Latest / The Late Debate / The Late Debate | 21 July

Transcript

The Late Debate | 21 July · The Late Debate

0:00
Speaker 1: Late Welcome to the late.
0:04
Speaker 2: Debase, Deniker, I just want to know what happened to
0:09
Speaker 2: all those people you were sitting on top of in
0:11
Speaker 2: the front row at Wimbledon. That looks mighty uncomfortable to me.
0:15
Speaker 2: Welcome to the late debate. I'm Caleb Bond with Joe
0:17
Speaker 2: Hildebrand and freyer Leitch. Change the name or lose the game.
0:23
Speaker 2: President Trump threatens the stadium deal unless the Washington Commanders
0:27
Speaker 2: bring back their old name in the papers. The staggering
0:30
Speaker 2: cost of maintaining the PM's homes and planes, it's not
0:33
Speaker 2: a cheap exercise. And the story that's taken the world
0:36
Speaker 2: by storm, the chief executive and his HR manager getting
0:39
Speaker 2: cozy at a Coldplay concert. I'm sure you've seen the footage,
0:43
Speaker 2: and now you're being warned not to conduct your affairs
0:47
Speaker 2: publicly at concerts. Who knew? But first, I'm sure to
0:51
Speaker 2: remember the case of Salgrover and roxand Tickle. Salgrover started
0:56
Speaker 2: an online social media website called Giggle that was intended
1:00
Speaker 2: purely for women. Rox Antickle, who is actually a male
1:05
Speaker 2: but says he is a transgender woman, tried to sign
1:08
Speaker 2: up for the website and was denied membership, and this
1:10
Speaker 2: then ended up in the court on the basis of
1:13
Speaker 2: it being discrimination, and as we know, the court in
1:16
Speaker 2: the end found that it was indirect discrimination and Salgrover
1:21
Speaker 2: was ordered to pay money to Roxane Tickle. One of
1:24
Speaker 2: the interesting parts of this case, and this is all
1:27
Speaker 2: coming up again now because they are both appealing the
1:31
Speaker 2: decision of the court. Salgrover says the decision went too
1:34
Speaker 2: far and rox Antickle says the decision didn't go far enough.
1:38
Speaker 2: One of the interesting points that's coming up now is
1:41
Speaker 2: whether or not satire that Salgrover laughed at in the
1:45
Speaker 2: courtroom is protected as free political speech in this country,
1:50
Speaker 2: because Salgrover was ordered, as part of this original case
1:54
Speaker 2: to pay ten thousand dollars in compensation to Roxannetickle a
1:58
Speaker 2: biological mail because she was shown in the courtroom a
2:02
Speaker 2: photograph of a candle. Now, this candle was created by
2:06
Speaker 2: someone else entirely in a crowdfunding exercise. You can see
2:09
Speaker 2: if I do have it there to raise money for
2:11
Speaker 2: the legal effort, and it has on the front of
2:14
Speaker 2: the candle there a caricature of rox and Tickle with
2:17
Speaker 2: a message that says, so I realized I was a
2:20
Speaker 2: woman because I hate the smell of balls. Balls, hate them,
2:23
Speaker 2: and I had to get away from smelly balls. This
2:26
Speaker 2: is a rememorable we will be there. It's a reference
2:31
Speaker 2: to a quote that the tickle made at one point
2:35
Speaker 2: about not liking the smell of men's change rooms, and
2:37
Speaker 2: that's why he should have access to women's change rooms.
2:40
Speaker 2: So the question now given. Grover was forced to pay
2:44
Speaker 2: compensation for laughing at that, and the judge said at
2:48
Speaker 2: the time that it was offensive and belittling, and so
2:51
Speaker 2: she had to pay aggravated damages. Should this be protected
2:55
Speaker 2: political speech? Here was sal Grover this evening talking to
2:58
Speaker 2: James McPherson on the report.
3:01
Speaker 3: It was very quick, maybe three second laugh and yeah,
3:06
Speaker 3: ten thousand dollars. The candle is political satire on this
3:11
Speaker 3: male's perception of womanhood, and it's making a mockery of it,
3:17
Speaker 3: which is making a mockery of womanhood itself.
3:20
Speaker 2: And so the.
3:23
Speaker 3: You do exactly what it was intended to do, you
3:25
Speaker 3: sort of laugh at it. I feel at this point
3:27
Speaker 3: that I am being legally and financially abused for having
3:32
Speaker 3: human instincts.
3:34
Speaker 2: You can get hold of the candle for thirty seven
3:36
Speaker 2: dollars thirty if you're interested, by the way, But since
3:39
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety two, the High Court has acknowledged that we
3:41
Speaker 2: haven't implied right to free political expression in this country.
3:45
Speaker 2: And Grover's lawyers, in documents to the Court, who said
3:48
Speaker 2: that the conduct in question occurred in court during adversarial
3:51
Speaker 2: proceedings in response to cross examination in respect to political satire.
3:55
Speaker 2: The subject to that satire, a basis on which Tickle
3:59
Speaker 2: had publicly claimed to be a woman, is at the
4:01
Speaker 2: core of political discourse in this litigation. To penalize expressive
4:05
Speaker 2: response to that claim is to burden political communication, and
4:10
Speaker 2: on that point I would have to agree entirely. It
4:13
Speaker 2: is not the job of the law to protect anyone
4:17
Speaker 2: under any circumstance from offense or ridicule. Yes, we agree
4:23
Speaker 2: that the law should protect you from violence. That's why
4:25
Speaker 2: we have incitement to violence laws. But why is it
4:29
Speaker 2: the job of the law to say you should not
4:32
Speaker 2: be offended by anything? I mean, surely, if you don't
4:36
Speaker 2: have the right to say and do things that other
4:39
Speaker 2: people might find offensive. That's not to say that they
4:42
Speaker 2: are offensive, but someone might interpret them as offensive, then
4:46
Speaker 2: you'd have nothing I mean, if you can't say something
4:49
Speaker 2: that someone else might not like, let's all just pack
4:52
Speaker 2: up and move to North Korea totally.
4:55
Speaker 4: And I think the judge in this case was being
4:57
Speaker 4: extremely dramatic. As Grover said there, it was a momentary
5:02
Speaker 4: laugh when the image was put up on our screens
5:04
Speaker 4: just before. I chuckled to myself because it is funny.
5:09
Speaker 4: If we're at the point in Australia where we are
5:11
Speaker 4: outlawing jokes and satire, especially satire to make a political point,
5:18
Speaker 4: that is a dangerous place to be in. And it's
5:20
Speaker 4: also interesting because Tickle is launching a cross appeal saying
5:25
Speaker 4: that transgender identity should be a protected category, and so
5:30
Speaker 4: that would make it even more difficult to criticize and
5:34
Speaker 4: poke fun at transgender ideology. And I think the important
5:40
Speaker 4: point here is I'm sure no one has anything against
5:43
Speaker 4: Roxanne Tickle in particular, it's not about her, but you
5:47
Speaker 4: need to be able to criticize the idea and the
5:51
Speaker 4: notion of transgenderism. That's critical to political free speech.
5:56
Speaker 1: I think that.
5:56
Speaker 5: I mean, the question is even just reading out the
5:59
Speaker 5: content and the background to this case and what the
6:02
Speaker 5: court's time is actually being spent on is so infuriatingly ridiculous,
6:09
Speaker 5: like it is so patently absurdly python ESQ, like this
6:13
Speaker 5: would this in itself would be satire. That you have
6:16
Speaker 5: a judge handing out fines and people making legal appeals
6:21
Speaker 5: based on whether or not it was okay for somebody
6:24
Speaker 5: to laugh at a piece of political satire and whether
6:29
Speaker 5: that laugh was protected by a previous High court finding
6:33
Speaker 5: that there is an implied protection of freedom of political
6:37
Speaker 5: communication in the Constitution.
6:40
Speaker 1: I mean, do we not have anything better to do?
