
• 2:55
  Well, I mean, there's going to be edge cases in all of these situations,
• 3:01
  but we all saw the George Floyd video, right? That was a video of someone being killed
• 3:07
  and we saw that that was played on the ABC news bulletin. Should we have seen it?
• 3:14
  I think we should have. I think if it's a real event and it's true factual content,
• 3:20
  adults should have a right to see it. Right, Peter? I'm really torn about this.
• 3:25
  The old me in decades gone by pre-social media, but even when the internet was considered a new thing
• 3:31
  was a rabid, a rabid, civil libertarian and advocate for everything from free speech to free content.
• 3:39
  You were reading your iron Rand when you were 15 years old.
• 3:42
  I was really big on all this stuff and I sort of sort of saw it as the personification of
• 3:47
  the small air liberal in me. Fast forward to where we are now. I'm less sure about that because I
• 3:52
  just worry about just how free and open social media makes things and how much it sort of
• 3:58
  pandas to the grizzly. Having said all of that though, I'm critical of the government for
• 4:03
  inconsistency on these sort of things. For example, why don't they chase down and find ways to
• 4:11
  geo block this incredibly over-the-top online pornography, for example, which they could do,
• 4:17
  but they just choose not to do it. If that's how they feel about these examples in social media,
• 4:22
  and I also feel like there's an inconsistency now with government where you've got to be careful
• 4:26
  about the overreach in other ways. For example, once upon a time, it was a big deal to violate
• 4:32
  some basic civil liberties in the name of national defence or whatever it might be, but now that happens
• 4:37
  all the time, we're now even talking about not even having the right to economically think that
• 4:41
  there are positives to engagement with countries that might be deemed security threats to Australia.
• 4:48
  I'm critical of the inconsistency on the side of the government, but I do worry about that kind
• 4:53
  of content being out there, and I also wonder where do you draw the line though? You mentioned
• 5:00
  something like the sort of content that might be false, but then what about the subjective
• 5:07
  definition of false? That worries me. We make sure that during the pandemic as well,
• 5:11
  how much do you turn up or down the volume of people who are saying that vaccines might cause
• 5:17
  injuries? I mean, what I meant by false information is actual AI generated fake videos of people
• 5:25
  doing Photoshopping someone's head into pornography, that kind of thing, actually
• 5:33
  completely fabricated types of videos and images, because they're already proliferating online,
• 5:41
  and I do think governments have a role in making these companies regulate or enforce strict rules
• 5:48
  about what content is available. I just think that violent material is available online. We can watch
• 5:58
  things like ISIS videos. We can watch the horrible videos coming out of Gaza. We can watch videos.
• 6:05
  But should they be delivered algorithmically and pushed at this point? That's a separate issue.
• 6:11
  The algorithm in making content go viral could be regulated, right? We could ask these companies
• 6:19
  to be to dampen down the virality of content. That would be because there's even more of an attack
• 6:25
  on free speech. It's all just such a problem. I just wish we lived in the old days.
• 6:30
  Remember the wonderful old days when we only had the internet, but we didn't have social media?
• 6:34
  Or before that when Walter Cronkite told us what we should think. I mean, but free speech people
• 6:39
  find themselves, and I put myself in that camp as well, in a real pickle here, because you want
• 6:45
  freedom of speech, and that sometimes means that you see offensive content, or you get upset by
• 6:52
  someone else's opinion or a video of something. On the other hand, the existence of the algorithm
• 6:57
  constantly favoring content that is going to agitate you. It means that it's not free speech.
• 7:02
  It's amplified with an amplified and contorted through the prism of what the algorithm thinks is
• 7:08
  going to get you riled up and keep you commenting and sharing and liking and getting angry or feeling
• 7:14
  reinforced or demonizing people you disagree with or pandering to what you already believe.
• 7:19
  And so it's tricky for me. I mean, I sometimes open up a social media app, and there'll be some
• 7:25
  horrifying video of something from Gaza, and I'm like, like, I get it. I know there's a war going on.
• 7:30
  It wasn't bad. I don't necessarily need that over my wheatbeaks in the morning. That's just the
• 7:34
  algorithm, just based on what you've been looking at. That's right. They've seen that all my
• 7:38
  disaster porn has come back to alert me. So yeah, I don't know. I mean, assuming that we all agree
• 7:44
  that fake videos should be clamped down on. What should the rules be that the E Safety Commissioner
• 7:50
  enforces? Like, what should the rationale be? Should it be that this is going to cause significant
• 7:56
  distress to people? Should it be... Where do you draw the line on that? Well, yeah, exactly.
