Speaker 1: Welcome to the late base.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond.
Speaker 2: Coming up.
Speaker 3: A British public servant who left top secret documents at
Speaker 3: a bus stop is appointed to help review British defenses.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus, when we look at the papers, scyrotting skyrocketing compensation
Speaker 3: claims for teachers having been assaulted by students, and the
Speaker 3: Defense Force saves almost half a billion dollars by getting
Speaker 3: rid of consultants.
Speaker 2: Can you believe it.
Speaker 3: We'll get to that when we look at the papers
Speaker 3: a little later. But first, falling fertility rates are a
Speaker 3: problem right around the western world, but particularly in Tasmania.
Speaker 3: As the old adage goes, demography is destiny. And if
Speaker 3: that holds true, well Tasmania doesn't have much of a
Speaker 3: future unless couples start having children.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: To maintain a population, they say, you've got to have
Speaker 3: a fertility eight of two point one children for every
Speaker 3: child bearing woman. But have a look at what's happening
Speaker 3: in Tasmania, where the Hobart Mercury reports that there could
Speaker 3: be severe consequences because of the low birth rate. The
Speaker 3: demographer doctor Lisa Denny is quoted saying that she used
Speaker 3: population data from the Australian Bureau Statistics to calculate trends
Speaker 3: in the total fertility rate in Tasmania, finding it's plummeted
Speaker 3: from one point six to eight children per woman in
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen to one point four to nine in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. It was back in two thousand and six
Speaker 3: that the state last had a fertility rate that was
Speaker 3: the equivalent to maintaining the population now. She does go
Speaker 3: on to say that there are unique circumstances in Tasmania
Speaker 3: that are contributing that. She says our fertility rate has
Speaker 3: dropped considerably because a much larger proportion of our child
Speaker 3: bearing population is made up of temporary migrants compared with
Speaker 3: the rest of the country. And the women of rep
Speaker 3: deductive age that leave Tasmania aren't temporary migrants, so they're
Speaker 3: taking their future.
Speaker 2: Children with them.
Speaker 3: But the fertility rate in Tasmania, well it's one point four,
Speaker 3: is only one point seven nationally, So this is not
Speaker 3: just a Tasmania problem. It's Australia wide, and indeed it's
Speaker 3: a problem right around the Western world. Lives our politicians
Speaker 3: love to talk about sustainability. Ah, but if you're not
Speaker 3: having children, well nothing is sustainable.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, And this is a massive problem, not just Australia wide,
Speaker 4: but literally throughout the Western world. And it's really hard
Speaker 4: not to lean into the plagued with problems the great
Speaker 4: replacement theory when you notice that every single one of
Speaker 4: these Western governments is doing absolutely nothing about it.
Speaker 5: They don't care.
Speaker 4: We'll just plug the gap with more and more and
Speaker 4: more immigration.
Speaker 5: I mean, there's so much governments can.
Speaker 4: Do to make it more affordable for families to have families,
Speaker 4: and they're doing absolutely nothing. There are small countries like
Speaker 4: Hungry massive tax breaks for families who choose to have children,
Speaker 4: and the more children you have, the more tax breaks
Speaker 4: you get, subsidized mortgages like these guys have stacked up
Speaker 4: incentives because they care about their culture and they want
Speaker 4: to keep Hungry hungry. But then you look at the
Speaker 4: societal issues that surround this. Little boys and girls aren't
Speaker 4: taught to aspire to having a family one day.
Speaker 5: They used to. Generation's gone past.
Speaker 4: You ask any little boy or girl that was their
Speaker 4: game plan. These days, you ask any little boy or girl,
Speaker 4: and our poor kids are just stuck there going, well,
Speaker 4: you just told me that just because I have a
Speaker 4: penis doesn't even mean I'm a boy. I'm a little
Speaker 4: bit concerned with that right now. I've got other things
Speaker 4: on my mind. Marriage is no longer held up as
Speaker 4: this societal good that all the stats bear out that
Speaker 4: it is women aren't meeting men who want to settle
Speaker 4: down and have a family, and vice versa.
Speaker 5: I'm not paying out on the men here.
Speaker 4: The war on the nuclear family is multifaceted.
Speaker 5: In today's day and age.
Speaker 4: We no longer have governments or even institutions that uphold
Speaker 4: the sanctity of the family and how this is something
Speaker 4: awesome and to be aspired to.
Speaker 5: And then we've got anxiety and depression.
Speaker 4: Never been worse, loneliness never been worse in today's society,
Speaker 4: and people who aren't doing okay are less likely to
Speaker 4: meet each meet each other rather couple up and create
Speaker 4: a family of their own. But again, governments seem to
Speaker 4: be doing absolutely nothing about it, and that is what
Speaker 4: is concerning. I mean, you've got we were talking about
Speaker 4: a Japanese at the other day that the government was
Speaker 4: getting behind this and being like ladies, gents, you want
Speaker 4: a dating app where we vet the people and make
Speaker 4: sure that they not lying about their income and how
Speaker 4: eligible they are. We're taking up your cause for you
Speaker 4: because Japan is incredibly Some would say racist.
Speaker 5: I just say based, because that.
Speaker 4: Is another country who we want to keep Japan Japanese and.
Speaker 5: We're going to do what it takes in.
Speaker 4: Today's demographics to make that happen. Western governments, No, I'm
Speaker 4: not seeing it happen.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I want a government chosen partner.
Speaker 6: Though.
Speaker 1: Chinese they're well, I think.
Speaker 6: Look, I mean, can you imagine Anthony Albanezi playing Cuba
Speaker 6: for you?
Speaker 1: Good heavens, I don't know that I'd want to get
Speaker 1: in on that. I think.
Speaker 6: I think what this probably proves is that Tasmania needs
Speaker 6: to invest in groundbreaking.
Speaker 1: Surgery, because of course all those two.
Speaker 6: Headed Tasmanians now need to be split into two individual
Speaker 6: people in order to fix the population crisis. It's a joke,
Speaker 6: don't writing. You know, it's as old as time. But
Speaker 6: Tasmania is a microcosm here of what the rest of
Speaker 6: Australia is experiencing. Because what you've had in Tasmania is
Speaker 6: particularly during COVID, when people worked out that they could
Speaker 6: work from home. They went, well, geez, I don't have
Speaker 6: to live in Melbourne or Sydney or whatever anymore. Hobart
Speaker 6: sounds quite nice. So a lot of people who've either
Speaker 6: had kids and have some disposable income all moved down
Speaker 6: to Hobart. You know, they fly up once a month
Speaker 6: or something to go to a meeting, but they now
Speaker 6: live down there and work remotely. Consequently, the housing prices
Speaker 6: in Tasmania went through the roof because all these yuppies
Speaker 6: came in and took over the joints.
