Speaker 1: Lately, Welcome Late Debate.
Speaker 2: Good evening, thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.
Speaker 3: James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up tonight.
Speaker 3: A new list of heritage locations includes sites.
Speaker 2: On the Moon. We'll talk about that a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus when we look at the papers, Federal court judges
Speaker 3: spending tens of thousands of your dollars on lavish lunches,
Speaker 3: and Victorian police clogging up the courts as part of
Speaker 3: their pay dispute with the government. We'll get to all
Speaker 3: of that when we look at tomorrow's newspapers. But first,
Speaker 3: the hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas looks on
Speaker 3: the verge of collapse tonight. Israel has accused him Us
Speaker 3: of trying to change the deal at the last minute.
Speaker 2: Now, the deal was that there.
Speaker 3: Would be three stages of hostage releases. The first stage
Speaker 3: would be thirty three Jewish hostages in exchange for about
Speaker 3: one thousand Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. As part
Speaker 3: of the deal, Israel had the right to veto which
Speaker 3: of those Palestinian prisoners was released, to ensure there was
Speaker 3: not a release of mass murderers or of people who
Speaker 3: would symbolize terrorism. But according to the Israeli government, at
Speaker 3: the last moment, Hamas has insisted that they will dictate
Speaker 3: which Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails. Surely an
Speaker 3: intolerable situation for Israel if that is true. The Israeli
Speaker 3: Cabinet was due to meet to approve the deal. They
Speaker 3: hadn't met before this change of terms by Hamas, and
Speaker 3: so Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo earlier this evening
Speaker 3: put out this statement. He said, and I quote, Hamas
Speaker 3: is backing out of the explicit understandings agreed upon with
Speaker 3: the mediators and Israel in a last minute blackmail attempt.
Speaker 3: Israel will not set a date for a cabinet and
Speaker 3: government meeting until the mediators announced that Hamas has approved
Speaker 3: all the details of the arrangement. So this casts the
Speaker 3: entire deal now into doubt, which must be incredibly traumatic
Speaker 3: for Jewish families who were expecting and hoping for the
Speaker 3: release of family members over the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: Don't forget those hostages include a five year old and
Speaker 3: a two year old child who have been held in
Speaker 3: Gaza for the past fifteen months. You can only imagine
Speaker 3: the turmoil that family members must be going through. The
Speaker 3: whole deal was strange. It really involved the release of
Speaker 3: tomorrow's hostage takers in exchange for today's hostages. So there
Speaker 3: were already questions on the Israeli side about whether or
Speaker 3: not this was a good deal. And of course Caleb,
Speaker 3: now the whole thing looks like it may collapse before
Speaker 3: it even gets underway.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, clearly what Hamas is trying to do here
Speaker 4: is see how far they can push this bag and
Speaker 4: how desperate Israel is to get these hostages back. The
Speaker 4: reality is that Israel doesn't need to end this war.
Speaker 4: It's much more in the interests of Hamas that this
Speaker 4: war ends than it is in the interests of Israel,
Speaker 4: because Israel has endless capability to keep on going. Hamas
Speaker 4: at some point runs out of options and AMMO and
Speaker 4: potentially people. And it's been far more destructive for the
Speaker 4: people of Gaza than it has been for the people
Speaker 4: of Israel. So the need to get out of this
Speaker 4: war is far more for Hamas, and they know that
Speaker 4: Israel would continue to fight this forever if they had
Speaker 4: the option, Except for the fact that those hostages are there,
Speaker 4: and Israel puts a high price and high value on
Speaker 4: its people, and so it wants them back. Hence the
Speaker 4: deal you had on the table, which if you look
Speaker 4: at it from a Hamas perspective, was pretty good for
Speaker 4: Hamas in terms of the number of people they would
Speaker 4: get back from Israeli prisons in exchange for the hostages
Speaker 4: they were handing over.
Speaker 1: It looked like a pretty good deal.
Speaker 4: To me, I would say to Hamas, don't look a
Speaker 4: gift horse in the mouth, because if they don't come
Speaker 4: to the table here, Israel will just keep right on going.
Speaker 4: And we know what Trump has threatened to do if
Speaker 4: this continues in the way it does. The problem I
Speaker 4: suppose for Israel is that if they concede to this
Speaker 4: and say, okay, well you can now choose the prisoners
Speaker 4: you get back, they're giving more ground to Hamas. And
Speaker 4: of course Hamas are going to choose the people that
Speaker 4: they want to come back and run the organization after
Speaker 4: they've lost Sinowa, etc.
Speaker 1: Right, So you can hardly well himself correctly, So.
Speaker 4: You can hardly let them do that if this deal
Speaker 4: is to be taken seriously in any way.
Speaker 5: But we don't know what else is the details of
Speaker 5: this agreement.
Speaker 6: It's not purely a prisoner swap versus hostage swap.
Speaker 5: We simply don't know.
Speaker 6: And this is why these things do my head in
Speaker 6: because essentially we end up speculating on speculation endlessly, because
Speaker 6: there is so much invested, and indeed, the world a
Speaker 6: way to with baited breath to find out how this
Speaker 6: negotiation ends up going essentially means whether we may see
Speaker 6: a war with Iran or not.
Speaker 5: So even people who may on the face of it look.
Speaker 6: Like they don't even have a dog in the fight,
Speaker 6: everyone actually does. The world is looking on one does
Speaker 6: wonder what this is going to look like. We've only
Speaker 6: got five more days of the Biden administration left, so
Speaker 6: it may be that all of the credit after Biden
Speaker 6: mopped the idea today, all of the credit will end
Speaker 6: up going to the Trump administration if we don't see
Speaker 6: any moves on this in the next five days.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just I have a problem with Trump claiming
Speaker 3: credit for a deal that seems so lopsided. I mean,
Speaker 3: the other part of the deal, aside from thirty three
Speaker 3: israelis for a thousand Palestinian prisoners. That's civilians, for people
Speaker 3: who have engaged in terrorism. Is that stage three of
Speaker 3: the deal means that Gaza began to be reconstructed. And
Speaker 3: the only reason Garza has been leveled is because Israel
Speaker 3: went in to get their babies, their wives, their girls,
Speaker 3: their sons back after being taken hostage. But Hamas have said,
Speaker 3: you must begin reconstruction of Gaza before we'll release can
Speaker 3: you believe it the remains of hostages.
Speaker 2: Who have died. So that's how inhumane Hamas is.
Speaker 3: They are holding dead corpses bodies back as part of
Speaker 3: this exchange, and you don't get your bodies back until
Speaker 3: you begin reconstruction.
