Latest / The Late Debate / The Late Debate | 12 August

Transcript

The Late Debate | 12 August · The Late Debate

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: We have a late base.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: Great to have your company on the Late Debate James
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: macphersons with Caleb Bond and Anika Shoes the George I
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: thought you.
• 0:14
  Speaker 3: Well, no, hang on, can I just preface by saying
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: what James Macpherson said to me, asked me before we
• 0:19
  Speaker 3: went on air tonight, and I quote, do you have
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: big feet?
• 0:24
  Speaker 4: No?
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: As soon as I said it, I knew it was
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: a mistake.
• 0:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you're lucky, we're friends. And well, I mean I'm
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: also quite tall. James, Yes, and so you know, what
• 0:36
  Speaker 3: do you expect?
• 0:36
  Speaker 5: Why did you want to know? James?
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Look, you know how you think some things and then
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: it just.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: Comes straight out of your mouth, slipped out.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: It was one of those occasions. It's not my finest mode.
• 0:44
  Speaker 5: He was thinking about your feet, and I.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: Was admiring your shoes. Anika, you lovely. Let's get into
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: the show. Is what's coming up tonight? Donald Trump switches
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: planes due to a terror threat, but leaves the press
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: pack on the targeted aircraft.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Is that okay?
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Syrian court sentences former leader Bashir al Assad to death.
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: Should Australia look again at implementing the death penalty? And
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: a former cop comes to the defense of Pauline Hansen
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: over her controversial comments about men being domestic violence victims.
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: We'll get to all of that shortly, but first, parents
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: at Radford College in Canberra are furious over reports that
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: a group of year six boys were chatting online about
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: which of their classmates were attractive and which were not.
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: According to The Canberra Times, one parent said she heard
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: from her daughter that the boys had been pulled aside
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: on two occasions to be disciplined over a chat which
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: was rating girls as hot or ugly. The girls have
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: not been addressed about the issue and the boys were
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: given the impression they should not be talking about the incident.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: The parents said.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: The incident prompted a discussion with their children about why
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: treating women as objects was dehumanizing and needed to be
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: corrected rather than kept quiet.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Now, parents belive they should.
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: Have been informed that a group of boys were having
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: these conversations. They also believe the boys and girls should
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: all have been spoken to as a group. A couple
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: of things first, I can't believe this made page one
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: of the Canberra Times breaking news eleven year old boys
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: discover girls. I'm surprised the ABC didn't send a helicopter. Now,
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: if the boys were bullying particular girls, or threatening them,
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: or harassing them, or distributing humiliating material, that would be
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: a different matter. But according to the report, the boys
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: were discussing who they thought was hot and who they
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: thought was ugly. Now they were spoken to, told their
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: behavior was inappropriate, and instructed to knock it off. In
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: my opinion, the parents demanding the entire year six cohort
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: be spoken to are going way over the top and
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: risk turning this into far more than it really is.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: I mean, picture the scene, fifty eleven year old sitting
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: in a circle while a well being coordinator explains that
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: human beings are complex individuals who should not be reduced
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: to physical appearance, while half the boys are thinking about
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: Pokemon and the other half are wondering whether hot is
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: still a word they're allowed to use.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: There's certainly a lesson here.
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: Boys should treat girls with respect and girls should not
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: be reduced to their appearance.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: But there's also a lesson for adults.
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: Not every stupid thing an eleven year old says requires
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: a national inquiry. These up boys, they're eleven year old boys,
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: They're not Andrew tait. They haven't been sucked into the manisphere.
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: They have discovered that some girls are attractive, and frankly,
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: they'll eventually discover that girls are perfectly capable of judging
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: boys by exactly the same superficial standard.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: It's called adolescents.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: It's awkward, immature, and occasionally embarrassing, which is why adults
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: are supposed to teach children better behavior. They're not supposed
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: to turn every childish indiscretion into a psychological case study.
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: And as for the girls, well, Dneaka, they've just learned
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: something important about boys. Boys can be spectacularly stupid, and
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: that knowledge will suit them very well into the future.
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: Oh, it certainly will.
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: When they start dating boys, I'll find out that voys
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: can be quite stupid. No, look, I take your point,
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: and I think you do raise very good points. However,
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: my concern when I read this was we're talking boys
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: in year six, so they would be ten turning eleven
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: years old. That's very young to be having group chats,
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: in my opinion, about rating women within their class, rating
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: girls within their classroom.
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: That's very young. I think as you.
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: Get older, you go, Okay, these boys are stupid and
• 4:27
  Speaker 3: they're doing it maybe in their high school years, but
• 4:29
  Speaker 3: while they're still in primary school eleven years old, and
• 4:33
  Speaker 3: where are they getting these ideas from that they think
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: it would be appropriate to have a group chat where
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: they are rating girls, because in my opinion, it's coming
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: from the home. Maybe their dad is talking about it,
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: they're overhearing conversations. I don't know, But what, well, where
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: else would it be coming from at the age of eleven, Caleb,
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: I'm not a bloke, you tell me.
• 4:53
  Speaker 5: I was well aware of girls at the age of eleven,
• 4:56
  Speaker 5: and like any boy, I'm sure I talk to my
• 5:00
  Speaker 5: mates about girls I found attractive in a group chat.
• 5:05
  Speaker 5: What do you know you're saying. You're saying that boys
• 5:08
  Speaker 5: could not independently find women attractive and then discuss that
• 5:12
  Speaker 5: matter without having seen another man do it.
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: I don't.
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: I just think that at the age of eleven, is
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: that seriously, you're starting to rate women at that age.
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: I think that's very young. I think that's very young.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: You talk to primary school, it's most of them have
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's smart, but most of them have
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: boyfriends and.
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: Girlfriends at the age of at eleven, Yeah, at eleven
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: years old.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Jane it's not wisdom, it's it's not uncommon.
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: As eleven year old a dating.
• 5:39
  Speaker 5: I don't know way you've been dnik, but it's not
• 5:40
  Speaker 5: uncommon at all.
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: I can tell you when I was in year six,
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: no eleven year olds were dating. Maybe when you start
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: getting into year seven, year eight, as puberty develops, because
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: I think that puberty does more begin.
• 5:51
  Speaker 4: I think around year seven.
• 5:53
  Speaker 5: You're right, No, you're off the planet on that. I'm sorry,
• 5:57
  Speaker 5: there is no.
• 5:58
  Speaker 4: Way I'm off the planet with that. Who went through puberty?
• 6:01
  Speaker 5: There is no Puberty is happening younger and younger than
• 6:06
  Speaker 5: it used to. I think by the age of eleven,
• 6:11
  Speaker 5: particularly girls, because girls are starting puberty a lot younger
• 6:14
  Speaker 5: than they used to as well. Girls and boys many
• 6:16
  Speaker 5: of them would have begun have been through puberty, but
• 6:19
  Speaker 5: have begun puberty. I don't think that's an unusual I'm.
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: Actually flawed to hear that.
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: I'm genuinely flawed because and look, it's been a while
• 6:28
  Speaker 3: since I was in primary school.
• 6:29
  Speaker 4: But I can tell you.
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: Nobody in year six was dating and going through puberty.
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: So many of them are. And where this has gotten
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: out of control I think is because in a previous generation,
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: a group of boys would have sat around at lunchtime
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: eating their sandwiches, talking about who's hot and who's ugly.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Right, what's different now is it was in.
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: A group chat and all of a sudden that has
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: connotations with you know, online bullying and Andrew Tait.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: And all those things. And that's simply the way that
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: I don't think.
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: I don't agree with that the parents saying, oh, well,
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: the schools should have.
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: Dealt with this. I don't think that this is a
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: school problem.