6:43
Speaker 5: And this is why I think about this case, and
6:45
Speaker 5: again I actually think that there's it's actually really sad
6:50
Speaker 5: and unfortunate that this is the case that it seems
6:54
Speaker 5: that Tickler has decided to prosecute because if I don't know,
7:00
Speaker 5: but if there was if this was just a group
7:02
Speaker 5: that she really really wanted to be a part of
7:05
Speaker 5: and then she got booted out of hers you know,
7:09
Speaker 5: you go on a rant, you go on social media.
7:11
Speaker 5: These people are terrible. I hate the blah blah blah.
7:13
Speaker 5: Maybe your feelings would be hurt, maybe wouldn't feel particularly accepted,
7:16
Speaker 5: but why would you go to all the trouble of
7:19
Speaker 5: launching a case in the federal court. I've got a
7:22
Speaker 5: feeling that this is deliberately set up to be a
7:24
Speaker 5: test case. And I think the problem with that is
7:27
Speaker 5: that there may well be other trans women who do
7:30
Speaker 5: have value in these communities and do like being part
7:34
Speaker 5: of these communities, and these communities are perfectly happy to
7:37
Speaker 5: have them, and there's no issue whatsoever, and they could
7:41
Speaker 5: end up being marginalized inevertently by a ruling by the
7:45
Speaker 5: appeals court or by that public court that might say, actually, no,
7:48
Speaker 5: you don't have to include because what the Giggle case
7:54
Speaker 5: has now become is you said, oh, you know, you
7:56
Speaker 5: can't say that we're we can't say that we're a
7:58
Speaker 5: women's space, and then inclu trans women. But they've said, oh, okay, no,
8:03
Speaker 5: we're actually now saying that we are a space for
8:05
Speaker 5: biological women to discuss the issues faced by biological women.
8:10
Speaker 5: And simply by inserting that one qualify that one additional word,
8:14
Speaker 5: suddenly you could potentially anyhow, we'll see how the judgment goes.
8:16
Speaker 5: Suddenly you could potentially exclude these things. And this all
8:20
Speaker 5: seems to be the result of a particularly driven desire
8:24
Speaker 5: to launch this court case for some reason. Why is
8:27
Speaker 5: it just because someone had their feelings heard about being
8:29
Speaker 5: left out of an online group or is this meant
8:32
Speaker 5: to be a sort of trojan horse.
8:33
Speaker 1: Of course, sat a bigger of course the president's point.
8:36
Speaker 2: As well about it about being able to be given
8:38
Speaker 2: damages for something that is offensive and belittling. It matters
8:43
Speaker 2: because it's not just about this. I mean, if if
8:45
Speaker 2: that stands and it exists in casee law, it will
8:49
Speaker 2: be used in other civil cases where people will argue
8:52
Speaker 2: that someone did or said something that was offensive and
8:55
Speaker 2: belittling towards them and that they deserve compensation for it.
8:59
Speaker 2: I mean, if we want to go down that road,
9:01
Speaker 2: we could put here this television show goes off the year.
9:05
Speaker 2: Lots of TV shows have to go off the year
9:07
Speaker 2: because if it can't be satirical, if you can't be
9:09
Speaker 2: offensive and belittling anymore, you can't target anyone for any
9:13
Speaker 2: reason whatsoever.
9:14
Speaker 4: And ultimately, what this case really highlights is how few
9:17
Speaker 4: protections there are for biological women and women's spaces in Australia,
9:22
Speaker 4: and there is a glaring gap in our law that
9:25
Speaker 4: has to be filled otherwise activist cases like this will
9:28
Speaker 4: push the boundaries and ultimately erase any right for women
9:32
Speaker 4: to have women's only spaces. But someone who is pushing
9:36
Speaker 4: back against the woe, as always is Donald Trump. Now
9:41
Speaker 4: he's posted on truth Social demanding that the red Skins,
9:47
Speaker 4: the Washington Redskins, who've rebranded as the Washington Commander Commanders, reverse.
9:56
Speaker 5: It wasn't commanders of the Union Army that possessed all
10:00
Speaker 5: the American, the Native Americans of their land, the Americans,
10:05
Speaker 5: their original so.
10:06
Speaker 4: Called That's a good point. That's a very good point.
10:08
Speaker 4: After the Black Lives Matter riots, the Washington Commanders changed
10:13
Speaker 4: their name from the Redskins because it was seen as
10:16
Speaker 4: a racial slur against Native Americans. And this is what
10:19
Speaker 4: Trump posted on truth Social. He said the Washington whatevers
10:23
Speaker 4: should immediately change their name back to the Washington Redskins
10:27
Speaker 4: football team. There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise,
10:30
Speaker 4: the Cleveland Indians, one of these six original baseball teams
10:34
Speaker 4: with a storied past our. Great Indian people in massive
10:38
Speaker 4: numbers want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is
10:42
Speaker 4: systematically being taken away from them now. Interestingly, a twenty
10:47
Speaker 4: sixteen poll found that nine out of ten Native Americans,
10:52
Speaker 4: this was a sample of five hundred people, nine out
10:55
Speaker 4: of ten Native Americans said they should not change changed
11:00
Speaker 4: the name. In fact, non Native Americans wide Americans were
11:04
Speaker 4: more offended by the name. What is actual Native Americans.
11:08
Speaker 4: And what they've done is they've erased the Redskins name.
11:12
Speaker 4: They've erased the iconic logo of the Native American person
11:17
Speaker 4: with the feathered headdress, and they've just replaced it with
11:20
Speaker 4: a big W. So it is actually the erasure of
11:25
Speaker 4: Native American identity. And you don't name a football team
11:30
Speaker 4: after weakness, after something you're ashamed of. I think it's
11:35
Speaker 4: an honor. It's a sign of strength and like the
11:37
Speaker 4: warrior nature nature of the Native Americans, to be called
11:41
Speaker 4: the Redskins, well.
11:42
Speaker 2: They should replace the big W with a big ILL
11:44
Speaker 2: because this ain't w a win, it's an l loser.
11:48
Speaker 2: I mean, who is offended by this stuff? And exactly exactly,
11:53
Speaker 2: that's precisely the point. And it's every time one of
11:57
Speaker 2: these things come up, whether it's you know, we're going
11:59
Speaker 2: to change the date of Australia Day, I mean fundamentally,
12:02
Speaker 2: who pushes a lot of that. It's rich in a city,
12:05
Speaker 2: white lefties who pushes this stuff. Exactly the same when
12:09
Speaker 2: we change the name of coon cheese, which had nothing
12:13
Speaker 2: to do with a racial slur. It was the guy
12:16
Speaker 2: who invented the method by which coon cheese was made,
12:20
Speaker 2: mister Coon. But we can't have that anymore because someone
12:23
Speaker 2: was offended.
12:23
Speaker 5: Bart.
12:24
Speaker 2: I mean, this stuff is not offensive to anyone. And
12:28
Speaker 2: what really riles me up about it, Joe, is that
12:31
Speaker 2: every time you have one of these cases, it means
12:35
Speaker 2: people pay less attention to legitimate issues of disadvantage and
12:41
Speaker 2: difference between you know, in Australia the rest of the
12:45
Speaker 2: population Aboriginal people, or in the US the rest of
12:47
Speaker 2: the population and Native Americans, because they go if they're
12:52
Speaker 2: upset about Redskins, that I couldn't give two hoots about
12:55
Speaker 2: anything else they're concerned about. We get all caught up
12:58
Speaker 2: in these tiny little things that aren't things at all,
13:01
Speaker 2: while we ignore real issues of disadvantage and poverty and
13:06
Speaker 2: abuse and whatever that go on.
13:08
Speaker 5: Is in CLAUSI, Caleb, don't you know that ever since
13:10
Speaker 5: the Washington Redskins changed their name to the Commands, the
13:13
Speaker 5: gap between Indigenous and non Indigenous American lives has completely disappeared.
13:18
Speaker 5: All that you know, they got all their land back,
13:21
Speaker 5: you know, more alcoholism, the gambling. All those casinos instantly disappeared.
13:27
Speaker 5: That's right, so raise issues in themselves.
13:32
Speaker 1: But that is exactly right.