Speaker 4: The problem is, though, that the deal has to be lopsided,
Speaker 4: basically because both sides essentially have nothing to lose except
Speaker 4: for those hostages that are sitting there. That's the only
Speaker 4: reason that this deal is on the table at all. Right, Israel,
Speaker 4: as I said before, could continue to fight this war.
Speaker 4: They could go even harder than they have now. If
Speaker 4: they really wanted to wipe out a mass, they could
Speaker 4: go really hard and go in there and just blow
Speaker 4: up the whole of Gars. They could have done that
Speaker 4: at any time, and they haven't done it. And Hamas
Speaker 4: has nothing to lose, really, because we know that they're
Speaker 4: quite happy to put guards and people in harm's way
Speaker 4: to achieve the ends of their organization. The Enns ultimately
Speaker 4: are to kill all Jews and take over the land.
Speaker 3: So they've got allies like Australia calling for the arrest
Speaker 3: of the Israeli Prime Minister for charges of genocide. So
Speaker 3: some would argue Hamas have already achieved more than they
Speaker 3: probably imagine.
Speaker 4: The most certainly, but if you want to get those
Speaker 4: you're not going to get those hostages back without conceding
Speaker 4: something to Hamas. That is the reality of the situation.
Speaker 4: It's not in Hamas's interest to go in an equal
Speaker 4: deal with Israel because Hamas doesn't really get the.
Speaker 6: Only leverage that they are exactly.
Speaker 1: So that's that's all. That's all you're going to get.
Speaker 4: And I understand that that then potentially means the continuation
Speaker 4: of Hamas for longer. But when it comes to those
Speaker 4: families in Israel right now who want their family members back,
Speaker 4: if it means that Hamas exists for teen years longer
Speaker 4: than an otherwise might have, this is a problem that
Speaker 4: can be dealt with it another time potentially, But if
Speaker 4: you're one of those families in Israel, you want your
Speaker 4: family member back right now. And so you can understand
Speaker 4: why Israel and those families would be willing to make
Speaker 4: concessions to Hamas to get those people back.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you one person who's cheering for Hamas,
Speaker 3: and that's Australian Green's leader Adam Bant. He put out
Speaker 3: a statement earlier today condemning Israel's invasion of Gaza As.
Speaker 3: If you know this invasion wasn't prompted by two hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty one innocent civilians being taken hostage by Hamas,
Speaker 3: But anyway, that's Adam Bant for you. Speaking of Adam Bant,
Speaker 3: he was out on the Hustings today promising that if
Speaker 3: at the next federal election the Australian Greens have the
Speaker 3: balance of power, Adam Bant is promising a new golden
Speaker 3: era for all Australians. Can you imagine that Adam Bant
Speaker 3: and the Greens ushering in a golden era for Hamas.
Speaker 3: Maybe have listened to some of what Adam Bant said
Speaker 3: here he is.
Speaker 7: We are within a few months of an election that
Speaker 7: could result in a minority parliament that could see us
Speaker 7: getting dental and mental health into medicare, being able to
Speaker 7: go and see the GP for free building homes that
Speaker 7: renters and first home buyers can afford, wiping student debt,
Speaker 7: and fully funding our public schools.
Speaker 1: These are all doable.
Speaker 7: The Greens will be announcing a series of costed policies
Speaker 7: to make it happen, and will fund it through our
Speaker 7: robin hood reforms.
Speaker 3: Lizy talked about a golden era of progressive reform. Why
Speaker 3: are left hees always talk about complete annihilation as progressive reform.
Speaker 3: If you want to know what Australia would look like
Speaker 3: under golden era of progressive reform, have a look at
Speaker 3: Los Angeles.
Speaker 2: I would suggest that's will end up like.
Speaker 6: It's funny how his golden era sounds a lot like
Speaker 6: a socialist Everything is free, dental health, mental health covered
Speaker 6: by medicare, free trips to the GP. You get a pony,
Speaker 6: You get a pony for your pony. This brief wouldn't
Speaker 6: give ponies an utter nightmare.
Speaker 5: I'm simply making the point.
Speaker 6: Everything, even stuff nobody asks for.
Speaker 5: Or agrees, would be a good thing for the system.
Speaker 6: Can you imagine the hole in the budget That is
Speaker 6: why dental and mental aren't covered by Medicare because, good grief,
Speaker 6: the taxpayer would never be able to live it down. Also,
Speaker 6: why are you calling this the robin Hood scheme? His
Speaker 6: whole bit was robbing the rich to feed the poor.
Speaker 6: And without the rich in this country, mate, where the
Speaker 6: heck are we like.
Speaker 5: Them or hate them?
Speaker 6: And we know that you hate them, we need them desperately.
Speaker 6: Where would we be without the people who shoulder the
Speaker 6: risk make big bucks in this country Despite all the
Speaker 6: policies our government pushes, which means it's far more well,
Speaker 6: it would be better off if you manufactured elsewhere.
Speaker 5: We've basically got.
Speaker 6: No manufacturing left in Australia, despite exactly how hard we've
Speaker 6: made it for business here. Those who do prosper here
Speaker 6: listening to this guy would be like mate, Not that
Speaker 6: they would ever vote Greens anyway, but I think everybody else.
Speaker 6: These crack pots do the Libs a favor. When they
Speaker 6: hear this kind of thing. It makes headline news. The
Speaker 6: average punter reads it and goes no way.
Speaker 3: Host and my photo didn't get this, Calib'll have another.
Speaker 3: Listen to Adam Bandt. He's promised that if they have
Speaker 3: the bounce of power. The Greens will set Australia up
Speaker 3: for generations to come.
Speaker 2: Have a listen.
Speaker 7: We are on the verge this year of one of
Speaker 7: the most significant elections in a generation. We have the
Speaker 7: chance at this election by putting more Green into Parliament,
Speaker 7: of keeping Peter Dunton out, but then also getting Labor
Speaker 7: to act, we could make significant reforms that will set
Speaker 7: this country up for generations.
Speaker 2: Sorry, did he say set this country up or stuff
Speaker 2: this country?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 1: No, he did say set this but he's quite ready.
Speaker 4: We'll set this country up for generations of damage and disaster.
Speaker 4: I was seriously and I find this argument so lazy
Speaker 4: that you know that the Robin Hood iarday, we're going
Speaker 4: to rob Peter to pay Paul will take money from
Speaker 4: the rich to give it to the poor. I know
Speaker 4: he's been talking about corporate tax and that's a slightly
Speaker 4: different argument. But when it comes to income tax in
Speaker 4: this country, the top ten percent of earners pay roughly
Speaker 4: ninety percent of the total income tax in this country.
Speaker 5: I don't believe we don't have any of them left here.
Speaker 4: You can't argue that rich people aren't pulling their weight
Speaker 4: pay ninety percent of the tax because you know, if
Speaker 4: you're on fifty grand a year, what's the tax free thresholds?