Speaker 1: Of course, that drives people out.
Speaker 6: People who are seeking more work opportunities are clearly leaving Tasmania,
Speaker 6: and that's what the researcher is talking about. The women
Speaker 6: of childbearing age are leaving Tasmania and going elsewhere. Presumably
Speaker 6: they're going to the mainland.
Speaker 1: So they have to plug these holes.
Speaker 6: Some probably to find it maybe, but largely the way
Speaker 6: they're plugging the holes is with temporary migrants because of
Speaker 6: because if you are a potential permanent margrant again, you
Speaker 6: come to Australia and you want to go to Melbourne
Speaker 6: or Sydney because that's where to the jobs are so
Speaker 6: they're just pumping in people, filling holes, plugging holes for
Speaker 6: now until they leave, and then they bring more in
Speaker 6: to plug the holes. And you think, well, that's bad
Speaker 6: for Tazzy right now because they're a small little state,
Speaker 6: But it's not long before that becomes the rest of
Speaker 6: Australia and it becomes the rest of the Western world.
Speaker 6: You can only bring in so many permanent migrants before
Speaker 6: there are all the other holes that you then have
Speaker 6: to fill in with temporary ones, and on and on
Speaker 6: it goes forever.
Speaker 2: What amazes me about this issue is that the.
Speaker 3: Left aren't more passionate about doing something to get the
Speaker 3: fertility rate up, because if you're importing your population, you're
Speaker 3: importing them from countries where they have a high fertility rate,
Speaker 3: and they are typically Islamic countries. So the more Muslim
Speaker 3: a country becomes, the less like it used to be.
Speaker 3: So if you care about abortion, you care about gay rights,
Speaker 3: you care about feminism, then you want to make sure
Speaker 3: that your country is producing its own people rather than
Speaker 3: importing people with diat.
Speaker 5: Watch the West exactly care they like.
Speaker 1: And give him way too much credit.
Speaker 2: You're trying to give them a hint.
Speaker 1: And if There's one.
Speaker 6: Thing we know is that they have no regard for
Speaker 6: human life whatsoever. In fact, they prefer there were fewer
Speaker 6: humans on the face of the earth because of course
Speaker 6: climate change.
Speaker 1: Us humans, we're destroying the joint.
Speaker 6: That's why they want a lower population. That's why they're
Speaker 6: not worried about the fertility rate. And it's also why
Speaker 6: they want you to be eaten by a shark. No,
Speaker 6: I'm not joking. It is a discussion that comes up
Speaker 6: every single year.
Speaker 1: But it's weird.
Speaker 6: It's ugly head again, this hoary old chestnut. Thanks to
Speaker 6: the Guardian stoking the coals of this fire. Though there
Speaker 6: wouldn't be much far underwater. It has to be said
Speaker 6: that we should get rid of shark nets in New
Speaker 6: South Wales. They write up today that in an eight
Speaker 6: month period covering twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four,
Speaker 6: there we'll wait for it, one hundred and thirty four
Speaker 6: animals killed by shark nets.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about all the people who.
Speaker 6: Might have been so by sharks that otherwise would have
Speaker 6: come on to beaches. No, we have to treat marine
Speaker 6: life as though it is more important than human life.
Speaker 6: We know that they think everyone else's life is more
Speaker 6: important than ours. Shark scientist who is part of the
Speaker 6: Australian Marine Conservation Society was quoted by the Guardian today
Speaker 6: saying the government literally has solutions in their hands.
Speaker 1: They're called shaknits.
Speaker 6: Technologies such as drone surveillance, personal shark deterance, and they're
Speaker 6: leading sharks Smart education program improving safety without harming marine life,
Speaker 6: as though that means we shouldn't take every precautionary measure possible,
Speaker 6: including sharknecks, even if it means we lose a few
Speaker 6: marine animals along the way. New South Wales Animal Justice
Speaker 6: Party MP Emma Hurst, of course she doesn't like it.
Speaker 6: She says, we know they don't work, we know that
Speaker 6: sharks can swim under them or around them, but when
Speaker 6: did you last hear of someone being attacked on a
Speaker 6: New South Wales beach that is protected by sharknts.
Speaker 1: I mean, for goodness sake.
Speaker 6: What it comes down to, basically is that they believe
Speaker 6: that the water is the shark's domain and if you
Speaker 6: go into the water, you are going into their home
Speaker 6: and you deserve to be eaten if you get attacked.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. We rose to the top of the tree.
Speaker 6: We are the apex predator, and if we want to
Speaker 6: go in the water, we should have every bloody right
Speaker 6: to do so. And I don't care how many marine
Speaker 6: animals you kill along the way so I can go
Speaker 6: for a swimp.
Speaker 3: But it's not that many marine animals that are being killed.
Speaker 3: 're in thirty four yeah, and ten percent of those
Speaker 3: that were caught were sharks. So what's that ten percent
Speaker 3: of one hundred and thirty four cents thirteen fourteen sharks
Speaker 3: are caught for one hundred and thirty four turtles, dolphins.
Speaker 2: Whatever, dougons, it's not that many.
Speaker 3: As for the claim that you know, we've already got
Speaker 3: technology in place, well, I'd be using absolutely everything at
Speaker 3: our disposal. And I'm gonna ask what is sharks smart?
Speaker 3: Is that a program for sharks.
Speaker 2: Where they kick them?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: People are people, not food.
Speaker 3: And what about this claim that, well, you know, sharks
Speaker 3: can swim around shark nets or under them, Well so
Speaker 3: con turtles, so good dolphins.
Speaker 6: But that's like saying that, Okay, I have a fence
Speaker 6: on the front of my property to deter people from
Speaker 6: breaking into my property. People can scale fences, Therefore they
Speaker 6: should be no fences anywhere, ever, because people can get
Speaker 6: over the top of them.
Speaker 1: You don't say that. You said, well, I'm going to.
Speaker 6: Put the fence in. If someone manages to scale it,
Speaker 6: we'll deal with that problem when we come to it.
Speaker 6: It's a deterrent.
Speaker 4: So she's saying, why don't we just use drone surveillance,
Speaker 4: personal shark deterrence and this education program that you mentioned, Mac,
Speaker 4: How much does that cost if we're going to do
Speaker 4: a cost benefit analysis here? I bet the nets stay
Speaker 4: the amount of crack pots because I encountered some of
Speaker 4: these when I was doing my master's degree in human rights. Right,
Speaker 4: and these people who are all about animal rights, even
Speaker 4: plant rights. Yes, those people actually exist. They they genuinely
Speaker 4: considered them just as important and considered you a speciest
Speaker 4: if you dared to say something as simple as human
Speaker 4: life is more valuable than any kind of animal life
Speaker 4: in this case marine life. USA and Australia are the
Speaker 4: most shark infested countries in the world on the known planet,
Speaker 4: And here we are quibbling about saving some I'm happy
Speaker 4: to call chuck it in some batter, sell it for cheap,
Speaker 4: like if that's what they're worried.