13:34
Speaker 5: The idea that you can literally just a whitewash, and
13:38
Speaker 5: like you say, actually erasing people out of history and
13:41
Speaker 5: erasing past attitudes is a way of proving how holy
13:44
Speaker 5: you are is a very dangerous thing to do in
13:46
Speaker 5: history because you're actually sanitizing your own past. So try
13:50
Speaker 5: you're basically trying to pretend that you're a better person
13:53
Speaker 5: than you are because and sort of reaching back and
13:56
Speaker 5: sort of pretending all these things didn't happen by erasing
13:59
Speaker 5: any trace of them, and of course erasing you know,
14:02
Speaker 5: a really powerful representation of Native Americans. And I just
14:06
Speaker 5: always I still think it's amazing that they were called
14:08
Speaker 5: Indians because Columbus just basically got lost.
14:10
Speaker 1: And didn't know where he was.
14:11
Speaker 5: But anyway, but there's something even more sort of creepy
14:17
Speaker 5: and sinister about it, which is that it's going to
14:21
Speaker 5: be very very, very very hard for Washington to do
14:24
Speaker 5: this and to change the name back to the resists,
14:26
Speaker 5: because by doing it now in twenty twenty five, it
14:28
Speaker 5: will look a bit weird and will look a bit jarring.
14:31
Speaker 5: Just like you know, when and protest is pulled down
14:34
Speaker 5: a statue of Captain Cook that is part of our
14:36
Speaker 5: history that was put up in a different age when
14:38
Speaker 5: people did venerate Cook more and the colonial our colonial
14:42
Speaker 5: history more.
14:43
Speaker 1: You pull it down, it is going to look.
14:45
Speaker 5: A bit weird if you say, no, no, no, no, no,
14:47
Speaker 5: we you have to put this statue of Captain Cook
14:49
Speaker 5: back up in twenty twenty five, and it's weird. That's
14:53
Speaker 5: not to say we shouldn't do it, but but the
14:56
Speaker 5: point is these people, the activists who tear these things down.
15:00
Speaker 5: I know that once you tear them down, they are
15:02
Speaker 5: very very difficult to put back because suddenly it looks
15:06
Speaker 5: like you're imposing a view that in twenty twenty five
15:10
Speaker 5: would be a bit weird, when in fact, if it's
15:13
Speaker 5: part of a historical legacy and actually going to comes
15:16
Speaker 5: from that context, everyone gets it. Everyone understands it, and
15:18
Speaker 5: everyone knows that's fine.
15:20
Speaker 2: That's why they have to be put back so that
15:22
Speaker 2: the vandals don't keep getting away with that. Well, and
15:25
Speaker 2: it's the same here, and it seems a big message.
15:28
Speaker 2: This is why Trump is doing it. It seems a
15:30
Speaker 2: big message if you put that back to say, we're
15:32
Speaker 2: not going to tolerate this kind of nonsense revisionism anymore.
15:37
Speaker 2: We'll just be honest about how things are and there's
15:39
Speaker 2: no need to change things that are not offensive. Now,
15:43
Speaker 2: you might have seen if you were watching Paul Murray
15:45
Speaker 2: Live before you got on to us. At the end
15:47
Speaker 2: of the show, Danika was talking about these fake AI influences,
15:51
Speaker 2: and she referenced this case from someone allegedly at Wimbledon,
15:56
Speaker 2: Mia Zulu. We've got some images of say her, but
16:00
Speaker 2: it's not really her, isn't it. This is just a
16:03
Speaker 2: computer here, This is not this is not real. And
16:08
Speaker 2: this particular account which was posting these photos allegedly not
16:13
Speaker 2: actually from Wimbledon and one hundred and sixty five thousand
16:18
Speaker 2: followers on Instagram after just fifty five posts, which leads
16:24
Speaker 2: me to ask the question, well, actually, two points one
16:27
Speaker 2: is I'm going to advance the argument this could be
16:29
Speaker 2: a good thing because it means it'll put influences out
16:32
Speaker 2: of business. And you know that's great. All these people,
16:37
Speaker 2: you know try it well, you know you can make
16:38
Speaker 2: a living out of whatever you want to make a
16:40
Speaker 2: living out of. But come on, like, if you're just
16:42
Speaker 2: saying here's a FRIGI bought the other day, or is
16:45
Speaker 2: some makeup I tried. I don't really understand it because
16:48
Speaker 2: there's not much else to go along with it. I mean, sure,
16:50
Speaker 2: if you've got some substance other than posing in ubukini whatever,
16:54
Speaker 2: but that's your business. So maybe it'll put them out
16:56
Speaker 2: of business and force these people to go and get
16:58
Speaker 2: real jobs that contribute to the economy. That would be
17:00
Speaker 2: a good thing. But the bit that really worries me though,
17:03
Speaker 2: is that if you can get one hundred and sixty
17:04
Speaker 2: five thousand people to follow this account, and I'll be fair,
17:09
Speaker 2: those images were pretty realistic, Like that's some top level
17:13
Speaker 2: AI work going on.
17:14
Speaker 1: Production values the record, I know.
17:15
Speaker 2: But if we can't discern the difference between the real
17:20
Speaker 2: and the fate anymore, how are we meant to trust anything?
17:24
Speaker 2: Like when we see images news images. If you're a
17:27
Speaker 2: you know, I've worked as a chief of staff at
17:29
Speaker 2: newspapers and we would have people send in videos or
17:34
Speaker 2: images purporting to be of say, celebrities in compromising situations
17:39
Speaker 2: that was not made. It wasn't huge ideas, I can confer.
17:43
Speaker 2: It was never about you, Joe. But you know where
17:46
Speaker 2: they're assessing whether or not these are images that we
17:48
Speaker 2: can run and there's this a story and whatever. I mean,
17:52
Speaker 2: how are we meant to know anymore?
17:53
Speaker 4: Oh, there are so many ethical implications and many businesses
17:57
Speaker 4: working on AI detection and deep fake detection. So if
18:01
Speaker 4: you want to start a business that will thrive in
18:03
Speaker 4: the future, that's definitely one of them. But what is
18:06
Speaker 4: so hilarious about this case was that the bio of
18:11
Speaker 4: this account, the bio is like the text that appears
18:14
Speaker 4: at the top of her profile. The bio said that
18:16
Speaker 4: this was all AI generated, Yet real people followed anyway,
18:22
Speaker 4: And I think that is the deeper story. Yeah, people
18:27
Speaker 4: and people will knowingly still follow an AI person. We're
18:31
Speaker 4: seeing the rise of AI girlfriends. We're seeing the rise
18:35
Speaker 4: of AI therapy. I mean, people are literally preferring AI
18:41
Speaker 4: generated images to real people and real life interactions. And
18:46
Speaker 4: that is scary.
18:47
Speaker 5: But not only that, there were people who weren't just
18:50
Speaker 5: following it because it was II. There were people who
18:52
Speaker 5: there were guys who were following and then sliding into
18:55
Speaker 5: the day of that actually asking her out. And the
18:58
Speaker 5: thing that I find most in credit funny Jake, Well,
19:02
Speaker 5: that's right, you wouldn't have to buy much dinner. But
19:04
Speaker 5: the thing that I find incredibly funny is like, even
19:08
Speaker 5: if it was a real human being, do you really
19:11
Speaker 5: think that if you.
19:12
Speaker 1: Just go, hey, do you want to go out with Mere's?
19:14
Speaker 1: Because hey, yeah, I've got to get I've got to
19:16
Speaker 1: get out of that.
19:18
Speaker 2: Come.
19:18
Speaker 5: I'm going to fly down to Australia because I've never
19:21
Speaker 5: met you before, but because you just you know, you
19:23
Speaker 5: got into my comments and asked me to go out here, I.
19:26
Speaker 1: Am you got to.
