Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Debate. Thanks for joining us on
Speaker 2: the Late Debate.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and Freier Leach. Coming
Speaker 3: up tonight, the Chinese launch a brand new sport, robot boxing.
Speaker 3: Is it RoboCop? I think it's more robo Flop. Will
Speaker 3: show you about a little later. Plus when we look
Speaker 3: at what's making news tomorrow, the Queensland government have got
Speaker 3: an idea for reducing power prices. They're going to open
Speaker 3: up new gas fields.
Speaker 2: Who would have thought.
Speaker 3: And a former afl umpire gives the most bizarre excuse
Speaker 3: for missing a court hearing. We'll get to all of
Speaker 3: that shortly, but we want to start the show tonight
Speaker 3: in Caleb's favorite place, South Australia, where the City of
Speaker 3: Churches is about to get their very first skyscraper and
Speaker 3: not everybody is happy about it.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: Business leaders they're very happy they're going to get a
Speaker 3: thirty eight story tower right in the heart of the
Speaker 3: city because it will house five thousand office workers and
Speaker 3: one hundred retail staff.
Speaker 2: But opponents, including the Council, say it will.
Speaker 3: Completely overshadow the Historic and National Heritage list in Parliament House.
Speaker 2: You can see an image there. And then the.
Speaker 3: Adelaide Parks Association of called the skyscraper a monster, saying
Speaker 3: it's going to impose on Adelaide's beautiful green spaces. Now
Speaker 3: I've got to say I am with the opponents of
Speaker 3: this project for two reasons. Firstly, Caleb Adelaide is a
Speaker 3: beautiful city that is not in spite of the lack
Speaker 3: of skyscrapers, but because there's a lack of If you
Speaker 3: want skyscrapers, go to Melbourne, go to Sydney, go to Perth,
Speaker 3: go to Brisbane. Adelaide is beautiful because it doesn't have
Speaker 3: any of those things. And second, they don't need this.
Speaker 3: The commercial vacancy rate in the CBD of Adelaide is
Speaker 3: sixteen point four percent. The national vacancy rate is thirteen percent.
Speaker 3: Only Melbourne has a higher commercial vacancy rate than the CBD.
Speaker 3: Adelaide doesn't need more office towers. It's beautiful the way
Speaker 3: it is. And as a person who loves Adelaide, I
Speaker 3: would expect you would agree with me on this.
Speaker 1: Well, no, because it sounds like you want to tell
Speaker 1: the private sector what they ought to do with their money.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're saying you know the vacancy rate is this,
Speaker 1: therefore you should not be able to build new buildings.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why the vacancy rate is so high.
Speaker 1: There are lots of heritage buildings in the CBD that
Speaker 1: ought to have things done with them, and nothing is
Speaker 1: done with them. I mean, I have written about Sir
Speaker 1: Edmund Wright House in King William Street in Adelaide has
Speaker 1: been sitting there empty for years. In years and years,
Speaker 1: it's owned by the state government. They've tried to sell
Speaker 1: it multiple times. No one wants to take it because
Speaker 1: serious work has to be done to it. So why
Speaker 1: doesn't the state government say, oh, look we've got an
Speaker 1: opportunity here to do something with a heritage building. We'll
Speaker 1: do it. But they don't do that. So the only
Speaker 1: place you can go is a new building. So someone
Speaker 1: comes along Lange Walker and says, I want to spend
Speaker 1: the money to put up two towers on this bit
Speaker 1: of what was otherwise basically unused land in the CBD
Speaker 1: behind Parliament House. I mean, they these sculptures. It was
Speaker 1: called Adelaide Urban iconography, and people who live in Adelaide
Speaker 1: will know exactly what I'm talking about. It used to
Speaker 1: be behind Parliament House. It was a weird, rhombous looking
Speaker 1: thing and it was dilapidated and old. It was done
Speaker 1: in the time of Don Dunstan. It was an eyesore.
Speaker 1: So lane walkerss will put some buildings up. I mean,
Speaker 1: you pee investment in South Australia, what is wrong with that?