Speaker 5: About like we're killing them and they're going to waste. Fine,
Speaker 5: we'll eat them.
Speaker 4: We'll eat them all, chuck them in a freezer and
Speaker 4: we'll get round to it. Like the fact that they
Speaker 4: genuinely consider these lives, these barocious lives above and beyond
Speaker 4: families going to the beach and having the peace of
Speaker 4: mind to let their kids play.
Speaker 5: In the surf. Is no reasoner will rashable person is
Speaker 5: going to go with that kind of idiocy.
Speaker 3: It sometime between you now, I just wondered how you
Speaker 3: were to finish that sentence. I think you were wondering
Speaker 3: how you're gonna finish that. At some point between now
Speaker 3: and some of there will be in s l M
Speaker 3: march through the streets of Melbourne shark lives. Remember, but
Speaker 3: one of the arguments that this animal rights activists put
Speaker 3: up was she said the problem with shark nets is
Speaker 3: they create a false sense of security for beach goers.
Speaker 3: Could use that about no sense about thrones provide a
Speaker 3: false sense of security, or shark education provides a false
Speaker 3: sense of Yah, it's.
Speaker 4: Just the lifeguard scurity.
Speaker 6: People seriously think that if the sharks worked out how
Speaker 6: to get out of the water and walk on land
Speaker 6: as the fish did many years ago. Imagine if the
Speaker 6: sharks could walk out onto the beaches, do you reckon?
Speaker 6: They would spare a single human being in their way
Speaker 6: if they decided they wanted to colonize the land. No,
Speaker 6: you'd be dead in a second's flight. The shark does
Speaker 6: not care about your life, So why should I care
Speaker 6: about the shark's life. I want to go for a
Speaker 6: swim in the water. I'm a human being. I'm at
Speaker 6: the top of the tree. The shark's got to pay
Speaker 6: the price for that.
Speaker 4: As far as actually, don't even imagine you at the beach.
Speaker 6: Well, I do prefer to sort of sit by the
Speaker 6: beach with a beer. I'm not a particular fan of
Speaker 6: hot sand, but I'll take a walk along the beach
Speaker 6: of a nice barmi evening.
Speaker 4: But you know I was going to say, I can't
Speaker 4: petue you frolicking in the sand.
Speaker 6: Well look, look, I may have many years ago been
Speaker 6: seen on a boogie board paddling along at the beach, but.
Speaker 5: It didn't happen Kalb photos or it didn't.
Speaker 4: Happen to Germany now, where two podcasts podcasters rather have
Speaker 4: been ordered to delete their podcast for calling a biological man,
Speaker 4: a biological man, a transgender woman. They have referred to
Speaker 4: as he him and said that he is ind.
Speaker 5: A biological man.
Speaker 4: And for this crime they have not only been told
Speaker 4: to delete the podcast, and they have indeed begged all
Speaker 4: their followers to delete any comments that they made relating
Speaker 4: to it, or any shares that they made relating to it.
Speaker 4: These guys are now facing potentially prison time or a
Speaker 4: finer up to two hundred and fifty thousand euros.
Speaker 5: That's a lot of money.
Speaker 4: We're talking over four hundred thousand dollars in Australian dollars,
Speaker 4: so a lot of money. If they do it again,
Speaker 4: they could be looking at two years in jail, and
Speaker 4: if they failed to pay that fine, prison for six months.
Speaker 5: The court dropped everything it.
Speaker 4: Was doing to exercise a great deal of emergency about
Speaker 4: them doing so. It's as if referring to a biological
Speaker 4: man these days is indeed a crime if that man
Speaker 4: insists that he is no longer a man. This particular fellow,
Speaker 4: who's now known as Laura Holstein, was known as Nicholas,
Speaker 4: has made headlines over the past few months demanding access
Speaker 4: to female spaces. First, it was the women's football league,
Speaker 4: which he did gain access to. He was given a
Speaker 4: special showering roster because the women did not want to
Speaker 4: share changing rooms with him.
Speaker 5: He has been.
Speaker 4: Accused of not abiding by that roster, and now he's
Speaker 4: turned his attention to a woman's gym, demanding.
Speaker 5: Access to it.
Speaker 4: Also, this is what the podcast has covered, and this
Speaker 4: is what they got into trouble for.
Speaker 5: One of the.
Speaker 4: Podcasters says, our podcast Hotsenhoff was censored.
Speaker 5: Welcome to Germany. Our podcast episode about.
Speaker 4: The legal drama of a person who was born biologically
Speaker 4: male but wanted to go to a women's gym with
Speaker 4: the support of the independent Federal Commissioner for Anti Discrimination
Speaker 4: is now offline. He writes, the questions that arise are
Speaker 4: as explosive as they are uncomfortable. How should a society
Speaker 4: function in which biological realities and legal fictions come into
Speaker 4: such a blatant contradiction. What if someone who appears to
Speaker 4: be clearly male, like Laura, is considered a woman by
Speaker 4: legal decree and thus gains access to spaces that were
Speaker 4: traditionally reserved for women.
Speaker 5: So there you have it.
Speaker 4: He already successfully sued the gym.
Speaker 5: The lady who prohibited him from.
Speaker 4: Coming to the women's only. Jim had to cough up
Speaker 4: one thousand euros. Then she heard from Laura's lawyers demanding
Speaker 4: a further two and a half thousand euros, which begs
Speaker 4: the question, can any trans woman now just make this
Speaker 4: into a money making scheme.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So to be specific, these podcasters were threatened with
Speaker 3: a four hundred thousand Australian dollar fine. And this is
Speaker 3: specifically what they said. They referred to this person as quote,
Speaker 3: a man who feels he's in the wrong bloe. I'm
Speaker 3: allowed to say that, and they pointed out the quote
Speaker 3: unquote he still has a dick. And so for those comments,
Speaker 3: they've been threatened with imprisonment. And the judgment said that
Speaker 3: the person concerns personal rights were violated by referring to
Speaker 3: him as a man, because legally and socially he's recognized
Speaker 3: as a woman. Now we're going to have these problems
Speaker 3: in Australia very soon.
Speaker 1: Well we do.
Speaker 3: We just had a case, didn't we be in Queensland.
Speaker 3: Now you can change your birth certificate in Western Australia.
Speaker 3: You're about to be able to in Victoria you can.
Speaker 3: There's a bill currently before the New South Wales Parliament.