19:28
Speaker 2: You gotta give it a I've always lived by the
19:32
Speaker 2: ethos you don't ask, you don't get, so you may
19:34
Speaker 2: as well give it a shot. But also you mentioned
19:36
Speaker 2: this business about AI therapy, and this is this is
19:40
Speaker 2: half my agument about why would be good if these
19:41
Speaker 2: things replaced influencers. Sky Wheatley is allegedly an influencer, has
19:46
Speaker 2: literally said that she is using AI as a therapy
19:51
Speaker 2: tool instead of going and seeing an actual therapist or
19:54
Speaker 2: a psychologist or whatever her quote was, I've been to
19:58
Speaker 2: therapy and chat GPT is may fave counselor so far,
20:03
Speaker 2: and also counselor spelt as in the one who sits
20:06
Speaker 2: on the local council, not the one who checks and
20:13
Speaker 2: look to be fair. Chat GPT do a better job
20:15
Speaker 2: of running a council and most counselors, so she may
20:18
Speaker 2: well be onto something there. But but again, it's if
20:21
Speaker 2: we have a loneliness epidemic, and so on the face
20:24
Speaker 2: of it, you might say this is a way for
20:26
Speaker 2: people to feel like they have some sort of interaction,
20:29
Speaker 2: but actually I think it's just dragging people further and
20:32
Speaker 2: further away from human interaction. The reality is you can
20:36
Speaker 2: never really replace human interaction, as much as it might
20:39
Speaker 2: make you feel a bit better in the short term,
20:41
Speaker 2: that this robot wants to talk back to you in
20:44
Speaker 2: a way that seems comfortable and nice and it's friendly,
20:47
Speaker 2: and it thinks you're attractive even though you're really fat
20:50
Speaker 2: or whatever it might be. And you think you're down
20:52
Speaker 2: in the dumps. Oh I love you, I love you.
20:54
Speaker 2: It's not real. And at some point, surely this will
20:57
Speaker 2: click in people's brains, and when it does, they be
21:00
Speaker 2: even more depressed than they were to begin with.
21:02
Speaker 4: Well that's the risk, right, and we hope it does
21:04
Speaker 4: click because we've heard stories of people literally developing romantic
21:08
Speaker 4: feelings for these AI bots, which is very terrifying. I mean,
21:11
Speaker 4: she might be added to Elon Musk's grock Ai Avatar
21:16
Speaker 4: is their next girlfriend that you can access online. So
21:19
Speaker 4: that's a scary thought. But here in New South Wales,
21:22
Speaker 4: farmers are extremely angry because they're basically being bulldozed by
21:27
Speaker 4: a big wind energy company that wants to build nineteen
21:31
Speaker 4: wind turbines these size of barangaaroo literally in their backyards.
21:38
Speaker 4: They had a very fiery town hall meeting where one
21:42
Speaker 4: farmer told these wind turbine executives exactly how he feels
21:48
Speaker 4: this is.
21:49
Speaker 5: It really is everything God blaming building the Gatherer for
21:53
Speaker 5: forty bloody years.
21:54
Speaker 2: I am a conwol Bank.
21:58
Speaker 1: And you guys, how.
21:59
Speaker 4: Long I really feel for these people because as if
22:05
Speaker 4: farmers aren't going through enough right now, between droughts and
22:10
Speaker 4: floods and all sort of red tape regulation, and for
22:14
Speaker 4: so many of these people, their superannuation is tied up
22:18
Speaker 4: in the value of their land. If they have these
22:21
Speaker 4: massive turbines there and they're not being paid to host them,
22:24
Speaker 4: their neighbors are getting the financial reward. They're still getting
22:28
Speaker 4: the cost though, of the yesore of that taking up
22:32
Speaker 4: space and polluting their view, and yet they're being lumped
22:37
Speaker 4: with the cost now in declining land value, and it
22:40
Speaker 4: does seem like this is the classic elitist belief that
22:46
Speaker 4: we can have net zero and that the people making
22:49
Speaker 4: all the decisions in Canberra or on Macquarie Street here
22:53
Speaker 4: in New South Wales, they get to dictate what will happen.
22:57
Speaker 4: But they're not the ones that have to live with
22:59
Speaker 4: the consequence. It's the regional people. But the problem is
23:03
Speaker 4: there are no votes for labor in the regions. They're
23:05
Speaker 4: already in safe national seats, so they have really no
23:09
Speaker 4: incentive to care about these people. They can dump all
23:12
Speaker 4: the wind turbines out there, and so what won't.
23:15
Speaker 2: Bother that when labor already clearly has a bent against
23:18
Speaker 2: people who have their money tied up in farms anyway,
23:20
Speaker 2: because you say many of them are in superannuation funds,
23:23
Speaker 2: And of course when all this stuff comes in about
23:26
Speaker 2: unrealized capital gains and having to pay thirty percent over
23:29
Speaker 2: three million dollars in your superannuation fund, it will be
23:31
Speaker 2: farmers largely who get affected by all of this. So
23:34
Speaker 2: they don't give two hoots about that to begin with.
23:36
Speaker 2: I mean, I reckon, if you want to make a
23:38
Speaker 2: buck out of it, your neighbors put the turbines up
23:41
Speaker 2: or let them to go up on their land. Just
23:43
Speaker 2: go and set up a viewing platform on your land
23:45
Speaker 2: and charge people to come and watch all the birds
23:47
Speaker 2: get chopped up as the turbines go around, because that's
23:51
Speaker 2: what they're good for. And it must be so frustrating
23:55
Speaker 2: as a farmer who actually wants to farm watching this
23:59
Speaker 2: productive land be turned into a wind farm. And that's
24:03
Speaker 2: half the problem, is that this is productive land for
24:05
Speaker 2: other purposes that can be used to grow the food
24:09
Speaker 2: or the animals or whatever that we need to sustain. Well, sure,
24:15
Speaker 2: but then you've got to deal with the remediation of
24:17
Speaker 2: the land. When eventually the turbines reached the end of
24:19
Speaker 2: their life, they had to put danahat and the ground
24:21
Speaker 2: to blow these things out, and there's all the concrete
24:23
Speaker 2: and whatever that goes into it. Of course, you would
24:26
Speaker 2: be utterly peeved that this is going on next door
24:28
Speaker 2: and you're essentially powerless to stop it. Why should you
24:32
Speaker 2: be punished because old made in the inner city says, well,
24:35
Speaker 2: you know, the turbines should be out where you live,
24:37
Speaker 2: not on double bait.
24:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
24:38
Speaker 5: Look, I do think there is a very very strong
24:42
Speaker 5: argument that you know, you've got deal MPs that don't
24:45
Speaker 5: want even batteries in their seats, but they say, oh,
24:48
Speaker 5: I know, you have to cover entire swathes of farmland
24:51
Speaker 5: with wind farms.
24:52
Speaker 1: I think this is something that is obviously.
24:54
Speaker 5: Going to happen, and it is something that is happening
24:56
Speaker 5: all over the world, and it will happen here. I
24:58
Speaker 5: think the real shame of it is that it's being
25:02
Speaker 5: done without enough community consultation that the government or these corporations,
25:08
Speaker 5: you know, they might be foreign owned, they're not involved
25:10
Speaker 5: in the local community. They don't know the places where
25:12
Speaker 5: they're building these things. They've got the power to do it,
25:15
Speaker 5: you know, in case of transmission lines or whatever.
25:17
Speaker 1: I believe they've got the power to just sort of.
25:18
Speaker 5: Say, yes, this is coming through your property, whether you
25:21
Speaker 5: like it or not. And a lot of it I
25:22
Speaker 5: think is just that lack of kind of basic humanity.