Speaker 4: Forty two grand or something, isn't it right? So most
Speaker 4: of your most of your income is tax free essentially. Now, look,
Speaker 4: if we'd had the tax reform that we were promised
Speaker 4: by labor, maybe things would look a little different.
Speaker 1: But we didn't get that. But that is the case.
Speaker 1: Ten percent pay ninety percent of the tax.
Speaker 4: So how could he possibly say, oh, the rich need
Speaker 4: to pay more tax because they're not putting in their
Speaker 4: fair share. They absolutely put in their fair share in
Speaker 4: this country.
Speaker 6: Where they think he's going to get the mental and
Speaker 6: dental into medicare without the rich picking up the ta.
Speaker 3: The other stuff I love from the Greens is some
Speaker 3: of their rhetorical flourish. I mean, he warns that Australia
Speaker 3: risks a US style shift to the right. So Merigi
Speaker 3: is the doing of conservativesm It's sold there go slightly
Speaker 3: conservatives a US.
Speaker 2: As if that's bad.
Speaker 3: Somehow has he seen what's just happened in a maritor
Speaker 3: a trump one in a landslide and he's warning we
Speaker 3: might see that too in our dreams.
Speaker 1: Seriously, hand give it up, mate, stay in Melbourne.
Speaker 4: Well, you know it's okay. The Greens can exist in Melbourne.
Speaker 4: I don't mind if they exist in Melbourne, because of course,
Speaker 4: you know, we can just keep them in Melbourne. The
Speaker 4: rest of us will be fine.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to ask you about g strings. I
Speaker 1: don't know whether you wear one, Liz, you are regular
Speaker 1: wear a string.
Speaker 3: That was the worst segue in the history of the Sorry.
Speaker 4: I want to ask you how you mean to go
Speaker 4: from Adam ban to I mean, I don't want to say.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 5: We didn't have to tie it in.
Speaker 1: Well on anyway, I didn't tie I was going to.
Speaker 6: Take the bullet for you, but you just wade in.
Speaker 6: I was like, I thought this was one you'd want
Speaker 6: the woman to intro you.
Speaker 5: Go for it ed to you if you want to
Speaker 5: know you struggling.
Speaker 2: We're all on the edge of our seat. Please carry on.
Speaker 1: We're on the edge of our street seat with a
Speaker 1: beer above. Because we're all where g strings under. You
Speaker 1: can't see you. Oh my god, one James's rocking white. Anyway,
Speaker 1: to get back on track g strings.
Speaker 4: The Blue Mountains Council has decided that you can't wear
Speaker 4: them at their public pools. They put up these side
Speaker 4: mountainols saying you know what swim where is and isn't acceptable,
Speaker 4: And basically they said, we don't want to see your
Speaker 4: bear bum. You can still wear a bikini, that's fine
Speaker 4: as long as it's got some coverage over your bum.
Speaker 4: But if you've got a little bit of string between
Speaker 4: in the crack there and well you're walking around with
Speaker 4: your butt cheeks out, thank you very much, that's not
Speaker 4: acceptable in a public place.
Speaker 1: I can't see what the issue is with this, right.
Speaker 4: I mean, look, sure I might enjoy looking at it,
Speaker 4: but there's kids around, for heaven's sake, right have some
Speaker 4: decorum in a public place. It is a family place,
Speaker 4: and the council owns the pool, so surely they have
Speaker 4: the right to decide the dress code for the people
Speaker 4: who go there. Much like you go to a nightclub
Speaker 4: or a pub or whatever, and there's often a sign
Speaker 4: on the front door that says no ripped shirt, you know,
Speaker 4: no uninclosed shoose, etc. That's the prerogative of the owner
Speaker 4: of the venue. Surely, if the council says you can't
Speaker 4: wear a g string here, that is fine. But no,
Speaker 4: the feminists say this is regression. It is the patriarchy
Speaker 4: at work.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: I don't quite get that argument, because surely the blokes
Speaker 4: wouldn't mind someone rocking up in a G string to
Speaker 4: have a perv. How is it the patriarchy at work.
Speaker 4: But here we are in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: You are pressing.
Speaker 4: Women if you won't let them wear a G string
Speaker 4: to the council pool. Jess King, she's a model, she says.
Speaker 4: Such a ban implies that the human body, specifically the
Speaker 4: bum which we all have, is inherently inappropriate or sexualized,
Speaker 4: reinforcing shame rather than promoting acceptance.
Speaker 5: Now, acceptance of what public nudities?
Speaker 6: Do?
Speaker 5: Have laws about this?
Speaker 6: And can someone explain to me the difference between public
Speaker 6: nudity and just wearing absolutely nothing save for a tiny
Speaker 6: triangle in the front.
Speaker 5: There. That's it.
Speaker 6: That is what we're talking about here. Have some decency,
Speaker 6: have some self respect. I find it utterly revolting. Just
Speaker 6: have some class for crying out loud? Why is it
Speaker 6: we have to be I always laugh at feminists like
Speaker 6: this because they're all, like, I'm liberated. If the patriarchy love.
Speaker 6: The patriarchy is laughing their heads off at you.
Speaker 5: And here we are in this culture where they want.
Speaker 6: Young men, especially to respect women, have some respect for women.
Speaker 6: We know that we're up against the online porn culture,
Speaker 6: we know that we're up against only fans and entire
Speaker 6: culture is pushing back on us. And as young boys,
Speaker 6: they can't even go to their local government pool out
Speaker 6: these women walking around completely naked, basically everything flapping around
Speaker 6: in the breeze. How are these young men supposed to
Speaker 6: respect you? I don't and I'm a fellow woman.
Speaker 3: Well, they try to make this about women's rights, and
Speaker 3: it's not about women's rights. It's about borderline nudity and
Speaker 3: whether or not that's acceptable and the bigger issue here.
Speaker 2: But the other by the way, it's also about dress codes.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you go to a pub or a restaurant,
Speaker 3: they have dress codes. If you go to a council
Speaker 3: run pool they have a dress code. You don't complain
Speaker 3: about the pub or the restaurant. Why would you get
Speaker 3: upset about the council pool. But the bigger issue for
Speaker 3: our culture is when you talk about public decency. We
Speaker 3: now live in a situation where nobody agrees anymore on morality,
Speaker 3: on what is good, what is right, and so everything
Speaker 3: is up for grabs. So I'm not really surprised we're
Speaker 3: having these arguments because we've got no shared morality anymore. Yeah, consequently,
Speaker 3: everything is an absolute war. But you know, the councilor
Speaker 3: within their rights to make whatever decisions they want.
Speaker 5: That thank god long ones decency.