Speaker 3: So you've got a situation where legally a person is
Speaker 3: a woman. So then according to the law, if you
Speaker 3: call them anything but a woman, you are in breach
Speaker 3: of speech laws. But the law itself now violates your
Speaker 3: conscience because it forces you to say things that not
Speaker 3: only that you don't believe them, it forces you to
Speaker 3: say things that you know.
Speaker 2: To be untrue. So my question is, and.
Speaker 3: Again I'm going to be naive here, Caleb, where's Amnesty International?
Speaker 3: I see them collecting money at every shopping center I
Speaker 3: go to, and I just wonder, where are you, guys?
Speaker 3: When people's consciences are being violated by government laws such
Speaker 3: as this, Amnesty International and all of those groups that
Speaker 3: are really worried about rights never seem to show up
Speaker 3: for the rights of ordinary citizens having their consciences violated
Speaker 3: by government.
Speaker 6: Because they've decided they're more interested in transgender rights. And
Speaker 6: as you pointed out, this was basically the premise of
Speaker 6: the judgment that was made in the Giggle versus Tickle
Speaker 6: case Giggle being a female only social media at Tickle
Speaker 6: being a biological male who is now legally decreed to
Speaker 6: be a woman who wanted access to the app was
Speaker 6: denied access and then the court rule that that was discrimination.
Speaker 6: It is proof of how far gone we are that
Speaker 6: you can no longer in certain parts of the world,
Speaker 6: and I mean this is Germany. But don't think that
Speaker 6: this won't come to us, particularly once Labor gets its
Speaker 6: misinformation Disinformation bill up, which will go after like this.
Speaker 6: You know, the consequences may be different in terms of
Speaker 6: what can be put upon you, probably not jail time,
Speaker 6: but potentially finds and being hounded by AKMA for posting
Speaker 6: something online as a user on social media saying that
Speaker 6: someone is a biological male when they are a biological
Speaker 6: male but now according to their birth certificate they are
Speaker 6: a woman. The fact that in certain parts of the
Speaker 6: world you cannot skate facts anymore without being prosecuted for
Speaker 6: doing so because it is a form of discrimination supposedly
Speaker 6: is outrageous, and it starts with transgender people and then
Speaker 6: it becomes everything else. This is the vanguard that allows
Speaker 6: the left to completely control the narrative and decide what
Speaker 6: is and isn't true, regardless of how true it is
Speaker 6: or is not. And the whole point of this case,
Speaker 6: it's not about the podcasters.
Speaker 1: The idea is to go after two people who.
Speaker 6: Have a popular pod cast to send a message to
Speaker 6: the rest of the population, yes, that if you dare
Speaker 6: to even say things like this at the dinner table,
Speaker 6: or in your workplace, or to your friends on the weekend,
Speaker 6: that we will come for you too. These are simply
Speaker 6: the ones taking the fall. It's ultimately about telling people no,
Speaker 6: you can't even think that anymore, and that is chilling.
Speaker 3: We famously had a antidiscrimination commissioner in this country a
Speaker 3: few years ago. I forget the lady's name. If it
Speaker 3: comes to me, old Gillian Triggs.
Speaker 2: I think I can't be sure. I don't want to
Speaker 2: miss quotes.
Speaker 1: It was running the Human Rights Commission.
Speaker 3: But was it her or someone else who famously said,
Speaker 3: as a joke, but it's a pity that people are
Speaker 3: still allowed to say what they want around the kitchen table.
Speaker 1: I believe it was Julius.
Speaker 3: The Jillian Trigs, and it was said in jest, but
Speaker 3: often a word in jest, Liz is to.
Speaker 5: Every joke there is an element of truth.
Speaker 3: And for people in positions of power to be lamenting
Speaker 3: the fact that you know what, we're just about controlled
Speaker 3: all speech, it's just a pity we can't get our
Speaker 3: hands on the kitchen table.
Speaker 2: It's quite chilling, and well, this.
Speaker 5: Is compelled speech.
Speaker 4: So the kitchen table is pretty much the only sacred
Speaker 4: place left people speaking in hush tones.
Speaker 5: Truthfully, nowadays, when you.
Speaker 4: Even meet someone who is brave enough to talk in
Speaker 4: black and white terms about not just this, but many
Speaker 4: other issues, it is so refreshing, which is why we
Speaker 4: have to keep it up, because that is what they
Speaker 4: do not want to have happen. Because if you're saying it,
Speaker 4: and I'm saying it, everyone within earshot feels emboldened to
Speaker 4: say trans women aren't women or insert issue.
Speaker 5: This is compelled speech.
Speaker 4: And I don't care what laws they make in this country,
Speaker 4: I will not be abiding by them because you cannot
Speaker 4: do that. And with every single one of these, particularly
Speaker 4: LGBTQ laws that are made, they disproportionately affect religious people,
Speaker 4: whether you're Christian, whether you're Catholic, whether you're Muslim. There's
Speaker 4: millions of us in this country and billions of us
Speaker 4: across the West.
Speaker 5: We're not going away.
Speaker 4: We're not gone down without a fight, and you will
Speaker 4: never brainwash us enough or fine us enough for us
Speaker 4: to turn our backs on pure biological reality, like God
Speaker 4: made man and woman. That was It wasn't a long list,
Speaker 4: was really short, is still very short.
Speaker 3: End of remember mate from America having coffee about ten
Speaker 3: years ago, we're seeing a cafe and we're just talking
Speaker 3: about the state of the world, and he says, with
Speaker 3: it in a country with free speech, where you can
Speaker 3: say what you want, right, And I said yeah, And
Speaker 3: he said, but if you noticed, for the last ten
Speaker 3: minutes since we've been discussing AB and C, both of
Speaker 3: us have been leaning forward and we've lowered our tone.
Speaker 2: So no one around us here is I thought, oh,
Speaker 2: you're right.
Speaker 3: Of course, Elon Musk is warning that this is only
Speaker 3: going to get worse, and a lot worse if Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris wins the next election. In fact, he tweeted today
Speaker 3: freedom of speech is under massive attack around the world,
Speaker 3: and he's absolutely right. We've had the boss of Telegram
Speaker 3: arrested in France, being accused of not doing enough to
Speaker 3: go after people using his social media platform for nefarious purposes.
Speaker 2: We've got the CEO of.
Speaker 3: Rumble who's fled Europe fearing he will be arrest for
Speaker 3: his video platform. Mark Zuckerberg has just admitted that he
Speaker 3: was pressured by the Biden Harris administration and the FBI
Speaker 3: to censor people over COVID comments and to suppress information
Speaker 3: about Hunter Biden's laptop. And now Brazil have banned Twitter
Speaker 3: or X from being accessed there, threatening people with eight
Speaker 3: thousand dollars fines per day if they use a VPN
Speaker 3: to access the platform. And here's Kamala Harris just to
Speaker 3: make the point, lamenting the fact that Elon Musk is
Speaker 3: still allowed to operate X.