Speaker 1: And you've got the Greens say, oh, we can't have
Speaker 1: anything shadowing over Parliament House. The only people really concerned
Speaker 1: about anything shadowing over Parliament House are the people who
Speaker 1: work with in it. But what's the problem. They put
Speaker 1: up a brand new building with a rooftop bar and
Speaker 1: a restaurant on it, so all the overpaid staffers can
Speaker 1: go and spend their taxpayer dollars up there. I don't
Speaker 1: see what the issues.
Speaker 3: Put it somewhere else, Freyer, so it doesn't overshadow what
Speaker 3: is a beautiful historic building, this parkland mine. You have
Speaker 3: the building, just put it somewhere different.
Speaker 4: But this is the reality. If Adelaide wants to be
Speaker 4: an international city, they need to go up and they're
Speaker 4: surrounded by a ring of parts. It's not like you
Speaker 4: can just infinitely go out. There's a limit to how
Speaker 4: far Adelaide can expand. So they have to go up.
Speaker 4: And we've seen this, you know, I'm from Sydney and
Speaker 4: we've seen this in Sydney all the time. People oppose
Speaker 4: huge developments like Barangaroo is a great example. They go, oh, no,
Speaker 4: this will be terrible, My harbor of you will be blocked.
Speaker 4: How could we possibly do this? And then they go up. Sure,
Speaker 4: in the early years you deal with a lot of construction,
Speaker 4: but once they're up, everyone enjoys it and the amenity
Speaker 4: for the whole area improves. And that is what development
Speaker 4: does to our cities. The nimbi's oppose it, but the
Speaker 4: ymbi's will win because we all benefit from nice, new,
Speaker 4: great cities.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, I'll tell you who else is opposed development,
Speaker 3: and that's the Australian Turf Club. They've rejected caliber what
Speaker 3: a five billion dollar offer from the New South Wales
Speaker 3: state government to take over that property. They would have
Speaker 3: put twenty five thousand homes there. God knows we need
Speaker 3: more homes. The Turf Club could have built a new
Speaker 3: facility somewhere else. There was the opportunity to upgrade an
Speaker 3: existing one elsewhere, but they've declined the offer. They want
Speaker 3: rose Hill to remain as a turf as a racing venue.
Speaker 2: Good decision or bad decision.
Speaker 1: As well, they should. I mean you get rid of
Speaker 1: these things, you'd never get them back. Right. This is
Speaker 1: one of the premier race courses in the country. Right,
Speaker 1: it has some of the best races in the world,
Speaker 1: the Golden Slipper etc. And the idea that you would
Speaker 1: turf pardon the party, what is a great race track
Speaker 1: because mister Mins wants to put some houses on it
Speaker 1: makes no sense to me. Let's be clear, this was
Speaker 1: not a proposal from the state government. It was an
Speaker 1: unsolicited proposal from the Australian Turf Club to the State
Speaker 1: government that they could put twenty or twenty five thousand
Speaker 1: odd houses on it and that the state government ought
Speaker 1: to chip in the money to make it happen. The
Speaker 1: state government said they were interested, but there was no
Speaker 1: contract there. So the members of the ATC were essentially
Speaker 1: asked today to sign a blank check for the club
Speaker 1: to go way and have negotiations with mister Min's to
Speaker 1: come to an agreement which is probably about five billion,
Speaker 1: maybe we were told, but who the hell would agree
Speaker 1: to that. There's plenty of space to put houses elsewhere.
Speaker 1: In fact, there was already a proposal on the table
Speaker 1: to put ten thousand residences next to the rose Hill
Speaker 1: Racecourse that required no touching of the race course whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So why don't they just do that? Why do they
Speaker 1: have to get rid of one of my great loves
Speaker 1: to put up more houses.
Speaker 5: But this is just nimbi logic.
Speaker 4: A four seconds ago you were arguing against when it
Speaker 4: comes to Adelaide.
Speaker 5: But this is the exact same thing we took me down.
Speaker 4: People and Australians value homes in an acute housing crisis
Speaker 4: more than I'm sorry. A few people value horse racing.
Speaker 1: That's what people horse racing. Yeah sorry, It is one
Speaker 1: of the biggest industries. It is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: employers in this country.