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: And I do think it's wonderful that the parents did
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: actually sit to their kids down and say, look, women
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: are not to be objectified. I think you have to
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: teach these lessons from a very young age. So I
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: think it was handled very well by the parents by
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: all accounts. According to this article, it does become a problem.
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: As one of the young girls raised, it was written
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: in this article that her fear was that one of
• 7:25
  Speaker 3: the boys was going to go up to her and say, well,
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: we rated you were three out of a ten in
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: did they But they didn't. And that's what I'm saying.
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: That's why I don't think it is a school problem.
• 7:34
  Speaker 3: I'm just saying I don't think it is a problem.
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: I think it is good that the it was dealt
• 7:38
  Speaker 3: with at home, as issues should be. It should be
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: dealt with by com and dad.
• 7:42
  Speaker 5: But their parents then run off to the paper and
• 7:44
  Speaker 5: complain about it and moralized about it.
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: I don't agree with that.
• 7:47
  Speaker 5: It doesn't matter. The reason they go off and complain
• 7:50
  Speaker 5: about it is because it's boys doing it. Right, if
• 7:53
  Speaker 5: this was girls, you know, you wouldn't hear KOOI about it.
• 7:57
  Speaker 5: The fact that boys find girls attractive and other girl's
• 8:00
  Speaker 5: not attractive and discuss it is not a controversial thing.
• 8:04
  Speaker 5: It shouldn't be a controversial thing. As you say, you know,
• 8:07
  Speaker 5: if they start going around the school, yeah again you're ugly,
• 8:10
  Speaker 5: Well that's bullying, right, that's a completely different matter. But
• 8:13
  Speaker 5: it's just it's this idea that any expression of a
• 8:17
  Speaker 5: man acknowledging that some women are attractive and others aren't
• 8:20
  Speaker 5: to them. Of course, because these things are subjective, is
• 8:23
  Speaker 5: somehow treated as wrong. And girls do it as well.
• 8:28
  Speaker 5: And there was a great case of greating in inverted
• 8:31
  Speaker 5: commas in Adelaide in twenty sixteen at Wilderness College, which
• 8:36
  Speaker 5: is like one of the top girls schools, and I'll
• 8:39
  Speaker 5: quote you from a reporter at the time by my
• 8:42
  Speaker 5: old mate Tim Williams at the TiSER. He wrote, one
• 8:44
  Speaker 5: of the state's top private schools in broad in a
• 8:46
  Speaker 5: major scandal, after Year twelve girls created a quote wall
• 8:50
  Speaker 5: of boys, a giant photo collage of their sexual and
• 8:54
  Speaker 5: romantic conquests, and then shamed them on social media. Wilderness
• 8:58
  Speaker 5: School girls posted images in the slide show to social
• 9:02
  Speaker 5: media with derogatory comments about the boys, largely from high
• 9:05
  Speaker 5: profile private colleges, including the hashtag quantity not quality. The
• 9:11
  Speaker 5: photo display and the Wilderness Year twelve common room was
• 9:14
  Speaker 5: started earlier in the year, but the girls were not
• 9:17
  Speaker 5: ordered to take it down, and this is the important bit,
• 9:19
  Speaker 5: until they featured it in an unauthorized and inappropriate end
• 9:23
  Speaker 5: of year tool video fortnit Ago. Now. I raised that
• 9:26
  Speaker 5: to make the point that when girls at school, and
• 9:31
  Speaker 5: granted they were high school, they're of an older age,
• 9:34
  Speaker 5: but they've got a big display up for all to
• 9:37
  Speaker 5: see in the school about the boys that they've shagged,
• 9:40
  Speaker 5: and no one thought to raise an issue until it
• 9:42
  Speaker 5: broke ranks onto social media and other people saw it.
• 9:45
  Speaker 5: But the minutes some boys start saying, oh, well, you
• 9:47
  Speaker 5: know that girl's hold of that girl's not bang. This
• 9:50
  Speaker 5: has got to go to the newspapers because fundamentally they
• 9:53
  Speaker 5: don't like boys thinking that girls are attracking.
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: I agree it works both ways. I'm not saying it doesn't.
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: Two points.
• 9:59
  Speaker 4: One.
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: Firstly, just going back to what you said a minute ago, right,
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: the issue is not with where the men find women attractive.
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: If a man came up to a woman and.
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: Says you look beautiful, you look attractive, that should never
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: be Oh no, don't say that to me. That's sexual harassment.
• 10:12
  Speaker 3: What a load of nonsense. That's That is not the
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: point that I'm making here. I take compliments, Other women
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: take compliments. Some women don't take compliments. But that's not
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: the point I'm making here. As for that, that is
• 10:25
  Speaker 3: a disgrace. I'm not going to deny that. That is
• 10:27
  Speaker 3: an absolute disgrace. And the fact that there are Year
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: twelve girls talking about their sexual conquests is a whole
• 10:33
  Speaker 3: other topic. That is a very very big problem in
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: my view. But clearly that is where if I didn't
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: know that year six students are going through puberty, clearly
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: I have been living under a rock for a very
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: very long time. If Year twelve girls are talking.
• 10:47
  Speaker 4: About their sexual exploits.
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: I do have a problem with that as well. I'm
• 10:51
  Speaker 3: not saying that it just works for boys. It clearly
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: works both ways. What my point is is, at the
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: age of eleven to be having these so of discussions,
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: she's a three out of ten, she's a two out
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: of ten.
• 11:04
  Speaker 4: I think that's a problem. That's all I'm saying.
• 11:07
  Speaker 5: I don't know normal male behavior.
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: I would have said, well, clearly, I don't know the
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: male species.
• 11:13
  Speaker 5: But you telling me you don't do that.
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: I would say, man, yeah, he's hot, he's he's attractive.
• 11:19
  Speaker 5: Oh no, right, it up in the newspaper.
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: I'm not eleven years old, Caleb.
• 11:23
  Speaker 5: So it's wrong if you live? Is that?
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: Is that the I just think it's the age that
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: has struck me with this whole conversation.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: So it's not the behavior, it's just the age.
• 11:32
  Speaker 4: Of it's the behavior. So why do you?
• 11:37
  Speaker 5: Why do you do it? Then?
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: Because I'm an adult, better come off at you to
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: If I look at a guy, I will say he's
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: very handsome, he's very attractive.
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: No, he's not my type, not a fan of it.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: I'm an adult one using different language. If instead of saying, I.
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: Think I'm objectifying men. I can't tell I cannot Instead.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: Of saying, if they had said, which girl do you
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: think is attractive? In which girl are You're not?
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: So okay, let me put it that have been better.
• 12:05
  Speaker 3: Let me put this on you. You've got two sons.
• 12:07
  Speaker 3: You've got two sons. If your two sons at the
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: age of eleven came home and said, Tad, my mates
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: and I are rating all the girls in our class
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: in a group chat, how would you feel about that?
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: I would probably tell them that's probably not.
• 12:20
  Speaker 3: Appropriate, and I rest my case, and I have nothing
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: more to say on this topic.
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: Seriously, I'm done.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: But I wouldn't be shocked. I think girls are attractive
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: and how the girls are.
• 12:29
  Speaker 4: Not That's not the point.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: That's what the school's saying.
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: The school is just say, hey, boys, James, probably not appropriately.
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: Just answered your own question. You would tell them that
• 12:38
  Speaker 3: it's probably not appropriate, and.
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: The conversation would have lasted fifteen seconds.
• 12:41
  Speaker 4: But that's the point I'm making.
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: The parent from paper, parents in this conversation had this
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: discussion with their own kids.
• 12:47
  Speaker 4: It should have been case closed.
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: I don't agree with the parents going to the paper
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: for this, they didn't have to go to the paper
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: and make a big deal out of it. But that
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: is the woke parenting of this generation.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: It is the biggest nothing burger of the entire week,
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: and these parent that made it international headline.