Speaker 7: He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.
Speaker 8: And the bottom line is that you can't say that
Speaker 8: you have one rule for Facebook and you have a
Speaker 8: different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply,
Speaker 8: which is that there has to be a responsibility that
Speaker 8: is placed on these social media sites to understand their power.
Speaker 8: They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people
Speaker 8: without any level of oversight or regulation.
Speaker 3: Help unpack this to me, Liz, Elon Musk has lost
Speaker 3: his privileges, and his privilege is to give Liz James
Speaker 3: Caleb in every Tom Dick and Harry out there the
Speaker 3: ability to just say what they think.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I love it when government give me rights
Speaker 4: that I was born with. Thanks for that, you're so magnanimous.
Speaker 4: What you really meant to say, there was censorship.
Speaker 5: They're just allowed to say whatever they.
Speaker 4: Want, like free people freely exchanging information for free.
Speaker 5: We can't have that.
Speaker 4: It's so dangerous, of course, because if you can't control
Speaker 4: the narrative, can't control the people, and anyone encouraging critical thinking,
Speaker 4: well they're extremely dangerous because there's a lot to criticize
Speaker 4: when it comes to government. So what she meant to say,
Speaker 4: there was censorship. They're just able to say whatever they
Speaker 4: want without any supervisory role over them, Like adults can't
Speaker 4: just decide for themselves what's bs and what we choose
Speaker 4: to believe in. No, no, we've got a sensor at all.
Speaker 4: There's no one censoring it. This is out of control.
Speaker 4: And the trouble is a lot of people in the
Speaker 4: free world are actually gobbling this up because they've done
Speaker 4: such a good job.
Speaker 5: Of saying this is about safety.
Speaker 4: Look what happened with COVID and people like Trump telling
Speaker 4: people to drink bleach. He never said that, by the way,
Speaker 4: but didn't they run with it. We can't have people
Speaker 4: proliferating these dangerous kind of concepts. They always do it
Speaker 4: in the name of safety, and they're doing it again
Speaker 4: with Elon. Meanwhile, well, every single tweet that guy drops
Speaker 4: is absolutely based and that's why they're worried about him,
Speaker 4: because he's taking them on country after country.
Speaker 5: X has just been banned in Brazil because it refused
Speaker 5: to shut.
Speaker 4: Down all the accounts of the opposing the opposition in
Speaker 4: governments and the dodgy things that are happening in this space.
Speaker 4: You mentioned the Rumble guy, that's where everyone who's been
Speaker 4: booted off YouTube goes. You mentioned Telegram also, that guy's
Speaker 4: still just rotting away in a French prison. Nobody really
Speaker 4: knows what is going on. It's been over a week now,
Speaker 4: and their only crime is defending free speech and refusing
Speaker 4: to censor people on their platforms. These are the three
Speaker 4: remaining platforms in the world where you can actually express yourself.
Speaker 6: And Kamala Harris is up to old tricks here and
Speaker 6: this is the real concern, right because of course she's
Speaker 6: not said at any point that you know, I'm actually
Speaker 6: going to go online and then banned Donald Trump from
Speaker 6: being on Twitter, but she has previously previously suggested sorry
Speaker 6: that Twitter now X should remove Donald Trump from its platform.
Speaker 1: That did eventually happen.
Speaker 6: Of course, he was reinstated after Elon Muster took over
Speaker 6: and has recently started using the platform again. But here
Speaker 6: is a reminder of Kamala Harris saying Trump should be
Speaker 6: banished when he was president.
Speaker 9: Mind you, I know you wrote to Twitter and the CEO,
Speaker 9: Jack Dorsey and asked him to take away the president's
Speaker 9: Twitter handle his account. How is that not a violation
Speaker 9: of free speech? I mean, the president has the same
Speaker 9: rights that you have that I have, And how would
Speaker 9: that not just be a slippery slope?
Speaker 7: K I've heard that argument. But here's the thing, Jake.
Speaker 7: First of all, a corporation, which is what Twitter is,
Speaker 7: it does not have the has obligations. And in this case,
Speaker 7: Twitter has terms of use policy, and there are terms
Speaker 7: of use dictate who receives the privilege of speaking on
Speaker 7: that platform and who does not. And Donald Trump has
Speaker 7: clearly violated the terms of use and there should be
Speaker 7: a consequence for that.
Speaker 6: And it's all good and well when it's the platform's
Speaker 6: terms of use, but what about when it becomes the
Speaker 6: government's terms of use? And Western governments, particularly left leaning
Speaker 6: Western governments, now, as we just talked about in Germany,
Speaker 6: all over the shop, trying to control people's speech and
Speaker 6: decide what is and isn't real. And as I said before,
Speaker 6: misinformation disinformation laws here in Australia. So why would you
Speaker 6: not believe if that is Camala's attitude towards Donald Trump
Speaker 6: back then when he was president, that should she win
Speaker 6: in November, she would then not take the opportunity as
Speaker 6: president to have to extend those sort of restrictions in.
Speaker 1: A legal way.
Speaker 3: And that's why the lack of curiosity about Mark Zuckerberg's
Speaker 3: letter the other week, where you've got the Biden Harris
Speaker 3: administration and now Harris is running for president of the
Speaker 3: US pressured Facebook to suppress people's posts, to suppress news
Speaker 3: about Hunter Biden, And so good on Mark Zuckerberg for saying, look,
Speaker 3: in retrospect, we shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 5: No way, you were just getting out ahead of a
Speaker 5: with baby. Let me no credit, let me finish the
Speaker 5: thirddit for that man.
Speaker 3: Shouldn't we get specifics like shouldn't the public be demanding, well,
Speaker 3: who pressured whom? When, which posts did they suppress? What
Speaker 3: threats did they make? In a couple of months time.
Speaker 3: This lady could be the leader of the free world
Speaker 3: if she's involved in things like this or her administration.
Speaker 2: We should know all the details, not just.
Speaker 3: Have an a four letter from Mark Zuckerberg saying it happened,
Speaker 3: it won't happen again.
Speaker 4: Move on, Yeah, and why should we believe you while
Speaker 4: you're admitting in the.
Speaker 5: Same breath you did it.
Speaker 4: You censor people in order to manipulate them. Who knows
Speaker 4: how the last election would have gone in the States
Speaker 4: were it not for a certain administration giving marching orders
Speaker 4: to the biggest social media platform in the world, and
Speaker 4: that social media platforming saying yes, actually we will censor it.
Speaker 5: Nobody's really going to hear the true story of.
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden and that came from the government.
Speaker 5: You quite right. Here in Australia, we had over.