25:25
Speaker 5: And I think it reminds me a lot of the
25:27
Speaker 5: coal seam gas debate, where you had to lock the
25:29
Speaker 5: gate movement there, where there are farmers who embraced it
25:33
Speaker 5: and thought, great, this is fantastic. I can get a
25:35
Speaker 5: bit of coin out of this. This is terrific, and
25:37
Speaker 5: you know, it doesn't interfere too much with what I'm
25:39
Speaker 5: already doing. But then you can have another farmer who
25:42
Speaker 5: might not get any benefit from it, but again still
25:45
Speaker 5: has to look at it. And as you said, they're
25:48
Speaker 5: the size of crown barangaroo. I mean, these things are
25:50
Speaker 5: incredibly huge. So I think I remember being in Tamworth
25:53
Speaker 5: for a Daily Telegraph push summit and anger was just
25:56
Speaker 5: white hot over this issue. But there were also farmers
25:59
Speaker 5: who were totally cool with it, and they said, look,
26:01
Speaker 5: if they just had to come to us, we could
26:03
Speaker 5: have said, yeah, all you have to do is put
26:04
Speaker 5: the transmission lines over there, no one's going to see them,
26:07
Speaker 5: or just basic stuff, or you know, companies coming to
26:10
Speaker 5: the town and saying, right, we're going to invest in
26:12
Speaker 5: the local sports team, or we're going to put money
26:14
Speaker 5: back in the community. So yeah, it's a bit ugly,
26:17
Speaker 5: but you're seeing the benefits elsewhere, and so I think
26:20
Speaker 5: that it's almost like a bedside manner probable the way
26:23
Speaker 5: they're doing it, rather than what they're doing.
26:24
Speaker 4: But then also this argument of community consultation, I mean,
26:28
Speaker 4: community consultation is basically just another way of saying rubber stamp.
26:34
Speaker 4: These sites have been declared State Significant development sites. The
26:37
Speaker 4: local councils have no power to intervene. The local residents
26:41
Speaker 4: have even less. Has there been a single mass wind
26:45
Speaker 4: project that's actually been canceled because of community outrage. I
26:50
Speaker 4: can't name one. And that's the thing they talk about consultation,
26:53
Speaker 4: but it's a sham. These communities are being absolutely bulldozed
26:58
Speaker 4: and they have no power to start it, and that
27:01
Speaker 4: is a shame.
27:02
Speaker 2: The only wind projects that are falling over ones that
27:04
Speaker 2: are economically unliable, which happens to be basically every offshore
27:08
Speaker 2: wind project. And I tell you it is hard to
27:11
Speaker 2: be a farmer, the work they have to put in
27:15
Speaker 2: to produce anything, the great fluctuations in the money that
27:19
Speaker 2: they make from year to year. I mean, you know,
27:21
Speaker 2: you have drought one year and flood the next and whatever.
27:24
Speaker 2: Of course, when you're in drought, if you've got live stock,
27:26
Speaker 2: you've got to get hay in to feed your animals,
27:28
Speaker 2: which is incredibly expensive. So you could have a year
27:32
Speaker 2: where you produce the same as you produce every year,
27:34
Speaker 2: but you make basically zero dollars because you've had to
27:37
Speaker 2: spend all of the money you have in the bank
27:39
Speaker 2: to sustain yourself, so you've got to hope that the
27:41
Speaker 2: next year you can make that money back so you
27:43
Speaker 2: can keep going. It is seriously hard work. If you
27:47
Speaker 2: haven't watched it, I recommend you look up Clarkson's farm.
27:50
Speaker 2: There's three seasons I think of it now and yes
27:52
Speaker 2: it's Jeremy Clarkson who has the money to peddle around
27:55
Speaker 2: on his farm in the Codswelts, but doesn't go through
27:57
Speaker 2: too many No, no, no, very good. They Actually the
28:01
Speaker 2: problem they have with the UK at the moment is
28:03
Speaker 2: way too much rain. They can't sow or pull any
28:06
Speaker 2: crops out of the ground. But it's a great window
28:08
Speaker 2: into the bureaucracy and all the other problems that farmers
28:12
Speaker 2: have to deal with, and it's getting worse here in
28:14
Speaker 2: Australia too. Just another issue that farmers have to deal
28:17
Speaker 2: with is this new animal welfare plan that they have
28:21
Speaker 2: to draw up. This is part of the Livestock Production
28:24
Speaker 2: Assurance Scheme, which is a large part of being able
28:27
Speaker 2: to get access to the meat market. And so now
28:30
Speaker 2: they're coming around and telling farmers thirty five thousand producers
28:35
Speaker 2: who are part of this scheme that if you want
28:37
Speaker 2: to have access to our supplies and shops and send
28:42
Speaker 2: your meat around, etc. You've got to complete one of
28:45
Speaker 2: these animal welfare plans. Now, this came into effect last
28:50
Speaker 2: month and so far only ten percent of these farms
28:53
Speaker 2: have actually managed to fill out one of these plans.
28:56
Speaker 2: And some of the stuff that you are now required
28:59
Speaker 2: to do it's just utterly stupid. For instance, you have
29:03
Speaker 2: to limit the use of working dogs and handling aids
29:08
Speaker 2: to the minimum needed to complete the task. Disinfectant should
29:12
Speaker 2: be used and change frequently. At landmarking. You should be
29:14
Speaker 2: managed to opt to bar as milk production demanded, maximize
29:17
Speaker 2: protein availability for the lamb, to aid wound healing after marking.
29:21
Speaker 2: I just want to go back to that first point,
29:23
Speaker 2: limiting the use of working dogs.
29:25
Speaker 5: Wouldn't that kind of wouldn't you kind of do that already?
29:28
Speaker 5: Like how many working dogs is using their father? Oh
29:30
Speaker 5: many more than I need to? What is the stuff
29:33
Speaker 5: flooding the back line with working dogs?
29:36
Speaker 2: What is this stuff? You know? A working dog is
29:39
Speaker 2: bread to do work. It's in their nature, it's what
29:43
Speaker 2: they want to do. A farmer gives a working dog,
29:46
Speaker 2: a working dog a job to do, like herding, cattle
29:49
Speaker 2: or herding sheep, and that's what they do, that's what
29:52
Speaker 2: they're made for, it's what they're bread to do. For
29:54
Speaker 2: him is animal welfare. We can't have the working dogs
29:58
Speaker 2: doing too much. I mean, next thing they'll be saying
30:00
Speaker 2: there should be a working dog union for Heaven's sake.
30:03
Speaker 2: But the issue is that they have to go, the
30:05
Speaker 2: poor farmers have to go and fill out all these
30:08
Speaker 2: mountains and paperwork and lodge all this stuff on Why
30:11
Speaker 2: I just say, well, Mike Keilpie's only doing two hours
30:14
Speaker 2: of work a day. I mean, they've got real work
30:17
Speaker 2: to do, not dealing with this guard.
30:18
Speaker 5: I find this just absolutely bonkers. And again I'm the
30:21
Speaker 5: last person who can pretend to be an expert in agriculture,
30:25
Speaker 5: but this is so obviously just a completely useless box
30:31
Speaker 5: sticking ass covering exercise so that when someone gets you know,
30:35
Speaker 5: has their bit of meat or whatever it is in
30:37
Speaker 5: their shop or whatever, expert saying oh, yes, look it's
30:41
Speaker 5: you know, it's one hundred percent you know, animal welfare guaranteed.
30:45
Speaker 1: I have the certificate right.
30:46
Speaker 5: Here producing dog hours minimum dog hours like you can guarantee.
30:51
Speaker 5: I mean, who is going through all these things like
30:53
Speaker 5: checking every single thing, and they got to follow up
30:55
Speaker 5: with the site visit and say, hey, is that really
30:57
Speaker 5: the minimum number of dogs that you're using or is
30:59
Speaker 5: that dog two extra?
31:01
Speaker 1: Or is that or are the dogs you are using?
31:02
Speaker 5: Are they you know, O you know, are they doing
31:04
Speaker 5: more than the minimum they need to do to Like,
31:07
Speaker 5: what on earth does that mean? It's just it's just
31:11
Speaker 5: crazy and it is clearly just just it's standard bureaucratic
31:16
Speaker 5: box ticking exercise.
31:17
Speaker 4: Australian agriculture has some of the best animal welfare in
31:22
Speaker 4: the world and if you talk to any farmer, they
31:24
Speaker 4: take pride in their animals. They love their animals. It
31:28
Speaker 4: is in their commercial interest to treat them well, so
31:31
Speaker 4: they do the job well. I mean, these animals have
31:34
Speaker 4: more workers' rights than farmers do at this point, because
31:37
Speaker 4: they're the ones being slugged with endless red tape and
31:40
Speaker 4: constantly attacked by the government. So maybe the government should
31:43
Speaker 4: spend more time focusing on human wellbeing of farmer animals animals.