• 13:02
  Speaker 5: Well, here we are. We've spent thirteen minutes to it.
• 13:04
  Speaker 5: Now it rates nothing burger of the week in Australia.
• 13:07
  Speaker 5: So let's move on to something else, shall we. Well
• 13:08
  Speaker 5: we're doing about newspapers. You might have caught this story
• 13:12
  Speaker 5: certainly today that it was sort of breaking last night
• 13:15
  Speaker 5: that Donald Trump, after he went to NATO last month,
• 13:19
  Speaker 5: basically used a decoy plane to get out of there
• 13:22
  Speaker 5: because there had been a threat by Iran on his life.
• 13:25
  Speaker 5: So more or less, what happens is he gets on
• 13:27
  Speaker 5: board Air Force one, and then the media gets on
• 13:30
  Speaker 5: board Air Force one, and you see him waving as
• 13:33
  Speaker 5: he gets on the plane. And then after he gets
• 13:36
  Speaker 5: on the plane, he disembarks into that truck that you
• 13:39
  Speaker 5: can see driving off there, a cargo truck, and then
• 13:43
  Speaker 5: they put him on another plane. Now, all the media
• 13:47
  Speaker 5: and all these other people who were tagging along with
• 13:50
  Speaker 5: the president were still left on Air Force one. So
• 13:53
  Speaker 5: the reason the President isn't on Air Force one is
• 13:56
  Speaker 5: because they think there's a chance that might get shot
• 13:58
  Speaker 5: out of the sky, and they just leave everyone else
• 14:01
  Speaker 5: on the plane and don't tell them that there's a
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: chance it might get shot out of the sky. And
• 14:05
  Speaker 5: by the way, the president isn't with you. I suppose
• 14:10
  Speaker 5: it raises the question if you were one of the
• 14:12
  Speaker 5: people on that plane, whether you were staff or the
• 14:16
  Speaker 5: press or Marco Rubio I believe was on board Air
• 14:21
  Speaker 5: Force one, how would you feel about knowing that the
• 14:23
  Speaker 5: president left for another plane and you were essentially there
• 14:27
  Speaker 5: as the decoy in case anyone decided to shoot you down.
• 14:32
  Speaker 5: But I'm not sure what else you do though, that's
• 14:34
  Speaker 5: the issue, because Okay, you want the president on another
• 14:37
  Speaker 5: plane because you don't want the risk of him being
• 14:41
  Speaker 5: killed in Air Force one going down. But then what
• 14:44
  Speaker 5: do you do? Do you get everyone onto Air Force
• 14:47
  Speaker 5: one and then pack them all into a truck and
• 14:50
  Speaker 5: put them all onto a separate plane and send that
• 14:53
  Speaker 5: plane off. But then do people in the interim work
• 14:55
  Speaker 5: out that the president's on a different plane and so
• 14:57
  Speaker 5: are they going to shoot down that plane? Like there's
• 14:59
  Speaker 5: been a lot of talk like, oh, you know, how dear.
• 15:01
  Speaker 5: He's very selfish of him to go off to a
• 15:03
  Speaker 5: different plane, But I'm not sure how else they could
• 15:06
  Speaker 5: have done it.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Drick and Trump, before he agreed to this plan, would
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: have inquired a CNN on the plane, our MSNBC on
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: the plane.
• 15:13
  Speaker 5: Anyone years everyone else was on there too.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: I think that the president is more valuable than the
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: press pack, and so they weren't sacrificing the press pack.
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: They were taking a calculated risk. This was a threat
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: that was discovered only a few hours prior to the
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: flight leaving, so I don't think they had time to
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: make alternate arrangements. And I think if you're going to
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: travel with the president of the United States, you know
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: right then and there.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: That you could be put at risk because he is
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: a target all the time.
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: He's especially a target during war, and so that would
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: be one of the things that you take into account
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: when you decide I'm going to be a journalist who's
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: traveling with the President of the United States on overseas trips.
• 15:55
  Speaker 3: Well, in the end, the Secret Service is there to
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: protect the president and the president only, and you've got
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: the liberal carrying on over in the United States saying.
• 16:02
  Speaker 4: Well, how dare they didn't take the media pack with him.
• 16:05
  Speaker 3: I'm sorry. The Secret Service is not there to protect you.
• 16:08
  Speaker 3: They're there to protect the most important man, or one
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: of the most important men in the world.
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: They're not the president. They don't get to have that
• 16:16
  Speaker 4: sort of security.
• 16:17
  Speaker 5: Then what if they're sort of deliberately putting you in
• 16:19
  Speaker 5: harm's way as a result of doing that?
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: What do you mean?
• 16:23
  Speaker 5: Well, because they were left on a plane that they
• 16:24
  Speaker 5: thought might be attacked.
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: But we don't know how imminent the threat was, and
• 16:28
  Speaker 3: why did they move Now they move what sort of it?
• 16:30
  Speaker 5: But they obviously was that. They obviously moved the president
• 16:32
  Speaker 5: to another plane because they thought he could be in
• 16:35
  Speaker 5: danger if he was on that plane.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: It was an a credible threat.
• 16:37
  Speaker 5: So in doing so, yes, they've eliminated the threat to
• 16:41
  Speaker 5: the president, but they've also left a lot of other
• 16:44
  Speaker 5: people under threat. So yes, they're there to protect the president,
• 16:47
  Speaker 5: but they also there to put other people in danger.
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: Well, in the end, they're there to make sure that
• 16:51
  Speaker 3: the president is off that plane and off that plane
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: safe and gone going to another location. So no, I
• 16:57
  Speaker 3: think they did the right thing when their focus is
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: on the president. In the end, who are we to
• 17:02
  Speaker 3: understand the ins and outs of how the Secret Service
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: work and.
• 17:08
  Speaker 5: Plan that might get shot down. You might want to
• 17:10
  Speaker 5: know that.
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: But in the end, if the if their focus is
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: on one man, what do you expect. And again, Caleb,
• 17:16
  Speaker 3: we don't know how imminent that threat was. We don't
• 17:20
  Speaker 3: limit they moved the president well, but again we don't
• 17:23
  Speaker 3: know what type of target it was. We don't know
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: the intricate details of this, and we'll never know.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: Like you said, they left Marco Rubio so clearly JD.
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: Vance's Trump's preferred candidate for Tea.
• 17:35
  Speaker 5: We don't know where the Rubio was told.
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: I know, so obviously it wasn't like you know what
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: this this threat is so grave that there's a likelihood
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: the plan is going to be shot down. They were,
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: I would suggest to quote Dan Andrews taking an abundance
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: of caution to make sure the president was okay. That
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: did not extend to the press pack, because, like Denika said,
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: it's not their job to protect every man and his dog.
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: They've got to keep the President of the United States,
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: and moving the press pack at such a late stage
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: could well have blown that The skulduggery that was underway
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: in hiding the president from the Iranian threat. So I
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: think it's one of those things that goes with the
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: presidential press pack, is it not? Would you have been
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: outraged if you were on that plane?
• 18:19
  Speaker 5: Well, if I found it subsequently that I potentially been
• 18:21
  Speaker 5: put in danger, I'd probably be a bit perturbed by it.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: But you're in danger every time you were Donald Trump.
• 18:28
  Speaker 5: Well, like, no, but I don't think people are going
• 18:30
  Speaker 5: around to sort of indiscriminately shoot the press. They might
• 18:32
  Speaker 5: go to try and shoot the present I mean, you know,
• 18:35
  Speaker 5: and the reality is a lot of people who would
• 18:38
  Speaker 5: be in that press pack are not paid a great
• 18:41
  Speaker 5: deal of money. You know, it's a great privilege to
• 18:43
  Speaker 5: have the job, but they're not paid a great deal
• 18:45
  Speaker 5: of money. And so at the end of the day,
• 18:46
  Speaker 5: you might go, well, if is it worth my life
• 18:49
  Speaker 5: to do this job? And if you're potentially put in danger?