Speaker 4: Four thousand posts censored by our government during the pandemic.
Speaker 4: And again, like U Saimak, such a lack of curiosity.
Speaker 4: Where is the outcry, especially after it was shown. Chris
Speaker 4: Kenny wrote an amazing article on this, especially after it
Speaker 4: was showed the vast majority of those posts were factual. Now,
Speaker 4: in hindsight, they were perfectly reasonable factual statements.
Speaker 3: There was more interest in Raygun's Olympic performance, yes, than
Speaker 3: in Australians being.
Speaker 5: Censored on the state of US.
Speaker 1: Now, I'll tell.
Speaker 6: You what though, if this does happen in the US
Speaker 6: and Kamala decides she's going to censor everything, maybe she
Speaker 6: should put Nancy Pelosi in charge of running that operation,
Speaker 6: because we know how on the ball she is, so
Speaker 6: on the ball that she actually lets slip. Talking to
Speaker 6: talk show host Bill Maher, that the whole idea of
Speaker 6: all these illegal immigrants coming into the country, undocumented migrants
Speaker 6: in the US, is that they should eventually become documented margrants.
Speaker 6: And of course, once they become documented margarants, there's a
Speaker 6: road forward to citizenship and then ultimately a road forward
Speaker 6: to voting.
Speaker 1: And who are you going to vote for except the.
Speaker 6: Party that allowed you to illegally pour over the border
Speaker 6: and then eventually become a citizen. She was talking to
Speaker 6: Bill Maher or Bill Maher was questioning her about a
Speaker 6: scheme in California, her home state, called the California Dream
Speaker 6: for All program.
Speaker 1: Now, this has existed for a little while.
Speaker 6: By the way, it has no money left in it
Speaker 6: because it's all been spent. But the idea is that
Speaker 6: California gives you twenty percent of the value of a
Speaker 6: house to go off and get a loan. It's the
Speaker 6: down payment for the loan that is a huge leg
Speaker 6: up for first home buyers. And it was so popular
Speaker 6: that all of the money, the millions and millions that
Speaker 6: were put into it, is now gone. But that hasn't
Speaker 6: stopped the legislature in California passing a bill that now
Speaker 6: means that money, even when it ever becomes available again,
Speaker 6: will be available to undocumented migrants. So someone who shouldn't
Speaker 6: be in the country, should not be in the US,
Speaker 6: an illegal migrant will be able to go to the
Speaker 6: government in California and get the down payment for a
Speaker 6: home to buy a house that someone else, who is
Speaker 6: a citizen who belongs in the United States has been
Speaker 6: slugging their guts out to buy.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that make a lot of sense.
Speaker 6: Well, Ma asked Pelosi about this, and this is how
Speaker 6: she responded.
Speaker 10: Immigration had always been a bipartisan issue. I refer you
Speaker 10: to that no free houses. Well, there's not free housing.
Speaker 10: It's the American dream being available to more people. I'm
Speaker 10: not familiar with exactly what it is, but making the
Speaker 10: American dream of home ownership available to all people is
Speaker 10: something we have to do for people for a year now, this.
Speaker 2: Is undocumented. This is for the undocumented.
Speaker 10: Well, what I would like to do is move them
Speaker 10: to document.
Speaker 5: It is that we can.
Speaker 10: Move one to document. One of the best things that
Speaker 10: we can do for our economy is to pass comprehensive
Speaker 10: immigration reform.
Speaker 4: Ah.
Speaker 6: Yes, she wants to make them documented. I wonder why
Speaker 6: that would be.
Speaker 1: And she wants them to be.
Speaker 6: Able to buy houses in California so they won't leave.
Speaker 6: I wonder why that might be a bit different to
Speaker 6: what she said in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 10: We need to address the issue of immigration and the
Speaker 10: challenge we have of undocumented people in our country. We
Speaker 10: certainly don't want any more coming in.
Speaker 6: We certainly don't want any more coming in until we
Speaker 6: work out that they might eventually be able to vote
Speaker 6: for I mean, how can you just sit there and go, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 6: no problem at I want people who are in my
Speaker 6: country illegally to get access to government money to buy
Speaker 6: houses that other people, genuine US citizens could otherwise.
Speaker 3: But we well that's exactly what's happening. But I like the
Speaker 3: way she reframes it. It's not about giving away free
Speaker 3: houses with taxpayer money.
Speaker 2: It's about the.
Speaker 5: American dream, American dream.
Speaker 4: It's all about how it's all about Americans.
Speaker 3: And of course, she says, right now it's out.
Speaker 5: Of reach of Americans. And now, on top of that.
Speaker 4: Their taxpayer dollar is fitting the bill for the illegals
Speaker 4: to live the American dream that they themselves cannot afford.
Speaker 4: What I love about this is Belosi finally said the
Speaker 4: quiet part out loud. Which is the reason why our
Speaker 4: administration has not only allowed, but facilitated over ten million
Speaker 4: illegals pouring over the Mexican border is because we fully
Speaker 4: intend the fully intend to make them legal and are
Speaker 4: allow them to vote, and they will, of course vote
Speaker 4: for us, because we are the administration who.
Speaker 5: Let them in.
Speaker 4: Now, Trump is the one who has promised mass deportation.
Speaker 5: Look biggest deportation program in history if he makes it
Speaker 5: to the White House.
Speaker 4: The Dems have already told you what they're going to do,
Speaker 4: and that is make these guys legal and they won't
Speaker 4: be going anywhere. Meanwhile, every major country is growning under
Speaker 4: the weight of trying to support these people.
Speaker 3: The way they talk about it always makes me laugh.
Speaker 3: This is one of the Californian congressmen. He says, undocumented
Speaker 3: individuals have historically been removed from housing initiatives because of
Speaker 3: federal restrictions. No, it's because they're not citizens and so
Speaker 3: they don't have the right to house and going to
Speaker 3: go back to where they came from and come the
Speaker 3: legal way. It's all about the framing. We're going to
Speaker 3: go to a break. When we come back, we'll look
Speaker 3: at the papers, including skyrocketing compensation claims for school teachers
Speaker 3: as solved it by students.
Speaker 2: That's in tomorrow's papers. We'll talk about it in a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at the papers tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Liz, you've got the Herald Sun.
Speaker 4: Yes, I do. Check out this splash teacher trauma. More
Speaker 4: than fifty million dollars has been paid out to Victorian
Speaker 4: teachers and tertiary staff who were injured on the job
Speaker 4: in the past two years, with experts blaming the explosion
Speaker 4: of compensation claims on aggressive students and staff bullies. The
Speaker 4: article goes on to say teachers from state and private schools,
Speaker 4: as well as tertiary and TAFE educators, made one hundred
Speaker 4: and ninety nine claims in twenty twenty two and almost
Speaker 4: fifteen hundred claims last year, including for psychological stress, concussions, fractures,
Speaker 4: and even deafness. You've got to really consider how helpless
Speaker 4: these teachers must feel in today's day and age, where
Speaker 4: you cannot even touch a student, even if it's in
Speaker 4: self defense. Arguably, I think the solution is bring about
Speaker 4: corporal punishment. Back in my day, we still had the
Speaker 4: paddle and it worked really well in certain types.