Speaker 6: And of course the media was getting in touch with
Speaker 6: the person who'd made this, called the mayor of that
Speaker 6: council as soon as this was posted online. Apparently the
Speaker 6: local MP is taking on the mayor over this for
Speaker 6: crying out loud.
Speaker 5: Mate. I don't know whether the local MP is a
Speaker 5: male or a.
Speaker 6: Female, but if he's a male, take it from me, buddy,
Speaker 6: that sounds you see.
Speaker 4: You may take our lives, you will never take our
Speaker 4: g streams.
Speaker 5: Do me a favor. Well.
Speaker 6: The media is still full of stories regarding the devastating
Speaker 6: fires in LA. We understand twenty four a dead the
Speaker 6: latest death toll. Of course, countless thousands of buildings and
Speaker 6: homes completely destroyed, completely wiped out. Over eighty eight thousand
Speaker 6: people are under an evacuation order and with the weight
Speaker 6: the rate winds are going rather eighty eight thousand more
Speaker 6: stand to be evacuated from their suburbs of La it's
Speaker 6: absolutely devastating. It's still completely out of control, and now
Speaker 6: we're being told here in Australia by our insurance council
Speaker 6: how this could affect our insurance costs going forward.
Speaker 5: The Insurance Council of Australia.
Speaker 6: Has pointed out, hey, we've got similar situation here in Australia.
Speaker 5: It gets dry here, it gets windy here.
Speaker 6: They point out that the affordability of coverage and disaster
Speaker 6: prone areas is now getting out of control simply because
Speaker 6: these insurance companies are saying, heck, how on earth are
Speaker 6: we supposed to cover?
Speaker 5: What they're saying is the.
Speaker 6: Effects of climate change. So there's these growing challenges faced
Speaker 6: by the insurance market worldwide. Indeed, the US market looks
Speaker 6: insurance market looks set to lose over twenty billion dollars
Speaker 6: due to this fire alone. So we're looking at well,
Speaker 6: obviously not similar, but we're being warned here that our
Speaker 6: insurance could go up by heaven knows how many percentage
Speaker 6: points as we look at similar here in during our
Speaker 6: fire c well, I think.
Speaker 3: They're predicting two percent insurance premium rise in Australia. Qbe
Speaker 3: have more in disaster phone areas their clients. SUN Corp
Speaker 3: Is still assessing. But in the cost of living crisis,
Speaker 3: two percent on your insurance is still the last thing,
Speaker 3: especially when it relates to fires on the other side
Speaker 3: of the world. I think it rightly should reflect in
Speaker 3: insurance premiums. But this isn't an issue of climate change.
Speaker 3: We know that there were DEI policies which hamstrung the
Speaker 3: fire Brigade. There were Californian state government issues that meant
Speaker 3: fire hydrants didn't have water. So I think maybe insurance
Speaker 3: companies should look at raising premiums in areas where you
Speaker 3: elect left leaning politicians and your premium should automatically go
Speaker 3: up because.
Speaker 2: You're asking for a disaster. That would be fair enough,
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 4: I mean, I half get that, but as someone who
Speaker 4: lives in Albanese's electorate, I don't agree with that because
Speaker 4: I didn't vote for the bloke.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have to be the burden.
Speaker 4: Of higher insurance premium the people who live around me
Speaker 4: as stupid should I?
Speaker 1: But I think again it goes to the.
Speaker 4: Greed of the insurance companies in recent years. Right anyone
Speaker 4: who's tried to reinsure something, whether it be your house
Speaker 4: or your car or whatever.
Speaker 1: In the last couple of.
Speaker 4: Years, premiums have gone through the roof, right, And I
Speaker 4: particularly don't understand that with cars, because with every passing
Speaker 4: year my car depreciates, it's worth less, and yet I'm
Speaker 4: now paying more in insurance than I was five.
Speaker 5: Years' gadgets in your car diving on.
Speaker 1: What's that now? I don't actually, thank God? But how
Speaker 1: do you justify that?
Speaker 4: Surely what I'm paying in insurance should be tethered in
Speaker 4: some way to the value of the product that I
Speaker 4: am insuring. Now.
Speaker 1: I get the issue in.
Speaker 4: Places like Lizmar, for instance, in Australia, where you have
Speaker 4: regular floods and people have their homes insured and they've
Speaker 4: been rebuilt, and then five years later it gets flooded again,
Speaker 4: and then it's rebuilt again, and then five years later
Speaker 4: it gets.
Speaker 1: Flooded again, and on and on.
Speaker 4: I can understand why insurance companies don't want to take
Speaker 4: that risk for obvious reasons. But insurance, as far as
Speaker 4: I'm concerned, is a legal form of gambling. It is
Speaker 4: a gamble on behalf of the insurance company that you
Speaker 4: won't make a claim and that they will pocket the
Speaker 4: money you give to them in premiums. But every now
Speaker 4: and again someone does make a claim and the money
Speaker 4: they pay out is usually unless it's a car, far
Speaker 4: more than the money you've ever given to them. That
Speaker 4: is the risk the insurance company takes. And it sounds
Speaker 4: increasingly like insurance companies want to provide coverage as long
Speaker 4: as there is no risk for them. Well, that's not
Speaker 4: how the insurance business works. If the idea is that
Speaker 4: you must drive a profit off of every customer, then
Speaker 4: we've got to pay obscene amounts of money to be ensured.
Speaker 4: At which point, what's the point of insurance. I'll just
Speaker 4: put that money in the bank and use it at
Speaker 4: a later point if I need to. It defeats the.
Speaker 1: Purpose of insurance.
Speaker 4: If every customer must drive a profit, that is not
Speaker 4: the risk that the insurance company takes.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: So, the other issue that they're dealing with in LA
Speaker 3: at the moment is whether or not to go ahead
Speaker 3: with major events they've got schedule in the next couple
Speaker 3: of years. They've got a World Cup, they've got the
Speaker 3: Summer Olympics, they've got the Super Bowl that they're due
Speaker 3: to host, and so Governor Newsome, we showed video footage
Speaker 3: of him last night, and he's really talking up what
Speaker 3: the future could look like, even as the smoldering embers
Speaker 3: of people's homes are on screen behind him. And California
Speaker 3: is determined to go ahead with these major events, but
Speaker 3: it's created a lot of debate as to whether that
Speaker 3: should be the priority of the government. And if the
Speaker 3: government can't organize water to fire hydrants, do you reckon
Speaker 3: they could organize a Super Bowl or in Olympic Games
Speaker 3: or well, he's the morale of people who've had their
Speaker 3: lives devastated.
Speaker 2: They've got the Olympic Games to look forward to.
Speaker 6: Listen to the governor, this is going to be a
Speaker 6: piece of cake.