• 18:53
  Speaker 5: I can understand why people would be upset about it,
• 18:55
  Speaker 5: because you would go, heck, my life wasn't worth saving
• 18:59
  Speaker 5: if that plane was going to go down. You know, again,
• 19:02
  Speaker 5: I don't know what the alternative was, but I can
• 19:04
  Speaker 5: understand why they would be a bit upset about that.
• 19:07
  Speaker 3: Well, in the end, They've got their eyes on one
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: man and one man only, and that is the President
• 19:11
  Speaker 3: of the United States.
• 19:12
  Speaker 4: Let's move on.
• 19:13
  Speaker 3: Now, former Syrian leader Bashah al Assad has been sentenced
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: to death for a range of crimes, including murders, torture,
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: and arbitrary arrest during the country's.
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: Nearly fourteen year war.
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: Now, he ruled Syria with an iron fist for twenty
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: four years, and he was terrible. This is an evil,
• 19:30
  Speaker 3: evil human being, responsible for chemical weapons on civilians, as
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: I said, torture, murder, including against children. Now he fled
• 19:38
  Speaker 3: Damascus and is currently in Russia. But it is unknown
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: whether or not Syria will be able to persuade Moscow
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: to extradite him back to Syria so that he would
• 19:49
  Speaker 3: indeed face the death penalty.
• 19:51
  Speaker 4: Now, this raises a number.
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: Of questions about whether or not the death penalty should
• 19:54
  Speaker 3: be reintroduced in the West. Now, currently in the Western
• 19:58
  Speaker 3: world only in the United States States at a federal level,
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: as well as in twenty seven individual states.
• 20:04
  Speaker 4: Does the death penalty still exist. Of course, here in
• 20:07
  Speaker 4: Australia it was abolished.
• 20:08
  Speaker 3: Many years ago, and it is now only the United
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: States Now. When it comes to somebody like Bashier Alasade,
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: Good riddance, goodbye if you get the death penalty, but go, seriously,
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: go no skin off anyone's noses. I don't think now
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: I am a supporter of the death penalty. I do
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: think it should be reintroduced for a number of reasons. Firstly,
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: I think if you are going to take a life,
• 20:35
  Speaker 3: you are going to commit what is the most heinous
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: of crimes, or one of the worst crimes.
• 20:41
  Speaker 4: Then you deserve to die yourself.
• 20:43
  Speaker 3: If you take somebody's life and you get some sort
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: of sick thrill out of it, you deserve that sort
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: of treatment. And you know, people say, well, I'm an
• 20:50
  Speaker 3: eye for an eye.
• 20:52
  Speaker 4: I don't care.
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: I just do not care about the notion of an
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: eye for an eye when you have committed something so horrific. Secondly,
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: to an extent, it may provide some closure for the victims' families.
• 21:05
  Speaker 3: I mean, they'll never get closure from whatever has occurred,
• 21:08
  Speaker 3: but in a way, sometimes when that person's life is
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: taken away too, they might see some closure for that.
• 21:15
  Speaker 4: And I think it is really.
• 21:16
  Speaker 3: The only moral and just punishment for the most awful
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: of crimes out there. And I am a big supporter
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: of the death penalty, And I also wonder whether would
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: have an impact on the crime rate. Would people be
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: less likely to commit murder or to commit rape and
• 21:33
  Speaker 3: torture if the death penalty was available to them.
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm not sure that the death penalty in America
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: is causing crime to be reduced. We could argue that one.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: I disagree with you for a couple of reasons. Number one,
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: the justice system is imperfect, and that means that invariably
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: innocent people will be executed. The Death Penalty Information Center,
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: which keeps records of every execution in the United States
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: since nineteen seventy three, has recorded one thousand, six hundred
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: and seventy two executions. Two hundred and two people during
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: that time on death row were exonerated. So for every
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: eight executions in the United States, one person on death
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: row is found to have been not guilty and falsely
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: put on death row, so they're not executed, correct But
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: for me, that's far too many people who were headed
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: for the electric chair, who were found to be innocent
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: of the crimes they were being killed for about to
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: be killed for. So I'm not sure that's a risk
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: that we want to take in addition, I think that
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: and this is where I guess my Christian faith will
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: come in my concern. I agree with you some people
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: deserve the death penalty, but I'm in favor of not killing.
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: Not because I'm having mercy on them, but I just
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: think as a society, the sanctity of life is being
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: eroded at every turn, whether you talk about euthanasia, abortion,
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: if you want to add the death penalty to that,
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: I just think as a culture, we ought not forget
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: that life is sacred and it's not ours to play with.
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: So for that reason, even my worst enemy, I would
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: not support the death penalty.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: I think very a good man.
• 23:11
  Speaker 4: You're a very good man, James Macpherson.
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: It's because I want to be That's why I don't
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: support it.
• 23:17
  Speaker 5: I think circumstances changed. I mean, you know, I take
• 23:20
  Speaker 5: your point about and the imperfection of the justice system,
• 23:24
  Speaker 5: But the fact that you raise that so many people
• 23:28
  Speaker 5: were found not guilty on appeal and then therefore we're
• 23:33
  Speaker 5: not executed, I think is an example of the justice
• 23:35
  Speaker 5: system working. That people have the right of appeal, they've
• 23:40
  Speaker 5: used the right of appeal, and they have been found
• 23:42
  Speaker 5: on appeal not to have committed that crime and therefore
• 23:45
  Speaker 5: they are not to be punished.
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: There were eighteen who were executed who were later found
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: by DNA evidence to have not.
• 23:51
  Speaker 5: Committed and this is the point I'm coming to. DNA
• 23:54
  Speaker 5: right the technology available now is far better than it
• 23:58
  Speaker 5: has ever been, and I would be supportive of the
• 24:02
  Speaker 5: death penalty for crimes such as murder, sex offenses, etc.
• 24:07
  Speaker 5: Where there is you know, dead hard, concrete DNA evidence
• 24:11
  Speaker 5: to prove it. Now clearly what has happened in these
• 24:13
  Speaker 5: cases is that they have later obtained DNA that they've
• 24:16
  Speaker 5: tested that has allowed them to find that that person
• 24:19
  Speaker 5: was not actually guilty of that crime. And so I
• 24:22
  Speaker 5: would not want to see anyone face execution for crime
• 24:25
  Speaker 5: that could not be proven with DNA. I mean, you know,
• 24:28
  Speaker 5: if it were a sex offense, for instance, that was
• 24:31
  Speaker 5: based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and it's you know, a
• 24:35
  Speaker 5: jury making a decision of his word against hers, you know,
• 24:38
  Speaker 5: in cases like that, I don't think there is an
• 24:40
  Speaker 5: argument for the use of the death penalty. But when
• 24:43
  Speaker 5: you have very clear DNA evidence that someone has committed
• 24:48
  Speaker 5: a crime, I think there's a legitimate argument to say
• 24:50
  Speaker 5: that they can be sentenced to death, they then have
• 24:53
  Speaker 5: the right of appeal like any other criminal. I mean,
• 24:55
  Speaker 5: you look at the United States, people spend you know,
• 24:58
  Speaker 5: decades on death before they finally actually get executed. In
• 25:03
  Speaker 5: many cases, it's more just sort of a threat hanging
• 25:07
  Speaker 5: over someone's head in order to make them feel the
• 25:10
  Speaker 5: weight of the crime they committed. They may or may
• 25:12
  Speaker 5: not eventually be executed, and so I think in a
• 25:16
  Speaker 5: modern world we can do it in a far more
• 25:20
  Speaker 5: sensible and fair way than we could have, say fifty
• 25:23
  Speaker 5: or one hundred.