31:49
Speaker 1: If you hated animals, why would you be a farmer?
31:52
Speaker 1: You know, It's like I just really enjoy killing the.
31:55
Speaker 5: Lambs, So like, I just don't understand what image these well,
32:00
Speaker 5: I do, because you know, I used to go out
32:02
Speaker 5: with an animal activist, but we're just good friends now,
32:06
Speaker 5: right along.
32:06
Speaker 4: No, that's exactly right. Well, let's move to the US now.
32:10
Speaker 4: Director of National Intelligence Tulsy Gabbard. Her office has released
32:14
Speaker 4: a trove of documents which confirm what we all suspected.
32:20
Speaker 4: She's made bombshell details public about the Obama era conspiracy
32:26
Speaker 4: against Trump. In the months leading up to the twenty
32:30
Speaker 4: sixteen election, the intelligence community, which is the CIA, the FBI,
32:35
Speaker 4: national intelligence all largely concluded that Russia was probably not
32:43
Speaker 4: trying to influence the election. Then, in December, after the
32:48
Speaker 4: election was already over, Obama convened the heads of various
32:53
Speaker 4: intelligence agencies and gave them a special task to find
32:57
Speaker 4: out exactly what Russia was supposedly doing. And then, mysteriously,
33:03
Speaker 4: the intelligence community the narrative around Russian influence and the
33:08
Speaker 4: election changed, and now they were indirectly trying to influence
33:13
Speaker 4: the election. Some even went as far to say they
33:16
Speaker 4: were directly interfering in the election result. And the irony
33:21
Speaker 4: that over the last nine years, the Democrats have constantly
33:25
Speaker 4: berated Republicans for election denialism, for eroding trust in public institutions.
33:32
Speaker 4: They have been caught red handed essentially trying to do
33:36
Speaker 4: the exact same thing. Tulsey Gabbard has now referred all
33:41
Speaker 4: of these documents to criminal prosecutors, So it'll be interesting
33:45
Speaker 4: to see how this all unfolds. But I think this
33:48
Speaker 4: is vindication for Trump. After nine years of being smeared
33:54
Speaker 4: with this Russian conspiracy that was essentially baseless, he has
33:59
Speaker 4: now been vindicated.
34:01
Speaker 2: And it was the most absurd conspiracy theory as well,
34:03
Speaker 2: because like, if you have Vladimir Putin, would you really
34:07
Speaker 2: have preferred to have Donald Trump over a republic over
34:12
Speaker 2: a democratic canademy? And let's not forget that, you know,
34:15
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen when Putin and Russia marched into Crimea,
34:19
Speaker 2: Obama did four fifths of Bagarul, So he doesn't really
34:22
Speaker 2: have much motivation to get Trump into the White House.
34:25
Speaker 2: I want to know as well, because of course, remember
34:27
Speaker 2: the ABC produced the series and they went over there
34:31
Speaker 2: for four corners and went all on about how was
34:34
Speaker 2: this Russian conspiracy? Et cetera. I've yet to see an
34:37
Speaker 2: apology out of them. Good on them for looking into
34:40
Speaker 2: exactly how this happened. I hope it results in prosecutions.
34:43
Speaker 2: I hope it results in Obama coming up before a
34:46
Speaker 2: court because the Dems have tried to make hay out
34:50
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty when Trump basically claimed that it was
34:53
Speaker 2: a stolen election, etc. But he is guilty of doing
34:57
Speaker 2: it no more than that. In fact, he's guilty of
34:59
Speaker 2: doing less than the Dems tried to do. Because the
35:02
Speaker 2: Dems actually tried to legitimately fabricate documents, it would seem
35:07
Speaker 2: to make it look like something was going on that
35:09
Speaker 2: wasn't going.
35:10
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, January sixth was disgraceful and appalling, But
35:14
Speaker 5: it is a kind of similar thing of just refusing
35:16
Speaker 5: to accept the result. I mean, you saw it with
35:18
Speaker 5: Hillary Clinton saying, oh, well that the electoral college system
35:22
Speaker 5: is broken because I didn't win even though I won
35:24
Speaker 5: the popular vote. Well, if you've got that problem, you know,
35:27
Speaker 5: if you've got concerns with the system, raised them before
35:29
Speaker 5: the election, not after you've seen the result and decided
35:31
Speaker 5: you don't like it. And again, it speaks to I
35:34
Speaker 5: think the left's entire problem with Donald Trump, which is
35:37
Speaker 5: why they didn't win in twenty twenty four, which is
35:40
Speaker 5: that they firstly, they were completely blindsided. I think they
35:43
Speaker 5: think there's no way this guy could have won. There's
35:45
Speaker 5: no way this guy, No one I know voted for him,
35:46
Speaker 5: So they genuinely think there must be some other nefarious
35:50
Speaker 5: reason why.
35:51
Speaker 1: So I think that's the first thing.
35:52
Speaker 5: But also just that whole push to delegitimize Trump or
35:56
Speaker 5: try to use law fare to try to get rid
35:58
Speaker 5: of him. Just find a better candidate yet, find someone
36:01
Speaker 5: who's not senile or not a cackling idiot, and you
36:04
Speaker 5: probably would have beat him in twenty twenty four.
36:06
Speaker 1: So that's just a for next time, guys.
36:08
Speaker 2: It's a good point. And of course all that great
36:10
Speaker 2: work Barden did when he was in charge. Very quickly
36:13
Speaker 2: he said he was going to have all these electric
36:16
Speaker 2: male vans running around ten billion dollars he put towards
36:19
Speaker 2: baking all these electric male vans in the United States.
36:22
Speaker 2: Two years this scheme has been running. You know how
36:24
Speaker 2: many they've made so far, two hundred.
36:26
Speaker 1: And fifties and not a single female van.
36:29
Speaker 2: What a great success it has been. After the break,
36:33
Speaker 2: we'll get into the papers exactly how much money does
36:35
Speaker 2: it cost to run the PM's life, his houses, the plane,
36:38
Speaker 2: et cetera. Will tell you how this let's get into
36:49
Speaker 2: the papers, starting with The Australian tomorrow testing the waters
36:52
Speaker 2: Greens leader backs party purge to enforce transgender zeal. The
36:57
Speaker 2: Australian Greens new leader Luisa waters Is resids calls to
37:00
Speaker 2: intervene in the widening row over the minority party's embrace
37:04
Speaker 2: of transgender rights and a halt to purge members who
37:07
Speaker 2: don't toe the line. The expulsion of Green's co founder
37:11
Speaker 2: Drew Hatton has brought to a dramatic head tensions around
37:14
Speaker 2: the alleged hounding of those who questioned the party's pro
37:17
Speaker 2: trans platform. The Australian has confirmed and now the two
37:20
Speaker 2: cases in which long standing members so they were drummed
37:23
Speaker 2: out for disagreeing with the policies, which includes support for
37:26
Speaker 2: young people transitioning gender to control the process with the
37:30
Speaker 2: advice and support a medical specialist. No mention is made
37:34
Speaker 2: of parental consent. And you know, the great fans of
37:38
Speaker 2: freedom and free speech that the Greens are willing to
37:41
Speaker 2: sacrifice to talk about this story last week with them
37:43
Speaker 2: with mister Hutton. You know sacrifice you're founding members because
37:47
Speaker 2: on one particular policy, which has nothing to do with
37:50
Speaker 2: the environment, you have a disagreement. They're pushing out other people.
37:54
Speaker 2: The federal leader seems to agree with it. I mean,
37:57
Speaker 2: this is a great window into what the Greens would
37:59
Speaker 2: do if they had their hands on power.
38:01
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly. And in the Greens Party constitution it says
38:04
Speaker 4: that if you disagree with their trans policy, you're automatically
38:08
Speaker 4: expelled from the party. So it does show so much
38:11
Speaker 4: for being the hippie free speech loving people of the nineties,
38:15
Speaker 4: they're not that at all.