Speaker 5: I mean the fact.
Speaker 4: That these teachers just have to copy it and then
Speaker 4: file for some sort of compo it's probably quite hard.
Speaker 5: To get as well.
Speaker 4: And the number of them that's over fifty million dollars
Speaker 4: paid out just over two years, that's incredible.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we know a lot of teachers are leaving the profession.
Speaker 3: And when you're being abused, and it's not just students,
Speaker 3: but you discipline a student, the next minute you've got
Speaker 3: the parents in claiming all sorts of things. It's a
Speaker 3: pretty thankless task.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean in some of these cases, one hundred
Speaker 6: and forty one one thousand dollars for psychological harm, one
Speaker 6: hundred and twenty grand for head injuries, one hundred and
Speaker 6: three grand for risk injuries.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are.
Speaker 6: Pretty big gifts that these teachers are clearly getting caught up.
Speaker 6: And you know, it's a bit like being a copper.
Speaker 6: I suppose you know, you go to work every day
Speaker 6: expecting you that you're going to come home from the job.
Speaker 6: You know that there's a level of risk, But as
Speaker 6: a teacher, you expect that you're going to be able
Speaker 6: to go to work and do your job, which is
Speaker 6: to educate children, or I suppose, in the case of TAFE,
Speaker 6: educate young adults. You don't expect that you're going to
Speaker 6: have to get into a fight or that someone's going
Speaker 6: to try to assault you.
Speaker 3: No, you're worried about getting sun burnt on playground.
Speaker 11: Judy, you're not worried about remember no play I mean,
Speaker 11: you know they're going to have to come up with Well,
Speaker 11: it's just indicative of where we are at as a
Speaker 11: society with the discipline of children that they would even
Speaker 11: feel in boldened.
Speaker 1: Enough to do that.
Speaker 6: There are a fact like, you know, if I tried
Speaker 6: that on with a teacher, even though I knew that
Speaker 6: the teacher legally wasn't going to be able to respond
Speaker 6: to do anything. I knew what was going to happen
Speaker 6: when I got home, So you just simply wouldn't do that.
Speaker 6: But I suspect a lot of these kids who do
Speaker 6: this sort of thing are so entitled and their parents
Speaker 6: are so entitled that there's nothing when they get home.
Speaker 6: In fact, they probably go, little Johnny, you should have
Speaker 6: done that to your teacher.
Speaker 1: Absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 6: Let's go to the front of the old tomorrow, where
Speaker 6: it says casualty of culture war arts should be neutral here.
Speaker 6: The former managing director of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has
Speaker 6: hit out at her sacking over the sidelining of a
Speaker 6: pianist to attack Israel's conduct in Gaza, declaring that music
Speaker 6: concerts should be safe havens for all Australians and free
Speaker 6: from political protests. Sophie Galais is her name, and she
Speaker 6: was sacked essentially because all this pressure was put on
Speaker 6: the MSO because there was a pianist who started carrying
Speaker 6: on about Gaza and she said, well, no, people have
Speaker 6: come here to listen to nice music. They haven't come
Speaker 6: here for politics. They've come here to escape from politics.
Speaker 6: And the artsy Fatsi community has responded to that by saying, well,
Speaker 6: it's time.
Speaker 1: For you to go.
Speaker 6: Good on her for taking a stand and standing up
Speaker 6: for what she believes in, and I don't mean politics,
Speaker 6: standing up for what she believes in the arts, which
Speaker 6: should be available to everyone without discrimination or prejudice, regardless
Speaker 6: of your race, your religion, your sex, your sexuality, anything right,
Speaker 6: you should be able to enjoy the arts all the time.
Speaker 6: And that's what she's tried to do and she's paid
Speaker 6: the price with her job.
Speaker 3: Well, not only was it the correct decision morally, it
Speaker 3: was the correct decision commercially and that was probably her
Speaker 3: guiding principle and foremost in her mind. Because they had
Speaker 3: an audience of only about one hundred and fifty people
Speaker 3: and the number of complaints they received about that particular
Speaker 3: performance and what was said prior to it to the audience,
Speaker 3: someone grandstanding, Well, she's just looking after the commercial interests
Speaker 3: of the business by making.
Speaker 2: Sure that people don't stay away.
Speaker 3: But the problem that the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra have got here, Liz,
Speaker 3: is they have been known for their political stances in
Speaker 3: the past. They took stances on gay marriage, they took
Speaker 3: stances on the voice. Then they chose not to take
Speaker 3: a stance on the Palestinian issue. So in a way,
Speaker 3: they've got themselves to blame that they've got into this pickle,
Speaker 3: because you can't pick and choose when you're going to
Speaker 3: be political when you're not. If you're going to have
Speaker 3: a stance where about music and that's it, then you've
Speaker 3: got to stick to it. You can't duck and weave,
Speaker 3: pick and choose, chop and change.
Speaker 5: But this one was different. This guy didn't Donner Kathie.
Speaker 4: He wasn't standing up in the middle of his performance
Speaker 4: preaching to the audience, yelling about casualties in Gaza or
Speaker 4: anything like this. He simply chose a piece of music
Speaker 4: which I dare say most people wouldn't have even known
Speaker 4: had much significance. But he he dedicated it to the
Speaker 4: journalists and the work that they're doing on the ground
Speaker 4: in Gaza. So I don't see this as one of
Speaker 4: those like we've talked in.
Speaker 2: The part, you're missing one point.
Speaker 3: He accused Israel of assassinating journalists targeted assassinations of journalists
Speaker 3: during the performance. Yes, when he introduced chee okay, accord
Speaker 3: to the article, that's what he did.
Speaker 4: That was the I've only read that he played this piece,
Speaker 4: and he dedicated to the work that they're doing.
Speaker 3: In introducing the piece, he made that point that was
Speaker 3: the offensive point that he accused Israel of targeted assassinations
Speaker 3: against journalists.
Speaker 2: This piece is in honor of journalists who have been killed.
Speaker 4: Okay, well, you're quite right in that they've taken stances
Speaker 4: in the past and then chose to turf her over
Speaker 4: this particular one and nobody knows why, including her.
Speaker 6: Yeah, look, you know, just lead that stuff out and
Speaker 6: quite right to rebuke the performer. I don't care whether
Speaker 6: they're getting up and saying they're pro Israel, anti Israel,
Speaker 6: pro pro that. I don't go along to the theater
Speaker 6: or to the opera or whatever to be lectured about politics.