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: Let us ask a question about something you said, because
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: I want to understand you. You said, if it's a
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: slam dunk case, right off, something around a slam dunk,
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: it's obvious death penalty. But in other cases where it's
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: not so obvious, Yes, but both people have been convicted
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: and found guilty, right, so you can't so it's one
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: more guilty than the other.
• 25:43
  Speaker 5: Well, no, it's just a man.
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: How does your argument work?
• 25:47
  Speaker 5: Well, guilty is found obviously on the balance of probabilities
• 25:51
  Speaker 5: being what am I looking for. Not innocent until proven
• 25:56
  Speaker 5: guilty beyond reasonable doubt is what I'm looking for. Right, Yes,
• 26:00
  Speaker 5: you can convict someone beyond reasonable doubt on the basis
• 26:03
  Speaker 5: of circumstantial evidence. But you can also convict someone beyond
• 26:07
  Speaker 5: reasonable doubt, because of course we've not set something up
• 26:10
  Speaker 5: that's like beyond all doubt, right where there is just
• 26:13
  Speaker 5: you know, here you are, he's a photograph of you,
• 26:16
  Speaker 5: a video of you committing the crime. Here is the
• 26:20
  Speaker 5: evidence that then links you to that crime right now, Yes,
• 26:24
  Speaker 5: the standard operation is beyond reasonable doubt. But surely you
• 26:28
  Speaker 5: can then make an argument that in some cases there
• 26:31
  Speaker 5: is a lot more evidence than there is in other cases.
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: So James, can I ask you then, would there have
• 26:39
  Speaker 3: you got a threshold where you believe somebody would deserve
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: the death penalty or you are fully against it, even
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: for the likes of say b Alissade or like I'm
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: just thinking off the top of my head, Sandy hook
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: Over in.
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: The US, I think there's a lot of people who
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: deserve the death penalty, right, I'm just not sure that
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: it's our place to take someone's.
• 26:59
  Speaker 4: For the evil of people.
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we can imprison them for life. We can guarantee
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: the community, the safety of the community without killing someone
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: to recompense for their crimes.
• 27:14
  Speaker 4: I'm just interesting. I'm just wondering.
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: I'm just wondering if there would be a threshold in
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: which you would say, Okay, you know what, given what
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: that person has done, morally you would accept because this is.
• 27:26
  Speaker 4: A moral It is I think a moral issue as well.
• 27:29
  Speaker 3: At the same time, so would there be a circumstance
• 27:32
  Speaker 3: where morally you would go that person.
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: I can only think of one. Yeah, North Melbourne of
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: five points up with I go and an.
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: Opposition player kicks a goal on the ground, I would
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: support the death penalty in that instance.
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: All right?
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: On the program was that last night we were talking
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: about electric vehicles and Monday night, Monday night, and I
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: have changed my view on We're not going to change
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: about the death penalty, but electric vehicles, I reckon I'd
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: buy one these days.
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: Here's what I said on Monday.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Now I'm saying they are cheaper in maintenance, they're cheaper
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: in fuel, they're quicker to drive, and you know what,
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: let's be honest, it is the future now, So I reckon.
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: Later thatapped up, but I'm on board.
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: And as my reward for supporting mostly Chinese made electric
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: vehicles is what happened in China overnight.
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: Last time.
• 28:46
  Speaker 2: I support the China. I got to say that fire
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: because I read about this sudden.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: I researched it.
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: It had nothing to do with a lithium battery. The
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: vehicle hit of Victorian pothole. That's what happened, James.
• 29:02
  Speaker 4: Okay, So what's your stance on this?
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: Because if fire a call and our viewers were acall
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: on Monday night, you gave such a passionate defense of
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: electric vehicle love. Did you were so on board with
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: the evs? You just said I would never go for
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: a petrol vehicle.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: Again, I didn't say that. I said I'm open to
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: purchasing an EV. I never said I would never go.
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: But carry on.
• 29:21
  Speaker 4: Now, Look, I did have a look at the statistics.
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: So there has been over a thousand EV fires in Australia.
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: I think it was about a thousand, but only a
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: handful were for unknown reasons. The others were just house
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: fires and stuff like that. So your defense might still
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: stack up because of EV's.
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: I've got one question for you guys.
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: So I'm going to buy an EV and when we
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: hang out and I come over to your place, am
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: I allowed to park it in your garage?
• 29:49
  Speaker 5: Now you can park it on the road. Thanks over
• 29:51
  Speaker 5: at the neighbor's place. You know, if the firecrackers are
• 29:54
  Speaker 5: going to go off, I'd rather it was in someone else's.
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: The car in question, actually the maker, the manufacturers, Zeka.
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: They say that the car was believed to have been
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: involved in an accident. And this is one of the
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: problems with evs is that if they're involved in even
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: a minor accident, you have to get the battery check
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: that it hasn't been damaged, otherwise it does become a firecracker.
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: Well see, I mean, who's got time for all that hullaballoons?
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: Again to my point that I made the other night,
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: who has time to be checking batteries like this?
• 30:27
  Speaker 5: I mean, at least if a combustion engine vehicle is
• 30:29
  Speaker 5: going to blow up, it'll happen when it crashes, not
• 30:32
  Speaker 5: like ten minutes down. You're like, oh Jesus, I survived
• 30:35
  Speaker 5: that one. And then you're just driving along the highway.
• 30:38
  Speaker 3: Bang, and then the car's gone and you're obsessed with
• 30:40
  Speaker 3: bang tonight.
• 30:41
  Speaker 4: This use me talking about running out bang. You're obsessed
• 30:47
  Speaker 4: with that.
• 30:47
  Speaker 5: And I don't need to know about my obsession with
• 30:49
  Speaker 5: bangs anyway, product and they can get your mind out
• 30:53
  Speaker 5: of the game.
• 30:55
  Speaker 6: Now.
• 30:56
  Speaker 5: You might remember a few weeks ago Pauline Hansen was
• 31:00
  Speaker 5: talking to our good mate Gary Hardgrave on four BC
• 31:03
  Speaker 5: when she made these comments that set the country alt.
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: What's your message, Pauline Hanson to blugs.
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: Who lose their bottle, who get angry and bash and
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: hurt their intimate partners.
• 31:16
  Speaker 6: Well, it is wrong, but it's also a two way street.
• 31:21
  Speaker 6: But I'm not saying that some just men and women
• 31:25
  Speaker 6: can lose their cruel as well.
• 31:28
  Speaker 5: And you'll remember people jumped up and down and said,
• 31:30
  Speaker 5: you know, basically Pauline Hansen was saying, well, you know,
• 31:32
  Speaker 5: there's not a problem with men committing domestic violence because
• 31:35
  Speaker 5: women do it too. And you know, on and on
• 31:38
  Speaker 5: it went that they made it out like she was saying, well,
• 31:40
  Speaker 5: who cares about men bashing up women because women do
• 31:42
  Speaker 5: it too. What a very interesting piece today by a
• 31:46
  Speaker 5: former Queens and Copper by the name of Terry Goldsworthy.
• 31:48
  Speaker 5: He's written for the News Corp Papers these days. He's
• 31:51
  Speaker 5: a criminologist and associate professor at Bond University, and he
• 31:55
  Speaker 5: writes in the News Corp Papers that Hanson was factually right.
• 31:59
  Speaker 5: While males commit higher levels of domestic violence related offenses.
• 32:03
  Speaker 5: Females do commit significant numbers of domestic violence offenses too.