• 8:01
  Is that subjective more than anything, isn't it? Well, I mean, you can now use AI tools to
• 8:07
  decipher whether something else has been artificially generated. Yeah, but forget the fake stuff.
• 8:13
  I'm just talking about the real stuff, like the actual video of a bishop being stabbed while he's
• 8:18
  giving a sermon in a church, or people being moaned down in a mosque or something. Are we not okay
• 8:26
  with governments saying you got to take that stuff down like that? I mean, I'm okay with governments
• 8:33
  keeping out of it. I worry, I think it's just the pre-slippering governments try and censor
• 8:39
  information that is true. Like, it's just real. It's a real event that happened. So you can leave
• 8:46
  it up to the floor. What if a journalist overseas wants to report on that incident and wants to
• 8:51
  view the material? Like, I think there are other legitimate uses of that content rather than just
• 8:59
  you know, fermenting extremism and agitating people. Yeah, but I mean, well, then where is the line?
• 9:05
  Because presumably a snuff film is too bad, right? Or the Christchurch shooter moaned down people
• 9:10
  in a mosque is too bad? Or not? Yeah. Well, I mean, I don't know. Was the George Floyd video a snuff film?
• 9:18
  Good question. I don't know. I don't know where the line is. There should be a line, but I think it,
• 9:24
  yeah, I'm not sure. It would be good if we had ways of deciding that it didn't depend on the whims
• 9:29
  of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg on the one hand or e-safety commissioners on the other.
• 9:34
  Well, in that sort of dichotomy, I probably somewhat uncomfortably fall on the side generally
• 9:40
  of the e-safety commissioner rather than it being randomly decided by, you know, sort of moguls or
• 9:46
  whatever types who own particular investments. I don't like it. You know, I wish that we didn't
• 9:52
  end up in the situation we're in now, but as a lesser of evils, I probably go for someone who
• 9:57
  is at least in a qualification sense seen to be good at their job and and appointed their based
• 10:02
  on past experience to make, you know, sort of recommendations at the very least. Maybe there
• 10:07
  needs to be a ratification process beyond the commissioner. Could you have a tribune or something?
• 10:11
  Yeah, it may have like, you know, really well-educated people from across a number of different
• 10:14
  fields. But even then, the tribunal in Australia cannot dictate the terms to the world, right?
• 10:22
  And that's very good. And that's what we will find out in the in court in a couple of weeks time.
• 10:27
  They obviously don't have the jurisdictional authority to do so, but they could they could penalise
• 10:31
  Twitter in Australia in ways that, you know, Twitter would want to avoid and therefore
• 10:36
  Twitter can voluntarily comply with the Australian law. Yeah, but we're such a tiny market.
• 10:41
  Like we're irrelevant. There's no way Australia could do anything that would harm Twitter,
• 10:47
  you know, Twitter's business model. Like that we they're just, you know,
• 10:51
  block us from being able to use it if it if push came to shove. And the risks of that, I mean,
• 10:55
  imagine the devastation to us as a country if we didn't have Twitter deserted. I'm not sure
• 11:01
  about that Claire. I mean, although although we're a small fraction of Twitter's global profits,
• 11:05
  I think it would only become, I mean, I don't think that I think we're a sufficiently prized
• 11:11
  medium sized market that Elon would only remove Twitter from Australia if he was trying to make a
• 11:16
  point because his ego was bruised. I think if there was a face-saving way for him to keep it,
• 11:21
  all things being equal, he'd rather have Australia. Maybe. I reckon we're pretty tiny in
• 11:27
  irrelevant. Well, as far as I mean, as far as English speaking, like democracies go, like, you know,
• 11:33
  it's us in Canada, basically, and then New Zealand and Ireland are, well, us in Canada are in the UK.
• 11:38
  But, you know, if India, if there was this kind of conflict with India, that would be a significant
• 11:43
  issue. Right. Yes. But we just don't have the population or the heft to be able to command
• 11:49
  that much concern. I suppose picking a fight with Elon is always only going to go one way,
• 11:53
  because he's going to hunker down and feel aggraved. Meanwhile, Australia has a new budget,
• 11:59
  budget night in Australia was this week. Budget night is sort of like a cross between the state
• 12:04
  of the Union in the United States and a democratic or Republican convention. It's an opportunity
• 12:09
  for journalists and politicians to hobnob at fancy dinners at Parliament House, while the government
• 12:15
  of the day lays out its intentions for the coming financial year, which weirdly in Australia begins
• 12:21
  on the 1st of July, not quite sure why. Peter, you wrote about this. You're the political editor of
• 12:27
  the Daily Mail. What did you make of budget night? Well, it looked always a version of what we
• 12:31
  saw this year, but the Labor Party ramped it up in terms of the fundraising glitz and glamour side
• 12:36
  of budget night. Normally, there is a dinner in the Parliament House that's $1,000 a head and
• 12:41
  it's largely corporate tables and it's a fundraiser for whichever political party is lucky enough
• 12:45
  to be in government and therefore hand down the budget. This year, they had two. The business elite
• 12:51
  went to a dinner at the realm hotel, which is a five-star hotel just down the road from the Parliament.