Speaker 5: They're still hosting all of those.
Speaker 6: In fact, he says that just heightens the imperative for
Speaker 6: us to rebuilds really quickly, bigger and better, and.
Speaker 5: We're looking for toasting all of those.
Speaker 6: He's actually very very chipper as the city is burning
Speaker 6: around him. He's standing and rubble in these interviews, and
Speaker 6: he's very very upbeat. I don't know what he's on,
Speaker 6: but I bet a lot of people in.
Speaker 1: La do you like it?
Speaker 5: I know it's California.
Speaker 6: Everything's legal in California, name the substance, you can take it.
Speaker 6: So yeah, he's really really upbeat about this. And I
Speaker 6: think the Dems of leaning very heavily on the fact that,
Speaker 6: you know, well, climate change. So even though yes, the
Speaker 6: reservoirs were empty and the fire department is underfunded to
Speaker 6: the tune of millions of dollars and none of us
Speaker 6: were remotely prepared for this, well there's climate change on
Speaker 6: top of that, So what could any of us have done?
Speaker 6: So very few people in the media are over there,
Speaker 6: the lefty leaning media are talking about the fact that
Speaker 6: at least three arsonists have been arrested while in the
Speaker 6: act of setting their.
Speaker 5: Suburbs on fire.
Speaker 6: Nobody wants to talk about this because it doesn't fit
Speaker 6: the narrative. But yes, indeed, let nobody lie to you.
Speaker 6: These guys are being caught in the act, picked up
Speaker 6: by police.
Speaker 5: People are seeing them do it, calling the.
Speaker 6: Police departments, and the police departments are catching these guys.
Speaker 5: In the act.
Speaker 6: So not very climate changey type narrative happening there. I
Speaker 6: don't know about you, guys, but get this, the landlords
Speaker 6: in la are now jacking up rental prices by up
Speaker 6: to one hundred and twenty four percent. Now, there are
Speaker 6: laws in California which prohibit landlords doing this state of emergency.
Speaker 5: They're only allowed to.
Speaker 6: Jack prices up by ten percent, but they are absolutely
Speaker 6: flouting the rules. Check out this tweet from James Woods.
Speaker 6: He said clients of our friend were trying to lise
Speaker 6: a house while their home was being renovated. The lease
Speaker 6: was for eighteen thousand dollars per month. They were to
Speaker 6: sign the papers the day of the fire. Now the
Speaker 6: people renting want thirty thousand. The vultures are circling and
Speaker 6: the flames aren't even out yet. David Wagner says shares
Speaker 6: another instance. He said, a furnished Belair home went on
Speaker 6: Zillo today for twenty nine thousand, five hundred a month.
Speaker 5: A few months.
Speaker 6: Ago it was asking for just fifteen thousand, nine hundred.
Speaker 6: Are called up the agent, she said, she told her
Speaker 6: client to do this. People are desperate. You can probably
Speaker 6: get good money. Another La local, Lisa Guerrero, said, according
Speaker 6: to this property's history, it was listed as twelve thousand
Speaker 6: last year. Today it's twenty eight thousand. Price gouging. What
Speaker 6: the heck is going on? So imagine this You've lost
Speaker 6: absolutely everything. You may not have family and friends to
Speaker 6: stay with while you sort out what the heck you're
Speaker 6: going to do. Your house is rubble and everything in
Speaker 6: it is lost, and these landlords you can't even find
Speaker 6: a rental that is half afudible.
Speaker 1: I thought you were about to use another word there
Speaker 1: when you stop outlay through that.
Speaker 2: We all held out for a moment, and I.
Speaker 4: Was going to applaud you for doing so, because I
Speaker 4: agree with the sentiment. And look, I get that we're
Speaker 4: talking about expensive homes for rich people here, but.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how much money you have.
Speaker 4: If your house has just been burnt down, with all
Speaker 4: of your positions inside of it, your family photo albums, whatever, right,
Speaker 4: your dog's just been incinerated. You are feeling so low
Speaker 4: that it's not even funny. No amount of money in
Speaker 4: the world could ever change that for low life bastards,
Speaker 4: because that's what they are to now be saying. You
Speaker 4: are desperate for somewhere to live, So I'm going to
Speaker 4: charge you double the rent a wole to have charged
Speaker 4: you a week ago because your house has.
Speaker 1: Just burnt down.
Speaker 4: I find that utterly despicable. I mean, these are the
Speaker 4: sort of people that give landlords a bad name.
Speaker 1: I'm a landlord and I will.
Speaker 4: Defend landlords as I often do, but seriously, just do
Speaker 4: not do that kind of thing. Let's have some good news,
Speaker 4: shall we out of the US though, because the House
Speaker 4: in the US has decided to ban trans kids from
Speaker 4: playing sport with girls.
Speaker 1: It is a common sense decision.
Speaker 4: Now, the idea here is that if elementary schools in
Speaker 4: the US allow transgender children to play with girls, they
Speaker 4: will have funding taken away by the federal government. And
Speaker 4: fair enough, because when we talk about trans men or
Speaker 4: you got to get this right, trans women, which are
Speaker 4: actually men biological males or boys. In this circumstance, when
Speaker 4: we're talking about schools, when we talk about the issue
Speaker 4: of transgender people in sport, we're talking about fairness.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not saying, oh.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't like the look of you, therefore you
Speaker 4: shouldn't be able to play sport with me. It's about
Speaker 4: fairness because of course, we know that when you go
Speaker 4: through puberty, if you're a boy, if you're a man,
Speaker 4: if you're a male, you have testosterone and that greatly
Speaker 4: affects the way your body develops.
Speaker 1: It gives you extra strength.
Speaker 4: It gives you in golf the ability to drive the
Speaker 4: ball further, the same in cricket. In football, it gives
Speaker 4: you the ability to tackle someone harder. This is a
Speaker 4: matter of fairness, and fairness is something that is taught
Speaker 4: to children through sport. I mean, sport is such an
Speaker 4: important thing to teach children about sportsmanship, the idea of
Speaker 4: winning and losing, how to deal with that, how to
Speaker 4: strive for greatness. And it also teaches children about fairness,
Speaker 4: which it is why it is so important for transgender
Speaker 4: children not to participate in sport with girls, because it
Speaker 4: flies in the face of fairness. This was passed by
Speaker 4: all the Republicans who were present, and there were only
Speaker 4: two Democrats that should be noted who voted in favor
Speaker 4: of this, and given they were the only two Democrats
Speaker 4: who did, I think they.
Speaker 1: Deserve a yay for the day. They're both from Texas.
Speaker 4: Vingente Gonzales and Henry Cuella were the only Dems who
Speaker 4: voted in favor of this.