• 32:07
  Speaker 5: In my twenty eight years with the Queensland Police Service
• 32:10
  Speaker 5: as a detective inspector, I investigated every form of domestic
• 32:14
  Speaker 5: violence homicide. I saw husbands kill wives, wives kill husbands,
• 32:18
  Speaker 5: children kill their parents, and parents kill their children. New
• 32:22
  Speaker 5: South Wales data shows that in twenty twenty five, twenty
• 32:25
  Speaker 5: six females made up and you might not have known this,
• 32:28
  Speaker 5: thirty eight percent of domestic violence assault offenders statewide. Over
• 32:33
  Speaker 5: the past five years, female offending in New South Wales,
• 32:36
  Speaker 5: domestic assaults has risen eight point five percent annually, compared
• 32:40
  Speaker 5: to three point two percent for males. In Victoria, twenty
• 32:44
  Speaker 5: twenty four to twenty five, data from the Victorian Crime
• 32:47
  Speaker 5: Statistics Agency showed females make up twenty seven percent of
• 32:52
  Speaker 5: unique domestic violence perpetrators. I don't think I've seen someone
• 32:57
  Speaker 5: so succinctly put together in one piece and say, actually,
• 33:03
  Speaker 5: you know there is a problem here. It's not to discount,
• 33:07
  Speaker 5: as he says, the fact that men are more likely
• 33:10
  Speaker 5: to commit domestic violence, but we must also acknowledge that
• 33:15
  Speaker 5: there are large numbers of women thirty eight percent. In
• 33:18
  Speaker 5: New South Wales, not thirty eight percent of women commit
• 33:20
  Speaker 5: domestic violence, but of domestic violence offenses, thirty eight percent
• 33:23
  Speaker 5: of them are committed by a female offender. We need
• 33:27
  Speaker 5: to acknowledge that. And He also writes that National Senator
• 33:30
  Speaker 5: Bridget mackenzie was highly critical of Hanson, citing data on
• 33:33
  Speaker 5: a number of women and children killed in domestic violence
• 33:36
  Speaker 5: incidents this year has evidence to condemn her. Mackenzie's comments
• 33:39
  Speaker 5: about children killed in domestic violence cases warrant closer examination. Philosidy, says,
• 33:45
  Speaker 5: is the killing of one's own children. Data from the
• 33:47
  Speaker 5: Australian Institute of Criminology shows that between two thousand and
• 33:51
  Speaker 5: two thousand and two and twenty twenty two to twenty three,
• 33:54
  Speaker 5: males accounted for fifty one percent of philicide offenders, females
• 33:58
  Speaker 5: forty nine percent. Over that period, women killed two hundred
• 34:01
  Speaker 5: and nine children, while men killed two hundred and forty five.
• 34:05
  Speaker 5: That would seem to be a two way streak to
• 34:06
  Speaker 5: any reasonable person, he writes, Yet these domestic violence homicides
• 34:11
  Speaker 5: attract strikingly little attention. The question is why in a
• 34:15
  Speaker 5: climate where discussions of domestic violence are dominated by narratives
• 34:19
  Speaker 5: of toxic masculinity and gendered violence. The assumption that domestic
• 34:23
  Speaker 5: violence is only a male problem has hardened into an
• 34:26
  Speaker 5: article of faith. It has become, he says, an absolutist ideology.
• 34:30
  Speaker 5: Challenge it at your peril. As Hanson found out, just
• 34:36
  Speaker 5: brilliantly put. I could not have put it better myself,
• 34:39
  Speaker 5: and from a man who's worked in this.
• 34:40
  Speaker 4: Area, brilliantly put.
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: What a well written article, and I think well worth
• 34:44
  Speaker 3: a read as well. You know, I just found I
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: was quite stunned actually about that thirty eight percent statewide
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: in New South Wales figure. I had no idea. Now, obviously, yes,
• 34:55
  Speaker 3: it is true that the overwhelming number old victim survivors
• 34:59
  Speaker 3: are in d women.
• 35:00
  Speaker 4: That's what the statistics say.
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: But when you put it into perspective like that, Pauline
• 35:04
  Speaker 3: Hanson was right in what she said. I just think
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: with Pauline Hanson, the problem is that sometimes it doesn't
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: come across as well articulated as maybe it had intended to.
• 35:15
  Speaker 4: And we've seen that before.
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: But I don't think that she means any harm by it,
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: because she said herself that she was once in that
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: sort of a relationship as well. I think it's just
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: the way that it come across, that does come across.
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: And there's plenty of people who are as inarticulate as
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: Pauline Hanson can sometimes be. What Pauline Hanson has that
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: not many others have is a lot of people who
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: hate her and are willing to use any issue to
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: try and demonize her.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: So that's her cross to bear.
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: But as you said, great article and very well worth
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: getting hold of.
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: Right, we're to go to a break.
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: When we come back, look at what's making news tomorrow,
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: including lots of questions being asked about a Sydney University
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: professor who went to a RAH and that's coming out next.
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: Welcome back to the program. A lot to talk about
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: in the papers tomorrow. We'll start with The Australian and
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: Caleb Bond has that newspaper.
• 36:13
  Speaker 5: Indeed I do, and on the front of this newspaper
• 36:16
  Speaker 5: that I'm holding it, says hurt till twenty eight. Productivity
• 36:20
  Speaker 5: pain point Westpac chief executive Anthony Miller to interest rates
• 36:24
  Speaker 5: could remain elevated into twenty twenty eight and potentially beyond
• 36:27
  Speaker 5: without any improvement in productivity growth, whose new coalition analysis
• 36:31
  Speaker 5: reveals it could take the Albanezy government eight years to
• 36:35
  Speaker 5: regain the productivity levels it inherited in twenty twenty two,
• 36:39
  Speaker 5: almost a year since Jim Chalmers hosted a three day
• 36:42
  Speaker 5: economic reform round table. Jeez, I'd forgotten about it. Yeah,
• 36:45
  Speaker 5: the same. I think everyone's forgot about that since since
• 36:48
  Speaker 5: he hosted that three day economic round table that we've
• 36:51
  Speaker 5: all forgotten about and pledged to fix the productivity crisis.
• 36:55
  Speaker 5: The chief executive of Australia's two biggest banks have sounded
• 36:59
  Speaker 5: the alarm about the need to regain historic productivity levels
• 37:03
  Speaker 5: that would push inflation and interest rates down sooner. Amid
• 37:06
  Speaker 5: private sector fears that the Albanese government, states and territories
• 37:09
  Speaker 5: are struggling to get policy settings right in the battle
• 37:12
  Speaker 5: to lift our productivity levels, Mister Miller and Commonwealth Bank
• 37:15
  Speaker 5: Chief Executive Matt Common told The Australian they had bigger
• 37:18
  Speaker 5: concerns about productivity levels than a five percent fall in
• 37:21
  Speaker 5: house prices, which the Reserve Bank said this week would
• 37:24
  Speaker 5: be the consequence of Labour's tax changes. It doesn't get
• 37:30
  Speaker 5: any better. I'm just I'm lost for words at this point.
• 37:34
  Speaker 5: Like every every day there's a story about like we're
• 37:38
  Speaker 5: months on from the budget. There's a story about tax changes,
• 37:41
  Speaker 5: are doing this the economies in the toilet, productivities in
• 37:45
  Speaker 5: the toilet? Like what are they doing?
• 37:48
  Speaker 3: But Caleb, do you remember when Anthony Albanezi told us
• 37:51
  Speaker 3: I've got your back?
• 37:52
  Speaker 5: Oh do you remember that?
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: No?
• 37:55
  Speaker 5: I don't particularly, I'd probably erased it from I remember
• 37:58
  Speaker 5: when he said my word is my bond the bar?
• 38:00
  Speaker 4: Well that now is that the time?
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: Like you joke around guys, but like things are pretty bad, right, yeah?