• 12:56
  $5,000 a head was the price if you wanted to sit there and have an overcooked steak.
• 13:00
  Yeah, you want that to be some good lobster. The billions of the business community had a $1,500
• 13:07
  a head cocktail stand-up drinks function I'm told at the Parliament House. Does that money
• 13:12
  go to the political party? It does. How outrageous. Well, particularly given that
• 13:16
  sometimes their pain either no or peppercorn rent for the premises on the Parliament that they
• 13:22
  rent. I mean, that's like, remember, there was a huge brujahar in the States when Bill Clinton
• 13:27
  allowed people to stay in the Lincoln bedroom and they were donors and there was like Republicans
• 13:31
  were going crazy because he's basically turning the White House into a bed and breakfast.
• 13:36
  Like, this is that. The Ministers are doing the same thing. You're using a public space just
• 13:40
  because you're in government in order to line your own party coffers. And it's even worse than that
• 13:44
  using public office to line the party's coffers. So government ministers can be sold off at political
• 13:50
  fundraisers for dinners or one-on-one meetings and so forth in a way that shadow ministers,
• 13:57
  you know, people stuck in the opposition not in power, they get a lot less money. So both sides
• 14:02
  do it. There is bad as each other. And I think the public would be surprised at the amount of time
• 14:08
  politicians have to spend on political fundraising and they hate it too, by the way, just to be clear.
• 14:12
  I mean, Americans would be surprised because it's so little time. Yeah, that's not an America.
• 14:16
  Australian politicians don't have to spend a lot of time. We are unbelievable. We have three-year terms,
• 14:20
  unlike, you know, the House of Representatives over there that only has two-year terms. It's
• 14:24
  unbelievable. Their electoral cycle. But a budget night was just like it always is in that sense.
• 14:29
  But that's the pump and the ceremony of it. But what about the content of what the government
• 14:33
  wants to do? Oh, sorry, you wanted to know about what the politics are in the vote. You are the
• 14:35
  political editor, right? Not the fashion editor. My mistake. Look, the interesting thing for me,
• 14:41
  and this is a little bit of a process you should, but it does go to some of the content.
• 14:44
  There was all this talk about the surplus of $9.3 billion leading up to the budget that was leaked
• 14:51
  prior by the government. Normally, they talk about the coming financial year. That's the budget,
• 14:56
  the spending, what is the surplus or the deficit in the coming financial year. That surplus
• 15:01
  is this financial year. Wait, what? It's over in six weeks. The surplus or budget for the next
• 15:07
  financial year, which is normally everything that everyone talks about, is actually almost $30
• 15:11
  billion and then almost $50 billion the year after that. That's where all the spending is that
• 15:16
  people are talking about. There's a huge surplus next year. No, no, no, that's a deficit.