38:17
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't think they were ever free speech. This
38:18
Speaker 1: is great now.
38:19
Speaker 5: The only time they've ever expressed any interest in free
38:22
Speaker 5: speech was after Gillian Siegel handed out and reported to
38:25
Speaker 5: Addie sevotism and says, you can't spread jew hate on campus.
38:29
Speaker 1: Hang on, what about free speech?
38:30
Speaker 3: Come on.
38:31
Speaker 4: They love free speech when it comes to Israel, and
38:33
Speaker 4: they love saying whatever they want.
38:35
Speaker 5: Yeah, they love free speech when it comes to death
38:37
Speaker 5: death to the idef, but anything else. They are the
38:39
Speaker 5: ones who want to police everybody else's speech, and they
38:42
Speaker 5: are so doctrinate. They basically just fundamentalist Marxist ideologues, and
38:47
Speaker 5: anyone who doesn't toe the party line gets taken out
38:50
Speaker 5: the back and shot, like all all fallen comrades.
38:54
Speaker 1: This could tear the party apart. It is about fantastic.
38:57
Speaker 2: Well, of course, you know what's upon a time about
39:00
Speaker 2: farming before. You know, if a dog was a bit poorly,
39:03
Speaker 2: you'd take them out the back and shoot them, because
39:04
Speaker 2: that was the most humane thing to do. But I
39:06
Speaker 2: suppose you can't do that anymore anyway. They might want
39:09
Speaker 2: to put them on a plane send him somewhere else,
39:11
Speaker 2: like they've done with our first Nation's ambassador. It says
39:15
Speaker 2: on the front of the Odds Tomorrow Envoys seven hundred
39:18
Speaker 2: and thirty k travel bill, Anthony Albanesi's First Nation's Ambassador
39:22
Speaker 2: has built taxpayers more than three quarters of a million
39:25
Speaker 2: dollars for travel in just two years in the role,
39:27
Speaker 2: and has traveled for a year's worth of working days.
39:30
Speaker 2: I mean, what a job this fella has. Justin Muhammad
39:33
Speaker 2: was appointed Australia's inaugural First Nation's Ambassador in twenty twenty
39:37
Speaker 2: three and tasked with implementing a First Nations approach to
39:41
Speaker 2: foreign policy. It goes on to say he spent two
39:44
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty grand a little more than that on
39:47
Speaker 2: international travel. He spent ninety eight thousand, seven hundred and
39:50
Speaker 2: ninety five dollars and fifty five cents on domestic travel.
39:55
Speaker 1: Nas, I'll tell you that for free.
39:57
Speaker 2: How do you spend the money on domestic travel?
40:00
Speaker 1: We had to pay for the extra baggage allowance.
40:02
Speaker 2: Well, because he's going to be all pay for it.
40:04
Speaker 1: At the airport. That's going to hit you with.
40:07
Speaker 2: He's going to carry all that intergenerational trauma with him
40:10
Speaker 2: when he goes overseas buying.
40:11
Speaker 4: In a private chartered plane or something. There's no way
40:15
Speaker 4: you can rack up nearly one hundred thousand dollars of
40:18
Speaker 4: domestic airfares in Australia. But the other problem with his
40:22
Speaker 4: whole position is what the heck does it mean to
40:25
Speaker 4: implement first nation's approach to foreign policy? Can someone just
40:30
Speaker 4: explain what that is?
40:32
Speaker 5: It shouldn't be our first nations that he's dealing with,
40:36
Speaker 5: not other people. He's other people's second nations.
40:39
Speaker 1: You know.
40:40
Speaker 2: I think it just means gravy train and he is
40:43
Speaker 2: well and true.
40:43
Speaker 5: Gravy plane, well done, Maybhile and the Mighty Daily Telegraph.
40:50
Speaker 1: Look, I don't know. I can't say how this is
40:52
Speaker 1: a story here.
40:53
Speaker 2: The your paper, Joe, you work there, Come.
40:57
Speaker 5: On all he's been a seven million bucks. That's nothing, No,
41:00
Speaker 5: it is a cracker of the yard. The staggering cost
41:03
Speaker 5: of keeping the PM in his job. He's our seven
41:05
Speaker 5: million dollar man, exclusive by Lochlan Lemmy great reporter made
41:09
Speaker 5: him one. Of course, the price of keeping our Prime
41:11
Speaker 5: Minister in his job, a house and the comfort of
41:15
Speaker 5: his jet during his many overseas jaunts can now be
41:17
Speaker 5: revealed with Anthony Albanzi our seven million dollar man. New
41:22
Speaker 5: analysis shows mister Alberzi's international trips, the maintenance of his
41:25
Speaker 5: official resiences, and his salary contribute to a whopping six
41:29
Speaker 5: hundred six million, eight hundred and sixty five thousand, nine
41:33
Speaker 5: hundred and two dollars. Surprised they didn't get it down
41:35
Speaker 5: to the sense, come on, lockey, what are you doing
41:38
Speaker 5: in expenses covered by the taxpayer? And this was universally
41:42
Speaker 5: agreed to be all terrific value for money and a
41:48
Speaker 5: small token of gratitude for the fine job that he
41:51
Speaker 5: is doing leading our country with courage, bravery and intellectuals.
41:57
Speaker 2: Well well down on the editorializing, can I put a?
42:00
Speaker 2: Is anyone not your major?
42:02
Speaker 1: Everyone? Everyone's evere's my mate.
42:04
Speaker 5: Everyone I've ever met is either my mate or I'm
42:06
Speaker 5: going to kill him, but I can.
42:08
Speaker 2: I point out the point of international travel. Look, you know,
42:11
Speaker 2: I get that it's expensive to keep the lodge maintained
42:14
Speaker 2: in Curabilly House and whatever. Now I don't particularly mind that,
42:17
Speaker 2: but I want to point out on the international travel.
42:20
Speaker 2: We were just talking about the First Nation's ambassador, right,
42:25
Speaker 2: who in two years has spent two hundred and thirty
42:27
Speaker 2: grand on international travel. The Prime Minister, with an air
42:32
Speaker 2: Force plane has spent three hundred and eleven four hundred
42:36
Speaker 2: and fifty four grand. Now, I would have thought keeping
42:39
Speaker 2: air Force one, or Toto one as he likes to
42:42
Speaker 2: call it, in the air would have been a far
42:44
Speaker 2: more expensive exercise than flying around the First Nation's ambassador.
42:49
Speaker 2: But on a like for like basis, it seems like
42:52
Speaker 2: it's actually cheap on to fly around the Prime minister.
42:54
Speaker 4: Yeah, well it must mean that the first Nation's ambassador
42:58
Speaker 4: was flying at least business this class around the world,
43:02
Speaker 4: Toto the.
43:02
Speaker 5: First Nation's ambassador, and then you could just like combine
43:05
Speaker 5: all the flights into one.
43:06
Speaker 4: Yeah, just an idea, but yeah, it seems like a
43:10
Speaker 4: complete waste of taxpayer money. And also how many staff
43:13
Speaker 4: is almany is he taking with him on these international trips,
43:17
Speaker 4: because that's also another area where you dc massive ways.
43:20
Speaker 5: In accordance with the animal welfare checks. It is the
43:23
Speaker 5: bare minimum.
43:25
Speaker 4: He can't work the staff as too share the lot.
43:28
Speaker 2: There's animal welfare regulations for Toto where he's allowed to
43:32
Speaker 2: do exactly well.
43:33
Speaker 4: In the Gold Coast Bulletin a very interesting story, the
43:36
Speaker 4: headline is Road to Damascus. Mum reunites with son ten
43:41
Speaker 4: years after he was barred from Australia for suspected terror
43:45
Speaker 4: group links. He went from koomber Bar State High Captain
43:49
Speaker 4: to being dubbed the Blonde Ji Hardy. Now Oliver Bridgeman,
43:54
Speaker 4: who denied the claim, was never charged and always maintained
43:57
Speaker 4: he was an AID worker after swapping schoolies for Syria
44:02
Speaker 4: at eighteen, has reunited with his mum, Cath ten years old.