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: Imagine how bad it would be had Charmer's not done
• 38:09
  Speaker 2: the economic roundtable?
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: Wi will you imagine? Thank god he did it. Oh,
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: thank god.
• 38:16
  Speaker 4: We'd be absolute.
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: Count your blessings.
• 38:21
  Speaker 5: You know, we'd be back to sort of interest rates
• 38:22
  Speaker 5: that they were under keating. You wouldn't believe it. Another
• 38:25
  Speaker 5: story in the front of the oars Tay run trip
• 38:27
  Speaker 5: up professor unmasked. Questions grow for University of Sydney exclusive. Here,
• 38:33
  Speaker 5: a high profile professor who collaborated on research with Iranian
• 38:38
  Speaker 5: engineers can be unmasked as the University of Sydney academic
• 38:42
  Speaker 5: allowed to violate a travel band a visit Iran. The
• 38:45
  Speaker 5: university claims it wrongfully gave permission for its Chair of
• 38:49
  Speaker 5: Supply Chain Management, Professor Benim Fahmina, to visit Iran last year.
• 38:55
  Speaker 5: Both the university and Professor Farmina face growing questions over
• 38:59
  Speaker 5: the scan after the academic disputed his employer's claims that
• 39:02
  Speaker 5: he spent time at an Iranian university during a controversial
• 39:06
  Speaker 5: trip and denied working with the University of Tehran despite
• 39:09
  Speaker 5: co authoring academic papers with one of its engineering professors.
• 39:14
  Speaker 5: I didn't work with them. I just worked with one
• 39:16
  Speaker 5: of their people. Come on, pull the other one.
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: He claims he was visiting family. He never attended any
• 39:23
  Speaker 2: University's never met with anyone.
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: From a university.
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: So clearly there's two stories here, and the truth will
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: come out.
• 39:29
  Speaker 4: The truth always, the truth always comes out.
• 39:31
  Speaker 3: Well, what were we talking only last night about as
• 39:33
  Speaker 3: I was going to have special powers to investigate as well?
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, from Paige Off Tomorrow's Herald's son has
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: got some great stories. The splash twelve billion dollar train wreck.
• 39:43
  Speaker 2: More than twelve billion dollars of taxpayer money would go
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: down the drain if the suburban rail loop was ditched,
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: according to a secret government briefing provided to Premier Ben
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: Carroll Confidential documents showing the staggering figure were presented to
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: mister Carroll in his first days in the job.
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: What do they call it, calum is that the sunken
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: cost fallacy where you feel like.
• 40:05
  Speaker 2: This isn't a good project, but we've spent so much money,
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: I might as well just keep on going. And so
• 40:11
  Speaker 2: that's I suppose the dilemma he's got now, does he
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: abandon this thing. They've already spent what's seven eight billion
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: dollars on it, It'll cost them another twelve billion to get.
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: Out of it.
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: The initial budget I think was thirty four billion, it's
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: projected to go well beyond that.
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: Well, there's no good way for him.
• 40:29
  Speaker 5: To go on this at all now, and I think
• 40:30
  Speaker 5: that that's why he's tried to say, Look, if we
• 40:32
  Speaker 5: were to do anything, we would look to move those
• 40:36
  Speaker 5: contracts somewhere else. So essentially you wouldn't have to tear
• 40:39
  Speaker 5: anything up to get out of it. You'd send the
• 40:41
  Speaker 5: work to say an airport rail, which is what they
• 40:44
  Speaker 5: should have done in the first place. But you know,
• 40:48
  Speaker 5: again I talk about, well, every day we see a
• 40:50
  Speaker 5: story about, you know, the economies in the toilet and
• 40:52
  Speaker 5: the tax changes and the budget. You look at the
• 40:55
  Speaker 5: Herald Sun every day there's just another story about things
• 40:58
  Speaker 5: going wrong in Victoria.
• 40:59
  Speaker 4: Yeah, every day, another day in Victoria.
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: And because a couple other little ones there pothole fiasco,
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: the premier has ordered an urgent review of the state's
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: pothole compost scheme after the Herald's unrevealed ninety eight percent
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: of claims were being rejected. And then the other problem
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: the Premier's got is that he's admitted that spending taxpayer
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: cash on rented pot plants is a waste, after it
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: was revealed one point six million dollars was spent on
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: hired pot plants or the railway off.
• 41:27
  Speaker 3: I mean, seriously, for a state that is in so
• 41:29
  Speaker 3: much debt, they're spending money on pot plants.
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: One point six million.
• 41:33
  Speaker 5: Oh, I get that contract one point I could put
• 41:38
  Speaker 5: pot plants in a few offices for one point six
• 41:41
  Speaker 5: million dollars. Sign me up.
• 41:44
  Speaker 4: You like a pop plant? Okay, Gold Coast.
• 41:47
  Speaker 5: I like one point six million dollars more.
• 41:49
  Speaker 4: Now that's it, Gold Coast Bulletin.
• 41:51
  Speaker 3: It took nine months for NDIS to ban sex accused
• 41:54
  Speaker 3: watchdog failed Boy, a blunder by the NDS watchdog allowed
• 41:58
  Speaker 3: a mum who was charged with a sex offense against
• 42:01
  Speaker 3: a boy with a disability the opportunity to work with
• 42:04
  Speaker 3: children for months before she was banned. Wendy and Houston fifty,
• 42:09
  Speaker 3: a registered behavioral support practitioner and social worker working with
• 42:13
  Speaker 3: vulnerable children, was charged with one count of indecent treatment
• 42:16
  Speaker 3: of a child under twelve in May twenty twenty five.
• 42:19
  Speaker 3: The NDIS Quality and Safeguard's Commission did not ban her
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: until February three, twenty twenty six. It's not known whether
• 42:25
  Speaker 3: she worked with any NDIS clients in that period. This
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: is an absolute disgrace. I mean, can you imagine if
• 42:32
  Speaker 3: you were the parents of this child already going through
• 42:35
  Speaker 3: absolute heartache and then this on top of it, and
• 42:39
  Speaker 3: how on earth did she pass through the checks and balances?
• 42:43
  Speaker 4: It just baffles me.
• 42:44
  Speaker 5: Well, and this is the thing in a system as
• 42:46
  Speaker 5: big as the NDIS, I suppose that's why these things happen,
• 42:50
  Speaker 5: because the system is so big and so crackstart to
• 42:52
  Speaker 5: appear and things disappear. But when you're spending more than
• 42:55
  Speaker 5: fifty billion dollars on something like the NDAs, you can't
• 42:59
  Speaker 5: tell me that they should not be able to have
• 43:01
  Speaker 5: the people in place and the oversight and whatever to go, Okay,
• 43:05
  Speaker 5: someone's been accused of a sex crime, maybe we won't
• 43:08
  Speaker 5: let them work with vulnerable people until the court has
• 43:11
  Speaker 5: made a decision on their guilt or otherwise. Like this
• 43:14
  Speaker 5: is just basic, straightforward stuff, and then we wonder how
• 43:18
  Speaker 5: children and other vulnerable people end up in positions where
• 43:22
  Speaker 5: they are vulnerable to abuse because you have systems like
• 43:26
  Speaker 5: this which I meant to protect and help people, not
• 43:29
  Speaker 5: saying that accused people accused of sex crimes should not
• 43:32
  Speaker 5: be working in the NDAs working.
• 43:35
  Speaker 4: With children, to be working with kids full stop.
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: Can I just point out one inconsistency.
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: If this was a story about the Catholic Church, they
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: would be calling for the head honcho to be sacked immediately,
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: when it's the ndis it's that.