Speaker 2: Horse and you know what happened.
Speaker 5: We don't have enough. You know what happens if we
Speaker 5: don't have enough homes, week suffer. But you could also
Speaker 5: build the race course next door. You can build the
Speaker 5: races running Western Sydney. This is a silly argument.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't need to build another race course.
Speaker 1: You've already got the race course and history has shown
Speaker 1: what happens when you sell race courses. The SAJC in
Speaker 1: South Australia sold Cheltenham in two thousand and seven for
Speaker 1: eighty five million dollars and they said this will secure
Speaker 1: racing in Adelaide forever. We have an investment fund now
Speaker 1: that will make sure everything is hunky dory. And it
Speaker 1: was never meant to go below fifty million dollars. In
Speaker 1: their last annual report the investment fund was down to
Speaker 1: eighteen point nine million dollars. So in a matter of
Speaker 1: fifteen years they've nearly blown the whole lot, and then
Speaker 1: that we're going begging for more money. This is what happens.
Speaker 1: They never spend it properly and leave it as it is.
Speaker 2: Unlike you, I could care less about horse racing.
Speaker 3: It's not the job of the Turf Club to help
Speaker 3: out the New South Wales government with their poor planning
Speaker 3: by giving up their property to create more houses. If
Speaker 3: we've got a housing shortage, it's not up to the
Speaker 3: Turf Club to save it. On behalf of Chris Min's.
Speaker 3: He's the government organize a solution.
Speaker 4: I'll just leave it on this. If racing was so profitable,
Speaker 4: why are they flogging off their asset?
Speaker 5: But let's move on. Moving on to Victoria. Now, the Victorian.
Speaker 4: Treasurer had a really awkward moment today when she was
Speaker 4: addressing a group of high rolling property developers and investors
Speaker 4: and she asked the really interesting question.
Speaker 5: Of what is your favorite tax?
Speaker 4: Now, obviously the room was dead silent, and everyone was
Speaker 4: kind of looking around, going what the heck the treasurer
Speaker 4: of the state that has become uninvestible because of the
Speaker 4: amount of taxes and regulations being put on the property
Speaker 4: sector is trying to make a joke of this situation. Seriously,
Speaker 4: it was truly shocking, and I think it really does
Speaker 4: demonstrate how out of touch the Victorian government is with
Speaker 4: the realities.
Speaker 3: Well, I just wish Kerry Packer had been part of
Speaker 3: that crowd, because he would have answered something like this,
Speaker 3: I'm wrong.
Speaker 6: With minimizing tax. I don't know anybody who doesn't minimize
Speaker 6: their tax, and that you were doing so in ways
Speaker 6: that work contrary to the spirits of the law. Well,
Speaker 6: I just got through telling you what I thought about that.
Speaker 6: I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now,
Speaker 6: of course I am minimizing my tax. And if anybody
Speaker 6: in this country doesn't minimize their tax, they want their
Speaker 6: head remp because as a government, I can tell you
Speaker 6: you're not spending it that well that we should be
Speaker 6: donating extra.
Speaker 3: Imagine a Victorian state premier asking property developers and real
Speaker 3: estate moguls, what's your favorite tax? I mean, you've got
Speaker 3: plenty to choose from. You've got your land tax, you've
Speaker 3: got your fire services levey, you've got your windfall gains tax,
Speaker 3: you've got your congestion levey, you've got stamp duty, all
Speaker 3: of which affects property owners. So what's your favorite tax?
Speaker 3: Or there's so many to choose from. I mean, this
Speaker 3: is a treasurer who asks staff, don't give me economic
Speaker 3: terms in your emails because I don't understand them, and
Speaker 3: clearly she doesn't understand business. To suppose that they might
Speaker 3: have a favorite tax that they could nominate. A better question,
Speaker 3: Caylor would have been, what's your favorite term to describe
Speaker 3: the treasurer? Is it incompetent, arrogant or completely tone deaf?