44:06
Speaker 4: I can't put into words what it felt like to
44:09
Speaker 4: hug her again. Ah, it's nice, but I have a
44:13
Speaker 4: lot of questions about this.
44:14
Speaker 1: Really, come on to stop being a terrorist. He's not
44:17
Speaker 1: Jaharty anymore, you know, It's fine.
44:19
Speaker 5: So it's like what Darth Vader suddenly becomes good at
44:21
Speaker 5: the end of Return of the Jedi it's like.
44:22
Speaker 1: What about all the younglings he killed? Ah, don't worry
44:24
Speaker 1: about it, Dad, It's good to have your back.
44:26
Speaker 2: It's a bit like the argument over whether the all
44:29
Speaker 2: these women who went over seas and became ge hardy
44:31
Speaker 2: brides should have been allowed to come back into the country,
44:34
Speaker 2: of the view that they shouldn't. But you know, oh,
44:36
Speaker 2: we've got to be compassionate and let all these people
44:39
Speaker 2: back in. I don't think we have to be compassionate.
44:44
Speaker 2: That's that's good. You know, I'd rather be on the
44:47
Speaker 2: side of caution, to be perfectly honest. What's on the
44:49
Speaker 2: front of the mercury.
44:50
Speaker 5: I'm glad you asked, Kayle. Pitching for peace is on
44:52
Speaker 5: the front of the Mercury. From radicals to partners, Premier
44:55
Speaker 5: Court's cross bench. In the lead up to the election,
44:58
Speaker 5: Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe and by Elisa Kaym incidentally, who I've
45:02
Speaker 5: never met, but I'm sure if I did meet.
45:04
Speaker 1: Her, should be a great made.
45:05
Speaker 2: Of made of yours.
45:05
Speaker 1: Yeah.
45:06
Speaker 6: And the lead up to the election, Premier Jeremy Rockliffe
45:08
Speaker 6: his team and Sisters majority government was critical and labeled
45:11
Speaker 6: Independence as destructive left wing radicals. On Monday, mister Rockliffe
45:15
Speaker 6: has softened to the idea of a collaborative government as
45:17
Speaker 6: he looks for crossbench support to govern Tasmanians want us
45:20
Speaker 6: as a parliament to work together, he said, to work collaboratively,
45:24
Speaker 6: be very passionate about our issues. But at the end
45:26
Speaker 6: of the day, the will of the Parliament must always
45:29
Speaker 6: be reflected. So I guess most of what he said
45:32
Speaker 6: still applies.
45:34
Speaker 2: Indeed, I'm just what a great waste of time and
45:37
Speaker 2: money that action was. You've basically got the same composition.
45:40
Speaker 4: Of the parliament and also an extremely stupid and inefficient
45:43
Speaker 4: electoral hair Clark system. Then it creates chaos, and that's
45:47
Speaker 4: partly the liberals fault.
45:50
Speaker 2: They have a lot to answer for. Mister here and
45:51
Speaker 2: mister Clark, very quickly before we go on the front
45:53
Speaker 2: of the TiSER tomorrow. Murray What's finally gone down to
45:56
Speaker 2: Adelaide to check out the algal bloom a drop in
45:58
Speaker 2: the ocean environment. Minister Murray what finally visited Algaie Hittersay
46:02
Speaker 2: Beaches and delivered fourteen million dollars in aid. He's in
46:06
Speaker 2: that photograph there looking like a stunned mullet. If I
46:09
Speaker 2: may say so, I mean they're even talking now about
46:12
Speaker 2: the possibility of having to shut the beaches in South
46:15
Speaker 2: Australia during summer. Is there anything more UnAustralian than that?
46:19
Speaker 2: And what finally turns up months later with fourteen million dollars,
46:23
Speaker 2: Well done, buddy, that's really going to help. After the break.
46:26
Speaker 2: I'm sure you've seen these two people who went to
46:29
Speaker 2: the Cold Blake concert the other day. Turned out they
46:31
Speaker 2: were having an affair. Maybe if you're a billionaire ceo,
46:34
Speaker 2: don't do it in public. The warning is being sent
46:37
Speaker 2: out now. I mean, who knew you needed it? But
46:39
Speaker 2: we'll show you that after the break. I'm sure you've
46:45
Speaker 2: seen it. It has been absolutely everywhere. The CEO of
46:49
Speaker 2: IT company astronomer and his HR manager at a Cold
46:53
Speaker 2: Blake concert being caught on with his cam having an affair.
46:57
Speaker 2: I would have thought it's the most obvious thing. The
46:59
Speaker 2: first rule, you know, if you probably shouldn't have an
47:01
Speaker 2: affair in the first place, but if you're going to have.
47:03
Speaker 1: Go to a Coldplay concert in the first.
47:04
Speaker 2: Which they take you a very good point. I mean,
47:07
Speaker 2: you know they kind of deserved it. And look at
47:08
Speaker 2: an HR manager being brought down to is quite funny
47:11
Speaker 2: as well, but seriously, don't do it in public. For
47:15
Speaker 2: goodness sake. Coldplay now is actually taking the time to
47:18
Speaker 2: warn people if you're having an affair look away.
47:20
Speaker 1: Now we'd like to say hello to some of you
47:23
Speaker 1: in the crown.
47:31
Speaker 6: How are we going to do that is we're going
47:33
Speaker 6: to use our cameras and put some of you on
47:36
Speaker 6: the big screen.
47:43
Speaker 2: Fair warning. Marriage has saved, I suppose. But gee, it's
47:46
Speaker 2: turned up some great stuff online, isn't it.
47:48
Speaker 4: Oh, it has been absolutely epic. A bunch of businesses
47:52
Speaker 4: are jumping on the train and I think that's been
47:54
Speaker 4: the best part of this whole saga. Terrible for them
47:56
Speaker 4: and their families, but great for the memes. Test tweeted
48:01
Speaker 4: posting a pick of you enjoying your loaner Tesla while
48:04
Speaker 4: your own wine is in service is the equivalent of
48:07
Speaker 4: taking it to a Coldplay concert. Your car will know.
48:11
Speaker 2: I Kia had this one of a couple of their toys.
48:15
Speaker 2: HR approved, thanks the thing. I mean, I don't know
48:19
Speaker 2: they've both been punted now, but how do you do it?
48:21
Speaker 2: I mean, when the HR manager says it's okay, this is.
48:24
Speaker 5: What I don't know, who do you report it to?
48:26
Speaker 5: This is the problem. My boss is having an affair.
48:29
Speaker 1: Ma'm the boy. And this is Jonpain on Twitter says.
48:33
Speaker 6: This is how you should go to concerts if you've
48:35
Speaker 6: called in sick or you're cheating on your partners.
48:37
Speaker 2: By the way, I love that.
48:39
Speaker 4: And Lego also posted my first affair with leg You know,
48:46
Speaker 4: just just.
48:47
Speaker 5: Keep your hands off each other and you can use
48:49
Speaker 5: that Lego set to put your marriage back together.
48:51
Speaker 2: Oh well done. Something tells me she'll take half a
48:54
Speaker 2: billion dollars ever put the marriage back together. This one,
48:57
Speaker 2: of course, the camera guys, Indy Barren see it was
49:02
Speaker 2: John best work he's ever done.
49:03
Speaker 6: Probably, yeah.
49:04
Speaker 1: I think he's very excited about that.
49:05
Speaker 5: And I think if the HR manager sees that Leo
49:08
Speaker 5: DiCaprio is operating the camera, he might have a c
49:10
Speaker 5: oh no, sorry, she's over the age of twenty one.
49:12
Speaker 2: So the best one, the best one though, This one
49:15
Speaker 2: here Anthony Albanezi and Jijingping Cuddenly. I think that's actually
49:20
Speaker 2: the scene when he was raving about that to cover
49:22
Speaker 2: Bandy Winter see when he was Anyway, that's it from
49:27
Speaker 2: us today. Thanks for watching Up Next to Rid Pat Show,
49:29
Speaker 2: goodbart