• 15:21
  A deficit, sorry. I mean, I'm amazed that you said that because it means that political
• 15:25
  journalists have done a terrible job in the wake of the budget because all I've seen is that
• 15:29
  Australia is in surplus, Australia is in surplus. What that means to me is that in the next
• 15:34
  financial year, which is what the budget references, we will be in. No, we're not saying that they're
• 15:39
  talking about retroactively and then they're going to run up the red ink again next year. It is
• 15:44
  a two-step trick by the government and hats off to them for getting away with it, buying large,
• 15:49
  because that's the way that a lot of the reporting has covered this. If you think about it,
• 15:53
  it's no surprise that we're not in surplus next year or the year after and so forth because of
• 15:58
  the amount of spending that has been afforded in this budget. Well, they just had a win for
• 16:03
  with terms of trade. So commodity prices and the low Australian dollar. Exactly. All of that has come,
• 16:10
  I think it was Ken Henry former Treasury secretary here called it dumb luck that Australia has faced,
• 16:16
  which is a critique of both sides because he was throwing that criticism. We get a lot of dumb luck
• 16:21
  in this. For people who don't know who are Australian, Australia's nickname towards these is
• 16:26
  the lucky country. A lot of people use that term as a badge of honor or some kind of pride
• 16:33
  where the lucky country mate, not realizing that when Donald Horn coined the phrase, he actually
• 16:39
  meant it as a criticism that we have the dumb luck of living in such a beautiful, vast,
• 16:44
  mineral rich agriculturally fertile. I think he wrote a bunch of sick and raiders who just
• 16:50
  stumbled us back with you. Exactly. We've never actually tapped our ingenuity or tried to excel
• 16:56
  in the fields, which matter. But yes, a lucky country, lucky year, lots of money, and next year
• 17:01
  we're going to spend it all on what Peter? Well, next year it's getting spent on a lot of
• 17:05
  its recurrent expenditure, which is why we're in a structural deficit going forward, not just an
• 17:09
  actual one. So the NDIS blowout is pretty big. That's a national, that's about a decades-old scheme
• 17:15
  that Labor introduced, which gives money to people living with a disability, but it has been
• 17:21
  how fast is it growing? It's grown at about nine and a half percent, so three times inflation
• 17:25
  almost. Wow. It's a staggering eye-watering amount of money, and it's put upward pressure on
• 17:31
  demand. So like mental health services are just straining. You can't get an appointment without
• 17:35
  waiting for six months, because everyone's got free money to spend on. And it's very politically
• 17:39
  hard to talk about wanting to cut disability spending, but part of the problem is particularly
• 17:44
  for people with acute disabilities who need it most, and very few people would argue against them
• 17:48
  getting something if the government can afford it. The problem is that the ambit of what is
• 17:53
  qualifying is what's causing problems. Now Bill Shorten is the minister responsible for this.
• 17:58
  He was actually two governments ago. The minister were there about responsible for the idea and the
• 18:04
  original conceptualisation of this NDIS. He's suddenly having to rein it in. He's not rein it in
• 18:10
  as much as he was sprucing he was going to before the budget, but that's a big spending item.
• 18:15
  There's also this whole idea of trying to spend money on
• 18:18
  made in Australia products. That's, I think, 25 billion over the next 10 years.
• 18:22
  And there's more money going into aged care, which was something that they committed to doing.
• 18:26
  But there's also handouts through things like energy rebates going forward, and that sort of thing.
• 18:33
  A bit of a technical point, but a big disagreement at the moment is the forecast for inflation
• 18:38
  that the Treasury have put in versus what were those forecasts for inflation that were put out
• 18:42
  by the independent reserve bank. They differ. And some economists think that the government has been
• 18:47
  a little bit tricky with its forecasting, keeping it lower than what the reserve bank says,
• 18:52
  inflation is going to be because it politically suits them to say it's going to be lower.
• 18:56
  Because if inflation is higher than the amounts that they have to pay on welfare go up because
• 18:59
  they're pegged to inflation. It changes all those estimates going forward. And it also puts more
• 19:04
  pressure on them in terms of questions about, well, why are you spending what you're spending?
• 19:08
  Oh, I see. Because inflation is already high and you're stoking and stimulating the economy even more.
• 19:12
  I mean, just before we leave the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I used to have
• 19:16
  regal conversations on my ABC show with the head of autism Australia. And I would, for example,
• 19:22
  I think one in five boys of primary school age are now receiving National Disability Insurance
• 19:28
  Scheme money for treatment of attention deficit disorders and stuff like that.
• 19:33
  It's not even that. It's developmental delay. So it's not even a DSM diagnosis.
• 19:41
  Like anybody up to age seven can be slightly delayed in any domain, whether it's language,
• 19:48
  social skills, emotional maturity, that qualifies as getting an NDIS participation.
• 19:56
  And people who actually work in the disability sector warned that this was a bad idea
• 20:03
  and it would lead to a blowout of participants and that has been what's happened.
• 20:07
  I mean, I suppose the idea is that you catch it early before they're seven by letting people
• 20:11
  do it for free. And basically the way the NDIS works with people, I mean, you just get an account
• 20:15
  with a bunch of money in it and you then get to spend that on approved providers. So like,
• 20:20
  you might just get assigned $16,000 or something from the federal government and it sits there and you
• 20:25
  can spend it on the providers that you see fit. And the autism guy was basically saying that there's
• 20:31
  no doubt in his mind that the huge increase in diagnoses of autism and attention deficit disorder
• 20:37
  in Australia is linked to the ability to... Funding. Yeah, yeah. Funding, I mean, of course,
• 20:41
  because if your kid is just a little off and as you say, if they don't actually meet the diagnostic
• 20:46
  threshold for having a condition, but you know, who doesn't want support, if they could have
• 20:51
  support, who wouldn't want their six-year-old who's a little bit behind to have the opportunity to
• 20:56
  see a therapist if they... If it was going to help them an occupational therapist or something. So
• 21:00
  if you can, you do and then you go into the diagnostic. The problem is that this funding
• 21:07
  gives people an incentive or even families an incentive not to get better because if you get
• 21:12
  better, you lose your funding, right? And so there's this sort of perverse incentive to present
• 21:18
  yourself as the most disabled, the most unwell version of yourself. And that is potentially
• 21:25
  bad for the people who are receiving the funding. Right. That's interesting. Yeah, can form a
• 21:30
  kind of dependency or a weird... Because if you actually look at the data of the NDIS,
• 21:37
  because they published their own data, people don't ever... People don't come off packages.