Speaker 1: Look, I know, what's your favorite text? Might fly in
Speaker 1: a room full of boring ato. You know, people weren't
Speaker 1: good enough to be accountants in that with the ADO
Speaker 1: public servants. But I mean, it's like asking a room
Speaker 1: full of people who's your favorite serial killer. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, you don't ask people what their
Speaker 1: favorite No one has got a favorite text. There is
Speaker 1: no such thing as a favorite tax I can only
Speaker 1: imagine that the discussions between Simes and her staff before
Speaker 1: she went into the room when something like this.
Speaker 6: Does every tax ryers represent a blur against freedom?
Speaker 2: It depends how big the tax raises.
Speaker 6: That's fascinating.
Speaker 3: Does twenty pence represent a blow against freedom?
Speaker 6: So it's something a blow against freedom simply because it
Speaker 6: can seriously damage your wealth.
Speaker 2: I must warn you of the difficulties.
Speaker 1: I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems, such as if
Speaker 1: I could foresee them, they wouldn't be unforeseen. They obviously
Speaker 1: didn't foresee the unforeseen problems in asking a room full
Speaker 1: of people who work in the property sector what their
Speaker 1: favorite tax is. But it is, you know, to be
Speaker 1: serious for a moment. It is a window into the
Speaker 1: way the Andrews then Allen government thinks in that they
Speaker 1: generally think that there would be people out there who
Speaker 1: would be able to nominate what they think the best
Speaker 1: tax is, because of course it's the only way they
Speaker 1: can think that government at the moment because they need
Speaker 1: the money so much. I mean, they're hurtling towards two
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars sorry worth of debt. I mean, compared
Speaker 1: to other jurisdictions around the world with similar populations, it
Speaker 1: is one of the most indebted jurisdictions, state or federal
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world. I mean. They are obsessed with
Speaker 1: taxation because it's the only way they can hope to
Speaker 1: keep themselves afloat. So she's certainly thinking about what her
Speaker 1: favorite tax is. She just can't fathom the idea that
Speaker 1: the rest of us wouldn't.
Speaker 3: It's like asking what's your favorite way of being robbed? Well,
Speaker 3: that's pretty much the question.
Speaker 1: Speaking of your favorite way to be robbed, perhaps your
Speaker 1: least favorite way to be robbed. Council rates is probably
Speaker 1: it certainly is for me. I mean, you know, we
Speaker 1: bang on every night about these council stories here because
Speaker 1: you might say, look, they're minus stories, but these are
Speaker 1: the things. And I have a background in working in
Speaker 1: newspapers at a local level, where I started out at
Speaker 1: the local rag in Adelaide, working around the suburbs. You
Speaker 1: will never find a story that gets people more angry
Speaker 1: and they're more interested in than a council story because
Speaker 1: it affects them every single day and you pay your
Speaker 1: rates and you expect something reasonable to be done with it,
Speaker 1: and we constantly show you the examples of how they're
Speaker 1: not doing reasonable things with it. But I can't believe
Speaker 1: this decision has been handed down by the South Australian
Speaker 1: Remuneration Tribunal. And you would know that this is the
Speaker 1: mob that sets the pay for senior public servants and politicians.
Speaker 1: So they decide what the premier gets and what MPs get,
Speaker 1: and they also decide what council CEOs can be paid.
Speaker 1: So they've gone through and done an audit because a
Speaker 1: number of councils have come to the Remuneration Tribunal and said,
Speaker 1: for some reason or another, we want to pay our
Speaker 1: CEO more so, the Remuneration Tribunal has reviewed all of
Speaker 1: the pay bands for CEOs and they do it council
Speaker 1: by council and for at least half a dozen councils
Speaker 1: they've actually reduced the top end of the paypacket that
Speaker 1: the council CEO can go away. And one of these
Speaker 1: councils is burn Sad. As they say in Adelaide, Burn sad.
Speaker 1: It's the leafy Eastern suburbs which is actually now turned
Speaker 1: into labor territory. But they wanted to give their CEO
Speaker 1: pay rise and at the moment, the upper end of
Speaker 1: that is three hundred and fifty one K that they're
Speaker 1: allowed to give. Now the Remuneration Tribunal says you can
Speaker 1: only give three hundred and twenty one. Kid going begging
Speaker 1: for a pay rise, they've actually come back and said, no,
Speaker 1: you've got to take a pay cut. How good is this?