• 43:49
  Speaker 5: Well people should be sacked to be quiet, firand they
• 43:51
  Speaker 5: should be on the front of the Newcastle Herald tomorrow
• 43:54
  Speaker 5: or can we do the Newcastle? But that's that they're
• 43:57
  Speaker 5: getting a run tonight. And you can see a rather
• 44:00
  Speaker 5: sodden Prime minister there, the poor bugger. That photo was
• 44:04
  Speaker 5: taken in December at Tomogo, and that's what the story
• 44:07
  Speaker 5: is about. Smelter saved two and a half billion dollar
• 44:10
  Speaker 5: bailout to secure the future of Tomogo Aluminium. Prime Minister
• 44:13
  Speaker 5: Anthony Alberanezi and New South Wales Premier Chrismans will today
• 44:17
  Speaker 5: and out say two and a half billion dollar bailout
• 44:19
  Speaker 5: package that will secure Tomogo Aluminium beyond twenty twenty eight.
• 44:23
  Speaker 5: The deal between the plants owner Rio Tinto and the
• 44:26
  Speaker 5: state and federal governments will guarantee the jobs of a
• 44:29
  Speaker 5: thousand smelter workers and thousands of indirect jobs in the
• 44:33
  Speaker 5: broader Hunter economy. And there's the quote there from the PM.
• 44:37
  Speaker 5: This site isn't just important for Newcastle and the Hunter,
• 44:39
  Speaker 5: it's a critical asset for the country and our manufacturing future.
• 44:44
  Speaker 5: There will be plenty of people, I'm sure quite happy
• 44:47
  Speaker 5: that their jobs have been secured in light of this.
• 44:49
  Speaker 5: But you know the government subsidy that has to go
• 44:52
  Speaker 5: into smelters, the government subsidy of course that has to
• 44:56
  Speaker 5: go into Couli fired power stations and all sorts of stuff.
• 44:59
  Speaker 5: And you know, we told these things are band for
• 45:01
  Speaker 5: the planet and we shouldn't mind so much, and we
• 45:03
  Speaker 5: shouldn't burn coal, et cetera. But when push comes to shove.
• 45:06
  Speaker 5: We do need this stuff, and because of the economics
• 45:10
  Speaker 5: of it now, because the government has skewed it away
• 45:12
  Speaker 5: so much, sometimes the government then has to step in
• 45:15
  Speaker 5: and be the savior.
• 45:16
  Speaker 3: And backtrack a backtrack on I mean what we've said
• 45:18
  Speaker 3: as well with the some of the coal fly fire
• 45:21
  Speaker 3: plants around the bubble that one out of my mouth,
• 45:24
  Speaker 3: didn't I coal fired plants around the country, The one
• 45:27
  Speaker 3: in New South Wales that I had to extend it
• 45:29
  Speaker 3: to life because I realized that, oh, actually we kind
• 45:32
  Speaker 3: of need to keep the lights on, don't we. So
• 45:34
  Speaker 3: and here we go with Tomago.
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: After the break, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio conducts
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: a joint interview with his wife, probably the last time
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: he will ever do that, because she dubbed on him
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: in front of the world's media.
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: That's next.
• 45:50
  Speaker 2: It's been pretty hot in Los Angeles lately, with temperatures
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: reaching about thirty degrees. So if you're lucky enough to
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: own a pool, I imagine all you want to do
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: is get home and get into your swimming pool. Not
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: so though, for David reht Schaffen. He arrived home and
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: this is what he found. Have a look at this
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: he's got a bear in his pool, he says. I
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: walked over to my glass door and there he was
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: chilling in the water. I sat in front of the door,
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: and we both sat there looking at each other for
• 46:15
  Speaker 2: a while until he decided to get out. So I
• 46:19
  Speaker 2: think he made the right decision there then could by
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: not joining said bear in the pool.
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: But now, well, no, no, I would run away. I
• 46:26
  Speaker 3: would run in the other direction. Would you stare it down?
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: I would make sure the glass door was locked.
• 46:32
  Speaker 5: Would you require a new pair of underwear by any chance?
• 46:35
  Speaker 2: James, Sorry, I mean you're behind the glass door, But
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: I mean it's quite a docile bear too, clearly.
• 46:42
  Speaker 5: Well, well he is at the moment while he's in
• 46:44
  Speaker 5: the pool. But like I would have thought a big
• 46:47
  Speaker 5: bear like that, even if he wanted to, he could
• 46:49
  Speaker 5: knock down a glass door, couldn't he. Yeah, like if
• 46:53
  Speaker 5: he ran head into the head first into the thing,
• 46:56
  Speaker 5: he'd smashed straight through it.
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: You do, can he did meet But there's a sign
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: that says no running around the pool will.
• 47:02
  Speaker 5: Fix I'd probably go and get the rye flap bang
• 47:06
  Speaker 5: sort him out. Why are you saying here? Complain about
• 47:11
  Speaker 5: me saying bang again? I mean, I mean, what noise
• 47:14
  Speaker 5: do you think of gun makes.
• 47:17
  Speaker 3: Like the bang a thousand times time thousand times?
• 47:22
  Speaker 4: What's the obsession with banks on the.
• 47:24
  Speaker 5: Late debate tonight? Apparently? Now can you imagine, you know,
• 47:29
  Speaker 5: the Secretary of State of the United States, You've got
• 47:32
  Speaker 5: really important stuff to worry about. You go on a
• 47:35
  Speaker 5: podcast with your wife, and your wife then just decides
• 47:39
  Speaker 5: to throw you straight under the bus for your dietary habits.
• 47:42
  Speaker 5: Marco Rubio here is asked on this podcast, you know
• 47:45
  Speaker 5: whether he's on board with this diet that Darf k Jr. Has,
• 47:49
  Speaker 5: which is a red meat and sauer kraut.
• 47:52
  Speaker 4: This is a diet that consists of eating.
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: Sauer kraut and meat.
• 47:58
  Speaker 4: No, you understand, like the this is not a sustainable thing,
• 48:01
  Speaker 4: are you? Maha?
• 48:03
  Speaker 3: I'm in favor of Maha, Like I think people should
• 48:05
  Speaker 3: be help, but I think ultimately.
• 48:07
  Speaker 6: It's completely know I want to eat pop tarts.
• 48:10
  Speaker 5: No, I don't need pop tarts every day?
• 48:12
  Speaker 4: Okay, you eat sweets. Pop Tart is one of the
• 48:15
  Speaker 4: great American innovations.
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: Maha.
• 48:17
  Speaker 5: If you're not a weares make America healthy again, wait
• 48:20
  Speaker 5: to throw the guy under the bus. God all muddy.
• 48:23
  Speaker 5: You want to know the truth, talk to the wife.
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: This is what we need to do.
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: Get all our politicians to do interviews with their wives.
• 48:29
  Speaker 3: They'll never lie exactly. Bang and you're done. That's right now?
• 48:35
  Speaker 4: Is in a bang?
• 48:35
  Speaker 5: You're into a bank.
• 48:36
  Speaker 4: I try to do a Caleb bond. Anyway, let's move on.
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: Uh.
• 48:39
  Speaker 4: There's places you can get.
• 48:41
  Speaker 3: Married if you want to spend a lot of money
• 48:43
  Speaker 3: or what. Or you could go for what this couple
• 48:46
  Speaker 3: did and get married at McDonald's.
• 48:58
  Speaker 5: Welcome, friends and family.
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: We're glad to have you.
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: Here with us.
• 49:04
  Speaker 4: They go under the golden arches.
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: What do we think The preacher said, you may now
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: kiss the bride. Please pull around to the second window.
• 49:14
  Speaker 5: That's it, Like, I just give up, seriously, get he
• 49:18
  Speaker 5: carried at Machers. What I'm done. I'm out of here,
• 49:22
  Speaker 5: See people, I'm done.
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: That's it from us all around. Here's the readA Penny show.
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: She's up next.