Speaker 1: I'm going along for entertainment, to.
Speaker 6: Enjoy the beauty of the music or the performance that's
Speaker 6: in front of me. If I'm going to an overtly
Speaker 6: political performance, well of course that's what I expect. But
Speaker 6: I don't go along to the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra expecting
Speaker 6: someone to talk to me about politics.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you don't go to the football.
Speaker 4: For it, eiram down your throats all the time. So
Speaker 4: I do sympathize with frustrated artists no matter which side
Speaker 4: of the debate that they're on, because it's like, well,
Speaker 4: I'm trying to use my platform like certain it's plaform orchestras.
Speaker 2: It doesn't belong to you.
Speaker 4: Say the same about all the different movie stars, the
Speaker 4: sporting heroes, everyone who applies their weight behind any political cause.
Speaker 5: And everyone says, shut up, shut up, shut up. We
Speaker 5: just want to watch sport.
Speaker 2: You can use social media. You can't do that, can you.
Speaker 6: Probably you'll get social media be taken down, So you
Speaker 6: can do it in your own time, but just don't
Speaker 6: do it my performance backer off. Another story on the
Speaker 6: front of the Ears Tomorrow, Too Far ALP front.
Speaker 1: Bench is warning to Reserve Bank.
Speaker 6: A government minister has warned the Reserve Bank against going
Speaker 6: too far in its fart against inflation, despite Jim Charmers
Speaker 6: denying he was attempting to influence the decisions of the
Speaker 6: Independent Central Bank after declaring its rate hikes were smashing
Speaker 6: the economy. Well, I'll let you in on a little secret,
Speaker 6: Jim Charmers. The reason that their rate hikes are smashing
Speaker 6: the economy is in part because you keep spending money
Speaker 6: The RBA only has one lever to pull, and that
Speaker 6: is to increase interest rates, and we know that that only.
Speaker 1: Affects a certain portion of the population.
Speaker 6: But you ain't pulling your weight, buddy, So what do
Speaker 6: you expect the RBA to do? And then you have
Speaker 6: other members of the government running interference, saying, oh, it's
Speaker 6: going too far, it's going too far. But we're not criticizing,
Speaker 6: we're not rebuking the RBA whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 3: Angus Taylor's got a good line in this article. He's
Speaker 3: not really known for his zingers, but he said charmers
Speaker 3: is fighting everything except inflation, which is a pretty good point.
Speaker 2: Very quickly, let's go to the Canberra Times.
Speaker 3: This is an interesting story aps Australian public service to
Speaker 3: slash outsourcing. Sounds a little boring, but listen to the
Speaker 3: detailed Defense will cut spending on consultants and labor higher. Okay,
Speaker 3: fair enough, by nearly half a billion dollars this financial year.
Speaker 3: Now that is incredible. Commonwealth departments and agencies had been
Speaker 3: told to cut consultants who were doing core work that
Speaker 3: should be done by public servant. So the Defense Department
Speaker 3: sharpened their pencil and found four hundred and seventy one
Speaker 3: million dollars worth of work that employees should be doing
Speaker 3: that was being outsourced. Absolutely incredible fat that was allowed
Speaker 3: to exist in that department. We're going to go to
Speaker 3: a break when we come back. A UK public servant
Speaker 3: who left top secret documents at a bus stop is
Speaker 3: appointed to review defense. It's coming up in a month,
Speaker 3: all right, So here's a story for all those people
Speaker 3: have stuffed up at work and to spared. My life
Speaker 3: is over, Liz, you can make a comeback.
Speaker 5: This is going to make you feel way better.
Speaker 4: An exit servant in the UK best known for leaving
Speaker 4: top secret documents at a bus stop last June. These
Speaker 4: documents included details regarding the UK forces in Cabul, made
Speaker 4: it really easy if anyone wanted to find them. He's
Speaker 4: now been asked to join a review of.
Speaker 5: The UK's forces.
Speaker 4: The article says such sensitive intelligence is not allowed to
Speaker 4: be taken from government buildings unless properly logged out and
Speaker 4: securely stored.
Speaker 5: However, according to a source who spoke with The.
Speaker 4: Times lapsely that's his name, No pun Intended picked up
Speaker 4: the pages from the entray on his desk and took
Speaker 4: them home with him. It was the following morning when
Speaker 4: they fell out of his bag as he was rushing
Speaker 4: to work, before they were found wet and piled up
Speaker 4: at the bus stop before being dried out and handed over.
Speaker 4: Can you imagine if someone with nefarious ideas had discovered
Speaker 4: these first operations into able come to a grinding stop
Speaker 4: thanks to a blow called lap Speed.
Speaker 3: He's now been appointed to this committee to review the
Speaker 3: British defense. I guess his first point of review will
Speaker 3: be don't let people like me anywhere near defense?
Speaker 6: Like is he the one you want defending you? Like
Speaker 6: I would say if you really wanted to bugger up
Speaker 6: a war, he'd be the guy to get on side.
Speaker 6: Refeign Nation in the world should now be trying to
Speaker 6: get in Lapsley's pocket so that he can go in
Speaker 6: there and stuff up the UK Defense Force as much
Speaker 6: as possible.
Speaker 1: Because it sounds like the sort of thing he might do.
Speaker 6: They should take a leaf out of the book at
Speaker 6: the federal government here in Canberra, which is actually now
Speaker 6: getting rid of consultants. As we said before, and before
Speaker 6: we leave you tonight, I have to tell you about
Speaker 6: a crime against humanity. And this is a real crime
Speaker 6: against humanity. Tin spaghetti is one thing, but Heines has
Speaker 6: now introduced in the UK tinned spaghetti carbonara. No, I
Speaker 6: am not joking. This is a dish that can never
Speaker 6: ever be put in a can. It is a dish that,
Speaker 6: by the way, can never ever have cream in the source.
Speaker 6: And you can just imagine how the Italians have responded
Speaker 6: to this lunacy. The Italian Tourism minister, he said, Italian
Speaker 6: cuisine is a serious thing.
Speaker 1: As Alberto Sawt, he would say.
Speaker 6: In an American in Rome, I give this canned carbonara
Speaker 6: to the mouse. I wouldn't even give it to a mouse,
Speaker 6: the poor bloody mouse having to eat that poor excuse
Speaker 6: for carbonara. If you are eating that, you really need
Speaker 6: to reassess your life choices.
Speaker 1: That is discussed.
Speaker 3: I haven't had dinner. I'm going to try and find
Speaker 3: a can on the way home. That's it from us.
Speaker 3: Stick around coming up is for readA Penney show.