Speaker 1: What's that? Oh? I thing?
Speaker 2: Be careful what you ask for.
Speaker 3: And the reason that the Burnside Council wanted to pay
Speaker 3: their CEO so much money was that they listened to
Speaker 3: three things. Because he's the CEO in a highly engaged
Speaker 3: and affluent population, I should notice a shit. I'm not
Speaker 3: sure when that matters. They want to pay her because
Speaker 3: she comes under media scrutiny. Will a lot of roles
Speaker 3: come under media scrutiny? And because of political challenges, it's
Speaker 3: not that difficult prayer at last. I remember it was
Speaker 3: like filling in potholes, arranging for bins to be emptied,
Speaker 3: mowing the grass, you know, in the public park areas
Speaker 3: for a CEO to earn as much as, or in
Speaker 3: some cases more than the state premiere.
Speaker 2: It's just outrageous.
Speaker 3: You've got sixty eight local council CEOs in South Australia
Speaker 3: in a population of two million people, and these CEOs
Speaker 3: are on between two hundred and four hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars each.
Speaker 2: No wonder they don't want to.
Speaker 3: I know you're a bit of a proponent for amalgamating council.
Speaker 3: No wonder they don't want to amalgamate. Why would you
Speaker 3: when you're on that kind of money.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it shows us a couple things.
Speaker 4: Firstly, defenders of the high renumeration would argue that a
Speaker 4: lot of these councils have budgets of hundreds of millions
Speaker 4: of dollars. So it actually shows us that these councils
Speaker 4: have expanded well beyond the remit of what councils were
Speaker 4: actually established to do.
Speaker 5: And a lot of the functions in the community that.
Speaker 4: Used to be carried out by not for profits voluntary
Speaker 4: association's churches are now being taken over by the councils.
Speaker 5: So you end up with these huge.
Speaker 4: Massive, bloated bureaucracies performing functions that used to be perfectly
Speaker 4: well performed by not for profits. But then it also
Speaker 4: does highlight the fact that our politicians in Australia really
Speaker 4: are not paid very much. In New South Wales you
Speaker 4: have ten council CEOs earning over five hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: That is far more than the premiere of the state.
Speaker 4: So it is pretty shocking. I mean, I think we
Speaker 4: need to pay our politicians more, and also just in council.
Speaker 1: Funny thing though, is, you know, comparatively, we pay our
Speaker 1: politicians a lot in the present of the United States,
Speaker 1: and it's about two hundred k year, which is probably
Speaker 1: traditionally why the President of the United States has been
Speaker 1: a rich man, because they're the only people who can
Speaker 1: afford to get there. But one thing I can guarantee
Speaker 1: is that when people woke up and read the advertiser
Speaker 1: this morning and discovered that their council ceo was going
Speaker 1: to be paid list, they would have reacted something like
Speaker 1: Jeremy Clarkson, here.
Speaker 2: Bad news. What the Dacia sandero it's delayed?
Speaker 6: Oh no, anyway last week.
Speaker 1: And so say all of that, I think when we
Speaker 1: use that cleep a bit more now because there's plenty
Speaker 1: of opportunities I can think of where you're just like, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: that is so sad. I just can't believe it's happened.
Speaker 2: Absolutely love that.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the United States where Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: busy trying to rebuild the US military, and we wish
Speaker 3: him all the best with that. The military really came
Speaker 3: under a lot of pressure because they just couldn't recruit
Speaker 3: enough soldiers. In twenty twenty two, they felt twenty five
Speaker 3: percent short of their recruitment target. Twenty twenty three wasn't
Speaker 3: much better than new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says it's
Speaker 3: because the.
Speaker 2: Military had gone so woke.
Speaker 3: Young Americans just weren't inclined to die for their country
Speaker 3: or serve in a military that was all about transgenderism
Speaker 3: and pronouns. But the Trump administration, well they've addressed that issue.
Speaker 3: And take a look at the new recruitment ad. It's
Speaker 3: pretty inspiring.