Speaker 1: But Hallelulier a common sense decision.
Speaker 4: And of course we know that the Senate is now
Speaker 4: being taken by the Republicans, so there's no question about
Speaker 4: this thing.
Speaker 1: Passing it will now be law in the US. Thank goodness.
Speaker 1: Let's hope everyone else follows.
Speaker 3: Suit and as well as fairness, the other issue, of course,
Speaker 3: is safety, because there's been numerous instances of women girls
Speaker 3: injured playing sport against males identifying as girls who, as
Speaker 3: you rightly pointed out, have superior strength body mass. The
Speaker 3: amazing thing to me about this is that four hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty four politicians voted. It only passed by twelve votes.
Speaker 3: As you said, all but two of the Democrats voted
Speaker 3: again the proposition.
Speaker 2: Let me read for you the proposition.
Speaker 3: It says that sex shall be regarded based solely on
Speaker 3: a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. Most normal
Speaker 3: people would not have a problem with that, and yet
Speaker 3: all but two Democrats would not accept that definition of
Speaker 3: sex and gender.
Speaker 2: And you know what the Democrats did.
Speaker 3: They renamed this bill, as lefties always do, they love
Speaker 3: to manipulate language in order to mess with our brains.
Speaker 3: This bill designed to stop males competing against girls in sport,
Speaker 3: they renamed it.
Speaker 2: The Democrats they called it.
Speaker 3: The Child Predator Empowerment Out because they argued that this
Speaker 3: bill would give permission for adults to inspect the bodies
Speaker 3: of young people, and so this would empower child predators.
Speaker 3: They further argued that it would embolden people to question
Speaker 3: the gender of girls who had, for instance, short hair,
Speaker 3: who might have looked slightly boyish, and this would embol
Speaker 3: people to question their gender and then cause harm to
Speaker 3: these young people. It is absolutely astonishing to me that
Speaker 3: you could have some policy that is so common sense,
Speaker 3: and yet how ideological are the left that they would
Speaker 3: twist this around to make common sense sound evil even
Speaker 3: as they're trying to perpetrate evil as good, to which.
Speaker 6: The Republicans calmly responded, Or we can just ask to
Speaker 6: see their birth certificate, so nobody will be checking out
Speaker 6: anybody's body. We will simply ask to see their birth certificate.
Speaker 5: Another win coming out of the States.
Speaker 6: It seems that the Biden administration, it's only got five
Speaker 6: days left, right, is literally just taking notes from the
Speaker 6: upcoming Trump administration and trying to get a few wins
Speaker 6: in before they have to leave. You will remember that
Speaker 6: RFK Junior Trump has made pretty much his health czar.
Speaker 6: He's looking after you've heard of MAGA. He's looking after mah,
Speaker 6: which is make America healthy again. And one of the
Speaker 6: things that he's spoken about is red dye three.
Speaker 5: It's found in candy. We call it lollies over here.
Speaker 6: It's found in chips, it's found in soft drink, It's
Speaker 6: found in a whole heap of stuff. And guess what
Speaker 6: they've known for over twenty five years that this thing
Speaker 6: causes cancer.
Speaker 5: Well, the FAI have just come.
Speaker 6: Out and said, hey, so we are canceling red dye
Speaker 6: number three because oh, you know it causes cancer. I mean,
Speaker 6: thanks twenty five years on, thanks for nothing, really, but hey,
Speaker 6: better late than never. I love it when these stories
Speaker 6: come out because it served to remind people they do
Speaker 6: allow this crap into your food unbeknownst to you, and
Speaker 6: all the relevant authorities say, hey, it's absolutely fine, while
Speaker 6: knowing that it's not. And I'm sure they don't eat it,
Speaker 6: but they're totally fine with you doing it because well,
Speaker 6: you're just ignorant. And who knew it's even in cold medicine.
Speaker 4: It's actually thirty five years they've known this, right, because
Speaker 4: they banned it in cosmetic products in nineteen ninety so
Speaker 4: because there were studies done and had found that it
Speaker 4: caused thyroid issues in animals, cancers, tumors, etc. And so though, okay,
Speaker 4: we shouldn't allow you then to spread it on your
Speaker 4: skin because that will then absorb into your body and
Speaker 4: that's bad. Oh, we'll ban it in nineteen ninety, but
Speaker 4: it's okay as long as you take it orally. I mean,
Speaker 4: how does it make any sense whatsoever. It's bandy, It's
Speaker 4: banned in most of the world.
Speaker 5: They do not care.
Speaker 4: Somehow, that'll be fine if as long as it's in
Speaker 4: your food. These people bonkers. I know, it's America and
Speaker 4: they it's some weird stuff with it.
Speaker 6: So it's utterly evil that anyone would know that this
Speaker 6: kind of thing, just like pfast, just like microplastics, they
Speaker 6: know that this is harming humans. We are not made
Speaker 6: to have this crap in our systems, and they allow
Speaker 6: it on mass Ye're in, year out in more and
Speaker 6: more products. We are ingesting it in every single which way.
Speaker 6: They don't care about your health, which puts the imperative
Speaker 6: on every single person to care about it, because these
Speaker 6: guys certainly don't.
Speaker 3: The other amazing thing about this, of course, is that
Speaker 3: Trump isn't president yet. There's another example of Donald Trump
Speaker 3: still the president elect and yet he's setting the agenda
Speaker 3: reckon the.
Speaker 6: Biden admitted just like, hey, FDA, can you do a
Speaker 6: few of these things before they get in, just so
Speaker 6: that we can take credit for a few before they
Speaker 6: get like literally.
Speaker 3: Well, speaking of which, just before we go to a break,
Speaker 3: you know, Biden promised a smooth transition, and it seems
Speaker 3: like he's just laying land mines everywhere to try and
Speaker 3: disrupt the incoming Trump administration. With just a few days
Speaker 3: to go before Biden leaves office, He's announced to remove
Speaker 3: the ban on Cuba, or the listing of Cuba as
Speaker 3: a state sponsor of terrorism. Now, the Trump administration back
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty one listed Cuba as a terrorist state
Speaker 3: and therefore restrictions would apply economically. Kibb is one of
Speaker 3: the most repressive nations on Earth. It supports anti American
Speaker 3: groups and terrorist groups, and now Joe Biden says, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: we're not going to list them as a state anymore.
Speaker 3: It makes you wonder, especially the state that Joe Biden
Speaker 3: is in mentally, who's really behind all of this and
Speaker 3: making these decisions. It's almost like a purposeful decision to
Speaker 3: create wreckage and carnage before Trump comes into office. Now,
Speaker 3: of course Trump can come into office and immediately relist.
Speaker 2: Them, which he will as a terrorst state, which he will.