• 21:42
  The packages increase by about 30% a year. And we have, you know, when the NDIS was originally
• 21:49
  launched, we heard all of these aspirational goals, like it would get people into the economy,
• 21:56
  people would work jobs, it would help people get better. But disability, if it's a long-term
• 22:02
  disability, firstly, it doesn't get better. We can improve people's quality of life, which is what,
• 22:07
  you know, we should be doing, but people don't get better from serious disability. And then when
• 22:12
  it comes to children who have delays, we don't actually want to encourage them to think that they're
• 22:18
  actually disabled. We want them to just grow out of the delay whatever it is and then just get on
• 22:23
  with being, you know... But presumably they're better able to grow out of the delay if they have
• 22:28
  assistance. Absolutely. But that was traditionally the responsibility of the education system. And,
• 22:34
  you know, we've got Medicare, we've got these other institutions that help with things like
• 22:39
  development with the delay, lumping it in with the NDIS and then taking away guardrails,
• 22:46
  like spending guardrails, that was the thing that disability workers warned would be a bad idea.
• 22:52
  And it's what it's leading to this blow-up. That's the biggest concern I've got is that too
• 22:56
  many people are getting classified in the NDIS that should be classified as part of the broader,
• 23:03
  Australia has universal health care. So part of the broader Medicare scheme. And it is a
• 23:08
  consequence of too many getting classified as being in need of NDIS that the real acute end of
• 23:16
  need is not getting what it needs. And yet, despite that, the funding is blowing out the way that it
• 23:22
  is. And so there, you know, it needs to be... I think most people, when they were incredibly supportive
• 23:28
  of the concept of the NDIS, when at first was getting murdered in those years ago and there were
• 23:32
  poles around it, I think people were thinking of acute disability. Yeah, right. And they wanted
• 23:37
  that addressed because this idea that somebody could be confined to a wheelchair or have incredibly
• 23:43
  severe mental health issues that were impinging on their life, the Australian public wanted those
• 23:48
  people to not lift behind that. Yeah, and we regarded as part of the Australian ethos, you know,
• 23:52
  for not Americans who pride ourselves on rugged individualism. We were all about giving people
• 23:56
  a fair go and, you know, uplifting the least among us and we're much more egalitarian that way,
• 24:01
  it's right to be hard of what it means to be an Australian to go, you know what? If you've had
• 24:04
  a bad lot, if you've been dealt a bad hand, then you deserve to be our care. If you're on the NDIS,
• 24:10
  should you be able to spend NDIS money on sex workers? Well, that's a whole other question.
• 24:17
  And it cruses. Can you? Yeah, you can. You can, really. Yeah. On sex workers. Yeah, believe it or not,
• 24:23
  the government isn't like talking about it, but the questions have started to be asked. A lot of
• 24:27
  Americans will be listening to this going, wait, sex work is legal in Australia? Yeah, it is.
• 24:31
  Yeah. It's a process of that as well. It's a process of legal in Australia and regulated,
• 24:34
  which is a great thing because it makes life so much safer for sex workers. But so that you can
• 24:42
  why? Because it's your mental health. If you attach it to your program's goals,
• 24:50
  so I did some reading about this because I included it in a column. And so there's an organization
• 24:57
  called Touching Base who put out a guide for sex workers on how to invoice their clients.
• 25:04
  To hear the rest of this conversation, go to uncomfortableconversations.substac.com slash listen
• 25:09
  and you will get your own personal premium podcast feed with at least three extra episodes of
• 25:16
  the podcast every month and heaps of extra stuff, including the remainder right now of the fabulous
• 25:21
  conversation you've just been hearing. If it was worth listening to this much of, don't rob
• 25:26
  yourself of the rest. Well, that you're phone right now. And so it's uncomfortable conversations
• 25:31
  and we'll talk about it.