Speaker 3: But you've got to wonder what on earth is going
Speaker 3: on with Joe Biden that just a couple of days
Speaker 3: before he leaves office he makes a massive decision like
Speaker 3: this about one of the states closest to the United States,
Speaker 3: which is openly hostile to the United States.
Speaker 4: Well, it's just a kid throwing the toys out of
Speaker 4: the cot, isn't it. He's just trying to make a
Speaker 4: pain in the ass out of himself on the way
Speaker 4: out to give Trump more things to do. He is upset, Well,
Speaker 4: he's probably less upset of Trump winning versus Kamala, but.
Speaker 6: He's upset, probably completely unaware that he is, that he didn't.
Speaker 1: Get another shot at being present.
Speaker 4: So he's just making as much trouble as he can
Speaker 4: on the way out. What does he care he's demeaned anyway,
Speaker 4: doesn't even know he's doing it.
Speaker 2: That does seem to be the case. We're going to
Speaker 2: go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including Victorian police deliberately clogging up the courts as part
Speaker 3: of their pay dispute with the Victorian government.
Speaker 2: All that and more interest amount. Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. We've
Speaker 3: got tomorrow's front pages, so you hit them here first.
Speaker 3: We'll start with Melbourne's Herald Son, which has got an
Speaker 3: interesting story on the ongoing pay dispute between the government
Speaker 3: and Victorian police. Driven to Front Court reads the headline,
Speaker 3: I suppose culor that's a bit of a pun on
Speaker 3: the fact that tennis is happening in Melbourne.
Speaker 2: Right now, also going to court and to do with.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I'm going for the obscure reference rather than
Speaker 3: the obvious tonight.
Speaker 2: Let me continue.
Speaker 3: The article reads Victorian motorists court speeding just over the
Speaker 3: limit being hauled before magistrates as part of the long
Speaker 3: running Victoria police pay dispute. The saga's threatening to clog
Speaker 3: up courts as police refused to dish out speeding and
Speaker 3: traffic fines. Instead, they're slapping drivers with summons, compelling them
Speaker 3: to front a magistrate, which isn't very nice thing to
Speaker 3: do to motorists. It's not a very nice thing to
Speaker 3: do to the courts either, because it's going to affect everybody.
Speaker 3: But this campaign has been quite nasty for a while.
Speaker 3: Earlier this week, the Victorian Police Minister Ben Carroll was
Speaker 3: in Werriby making announcement about free books for kids in
Speaker 3: prep well the police union organized for the police helicopter.
Speaker 3: It just happened to be flying over Werribee that morning
Speaker 3: and hovering just above his press conference so that not
Speaker 3: a word could be heard. He had to move the
Speaker 3: conference because of the interruption by police. So it's gotten
Speaker 3: pretty nasty. But I would suggest clogging up the courts
Speaker 3: with frivolous speeding fines is not a way to endear
Speaker 3: yourself to the public.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: I much like the train drivers in Sydney at the moment,
Speaker 4: I don't think it will do a great deal to
Speaker 4: endow yourself to the public.
Speaker 6: I do.
Speaker 4: I don't know the specific situation in Victoria though, but
Speaker 4: I do wonder if you have to go off to court,
Speaker 4: does that mean that you potentially face higher fines? Because
Speaker 4: I know a made of money to South Australia who
Speaker 4: ended up in court because of a police bungle when
Speaker 4: he was picked up for a traffic offense. It should
Speaker 4: have just been on the spot. Three month loss of license.
Speaker 4: But because he ended up in court because the copper
Speaker 4: bugged it up, the lowest penalty the court could give
Speaker 4: was six month loss of license because that's what.
Speaker 1: The magistrate has in front of him.
Speaker 4: So if that happened, like you know, the court can
Speaker 4: give a minimum fine of say one thousand dollars for
Speaker 4: what would have you know would have been a four
Speaker 4: hundred dollars fine if you just got pulled over by
Speaker 4: the cop.
Speaker 1: I'd be very angry if that happened to me.
Speaker 4: I reckon, And you'd be particular ularly angry, James, because happens.
Speaker 1: To you all the time.
Speaker 2: I be in courtind live in court.
Speaker 4: I know, I know we can the court reporters, the
Speaker 4: reporters just just look look for James.
Speaker 1: He'll be down there.
Speaker 4: Let's go to the Canvra times now, speaking of courts,
Speaker 4: this is how crazy is this one? Lavish functions for
Speaker 4: judges revealed The Federal Courses reveal that it spends hundreds
Speaker 4: of thousands of dollars each year on lavish functions for
Speaker 4: judges after the Attorney General's Department refused to give out
Speaker 4: any details for two years. Individual functions are costing up
Speaker 4: to fifty grand with tens of thousands of dollars spent
Speaker 4: on catering alone. Between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: the federal courts med a quarter of a million dollars
Speaker 4: on events and official receptions, which one senator said amounted
Speaker 4: to lavishly catered events at taxpayers expense.
Speaker 1: What on earth do they need these? What are these events?
Speaker 3: My favorite part of this story is that they've got
Speaker 3: spending limits for these judges, right, So what they're doing
Speaker 3: is they're splitting the bill so that they can avoid
Speaker 3: the spending limits and get around it, which is exactly
Speaker 3: what you would expect of a federal court judge. They
Speaker 3: know the law and all the loopholes.
Speaker 5: I want to know who's going to these things?
Speaker 6: Who does a judge party with and be like ah,
Speaker 6: cavia and.
Speaker 5: Bubbly, Well, who are those judges? Are shoulders? Wouldn't you
Speaker 5: have to be careful as a judge?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know, it will depends depends who you entertaining,
Speaker 4: I suppose, But like, why can't they just go to
Speaker 4: McDonald's or just spend.
Speaker 6: Okay, I don't know that.
Speaker 4: Or just spend the money that they are paid in
Speaker 4: their salaries I mean their Federal court judges for him
Speaker 4: AND's sake, they are well compensated. Why can't they just
Speaker 4: go to a restaurant and pay for it with their
Speaker 4: own credit card.
Speaker 6: Because then that would be their money. And why would
Speaker 6: you spend your own money when you can spend the
Speaker 6: people to the front page of the Australia Now delay
Speaker 6: on carbon emission targets to hamstring Labor.
Speaker 5: Oh oh, we hope.
Speaker 6: So the Climate Change Agency tasks with setting Labour's twenty
Speaker 6: thirty five emission reduction target is yet to a point
Speaker 6: an expert panel, ensuring the Albanese government will head to
Speaker 6: the polls without one of the key details of its
Speaker 6: energy strategy. The article goes on to say Labored promised
Speaker 6: to deliver its twenty thirty five targets by February, in
Speaker 6: line with the Paris Agreement. Oh, god forbid, we fall
Speaker 6: out of line with the Paris Agreement. But it must
Speaker 6: first receive advice from the Climate Change Authority, chaired by
Speaker 6: former New South Wales Liberal Treasurer Matt Keane. So it
Speaker 6: doesn't look like they're ready for anything. Not only are
Speaker 6: they not delivering on the twenty thirty targets, as anyone
Speaker 6: with a single firing neuron, including all the relevant experts say.
Speaker 6: But now they're well, as you can understand, rather reticent
Speaker 6: to name any twenty thirty five target.
Speaker 3: So there's two interesting points about this story. First, Matt Keane,
Speaker 3: remember he was Liberal Treasurer. He's now heading the Climate
Speaker 3: Change Authority and he is delaying implementing the committee to
Speaker 3: come up with these figures for the government, which is
Speaker 3: very helpful to the government if they don't have a
Speaker 3: target prior to the election. So Matt Kean once again
Speaker 3: helping the Australian Labor Party is interesting. The other part
Speaker 3: of it is how ironic that the Albanezy government can't
Speaker 3: even appoint a climate Advisory Authority, let alone set a
Speaker 3: target until they find out what Donald Trump is doing.
Speaker 3: Once again, Donald Trump exercising all the power in the
Speaker 3: world over those who hate him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, they just can't find anyone who's willing to
Speaker 4: crap on as much as you would need to in
Speaker 4: a job like that. I mean, seriously, it just makes
Speaker 4: a mockery of the whole thing. Like you said, is
Speaker 4: we know that the whole thing is exactly but we
Speaker 4: can't we can't targets. Just say it ain't going to happen,
Speaker 4: give up and move on it.
Speaker 1: It'd certainly be better for the country.
Speaker 3: All right, Let's go to the front page of the
Speaker 3: Adelaide Advertiser. The the premier promised two years ago when
Speaker 3: he was elected to fix the ambulance ramping crisis, and
Speaker 3: it's still a problem. But he may have come up
Speaker 3: with a unique solution, the kind of solution that only
Speaker 3: politicians can think of. Ramping up the lies, reads the headline.
Speaker 3: Here's what's happening. Ambulance patients would be moved to hospital
Speaker 3: corridors to await help, in a move that would cut
Speaker 3: ramping figures without improving care. The new handover policy state's
Speaker 3: hospitals would be responsible for patients. So the plan to
Speaker 3: cut ramping numbers, Liz, is that they will move the
Speaker 3: patients from the ambulances and stick them in the hospital corridors.
Speaker 3: That way, there's no patients waiting, totally. Problem is fixed, yeh, Ghenius, well.
Speaker 6: Out of side, out of mind, right, So if they're
Speaker 6: not ramping on the ramps, they're inside the hospitals. It's
Speaker 6: going to be much easier to hide, especially from the press.
Speaker 6: Although hopefully it will still be leaked.
Speaker 5: But that's all we've done.
Speaker 6: We've moved the ramping from the ramps to the corridors.
Speaker 4: Marvelous, but also well, how is it going to be
Speaker 4: any good for the hospital because the new policy says
Speaker 4: that the hospital is then responsible for the patient once
Speaker 4: they moved in the nurses.
Speaker 1: The reason they're in.
Speaker 4: The corridor is because all of the beds are full,
Speaker 4: So the nurses that are tending to all of the
Speaker 4: full beds now have to tend to these extra people
Speaker 4: sitting in the corridors, which otherwise would have been with
Speaker 4: the paramedics.
Speaker 1: And I am absolutely sure.
Speaker 4: I watched this episode of Yes Minister the other day,
Speaker 4: like this reads exactly like something Sir Humphrey Appleby would
Speaker 4: have suggest to be done.
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break before we do.
Speaker 3: Just for Sydney's siders. There will be no train strike
Speaker 3: in Sydney tomorrow, so that's good news for those wanting
Speaker 3: to get to work. If you're having a day off,
Speaker 3: I guess it's bad news, but no train strike.
Speaker 2: In Sydney tomorrow. We're going to go to a break
Speaker 2: when we come back.
Speaker 3: Heritage listings released today include sites.
Speaker 2: On the Moon. Can you believe it? All of that
Speaker 2: in just a moment?
Speaker 3: Okay, So normally when you think of endangered heritage sites,
Speaker 3: you think of the center of Vienna, or maybe the
Speaker 3: old city walls in Jerusalem, or rainforests in Sumatra.
Speaker 2: You don't typically think.
Speaker 3: About the Moon, let alone the site of the first
Speaker 3: moon landing. But the World Monument's Fund, based out of
Speaker 3: New York, have released their latest list of endangered sites,
Speaker 3: and several key sites on the Moon have been listed
Speaker 3: as under threat from space exploration.
Speaker 2: Once again. Elon Musk is to blame.
Speaker 3: The Moon is one of twenty five at risk places
Speaker 3: they have listed. The problem here, I see, Cadabin, Liz,
Speaker 3: is this is the World Monuments Fund. They're gonna have
Speaker 3: to change their name because clearly they are going well
Speaker 3: beyond their jurisdiction now listing sites on the Moon.
Speaker 6: The problem I see, James, is that we're still pretending
Speaker 6: we actually landed on kidding.
Speaker 1: There so hellogious.
Speaker 6: Anyway, ely looked into these nos. We didn't make it
Speaker 6: anyway to France. Now we're a French theater. They're known
Speaker 6: for their radicalness. They're really all in on the refugee
Speaker 6: status type stuff.
Speaker 5: They decided, we are going to.
Speaker 6: Open our theater, Gaiet the Gaiety Lyric Theater in Paris,
Speaker 6: to a conference. We are inviting refugees. We want everyone
Speaker 6: to come. This is free of charge. Well guess what.
Speaker 6: Five weeks later, two hundred and fifty refugees haven't left.
Speaker 6: Reports are that, especially in terms of the lavatory, things
Speaker 6: are getting very unsanitary at this otherwise gorgeous theater.
Speaker 5: The refugees are simply refusing to leave. I'd say this
Speaker 5: theater is probably reconsidering.
Speaker 3: This is what This is what happens when you have
Speaker 3: an encore performance, just keeps going and going and going.
Speaker 4: Life comes at you fast. Hey, but I love this
Speaker 4: sort of stuff. It's like instant justice. You know, all
Speaker 4: this time they've been running around saying, oh good, we'll
Speaker 4: be fine, we'll support the.
Speaker 1: Refugees, et cetera. Well, now you've seen what it got to.
Speaker 5: Taste of it.
Speaker 3: That's it from us. Good night, but stick around. Coming
Speaker 3: up is the readA petty show.
Speaker 5: In just a month