Speaker 1: No more distraction, no more electric tanks, no more gender confusion,
Speaker 1: no more climate change worship. We are laser focused on
Speaker 1: our mission of warfighting. We will measure our success not
Speaker 1: only by the battles we win, but also by the
Speaker 1: war as we end.
Speaker 5: And perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.
Speaker 1: It's called peace through Strength.
Speaker 3: I like that commercial. It's inspiring and some of the
Speaker 3: other slogans used in the extended version. They talk about,
Speaker 3: we don't fight because we hate what's in front of us.
Speaker 3: We fight because we love what's behind us. They talk
Speaker 3: about through power and might, we will lead the world
Speaker 3: to peace. Our friends will respect us, our enemies will
Speaker 3: fear us, and the world will admire us. What I
Speaker 3: like about this Frayer is they're appealing to young people's
Speaker 3: sense of getting involved in something bigger than themselves. And
Speaker 3: I couldn't help but think about some of the Australian
Speaker 3: Defense Force advertisements which have as a slogan, or at
Speaker 3: least they did recently, challenge yourself. It was all about
Speaker 3: self fulfillment. It was all about a career. Maybe you
Speaker 3: could get a trade through the military. But the US
Speaker 3: have gone a different way. It's not about you, it's
Speaker 3: about your country. It's not about you, it's about your family.
Speaker 3: It's not about doing something for yourself. It's about doing
Speaker 3: something for the common good that will go on beyond you.
Speaker 3: I think it's a good way to inspire young people totally.
Speaker 4: And the kind of twenty five century religion for jen
Speaker 4: Z has been expressive individualism. Find your true self and
Speaker 4: live according to your authentic self and self actualize and
Speaker 4: then you'll be a fulfilled human being. But ultimately that
Speaker 4: actually leaves us empty, as you can see by the
Speaker 4: incredibly devastating mental health statistics. So what the US has
Speaker 4: now said is stuff that it's clearly not working. This
Speaker 4: is the counter cultural revolution of saying it's not about
Speaker 4: just focusing on yourself, focusing on who you are, it's
Speaker 4: about fighting for something greater than yourself. And that commercial
Speaker 4: was so inspiring, but let's compare that to a different
Speaker 4: ad that was released under the Biden presidency.
Speaker 7: This is the story of a soldier who operates your
Speaker 7: niece's Patriot missile defense systems. It begins in California with
Speaker 7: the little girl by two moms.
Speaker 5: Need I say more? Need I say more? And the
Speaker 5: rest of.
Speaker 4: The commercial continued in that vein the fact that they
Speaker 4: are trying to or they attempted to recruit people into
Speaker 4: the army based on silly things like LGBTQ diversity. It's
Speaker 4: just people don't care about that. If they're going to
Speaker 4: die for their country. It better be for a dune
Speaker 4: good reason. It's not going to be because they happen
Speaker 4: to have two mothers.
Speaker 1: And this has not been without consequence and design really
Speaker 1: that we've ended up in this place. And you know
Speaker 1: the polling the IPA has done recently. You know, if
Speaker 1: you were in a position, if Australia was in a
Speaker 1: position like Ukraine, for instance, where you get invaded, how
Speaker 1: many young people would go to fight, and it's something
Speaker 1: like twenty five percent, Like most will not fight. Nearly
Speaker 1: half say they'd flee the country, they get out of
Speaker 1: the joint because they don't want to be here anymore.
Speaker 1: And that's because we haven't instilled any level of national
Speaker 1: pride anyone. If you've got nothing to believe in, then
Speaker 1: you have nothing to fight for. And of course that's
Speaker 1: what the long march through the institutions has been about.
Speaker 1: The if you can stop the kids from loving the
Speaker 1: country they live in because they live on stolen land
Speaker 1: and their existence is illegitimate, etc. Then they won't defend it.
Speaker 1: So then someone else will come along who presumably the
Speaker 1: Chinese will then come along and they'll have great regard
Speaker 1: for our indigenous populations. I suppose, I don't know, but
Speaker 1: this is exactly the problem that the rest of the
Speaker 1: West faces. I did think it was curious though, because
Speaker 1: it was in the early two thousands that they essentially
Speaker 1: made the movie Team America World Police. That is exactly
Speaker 1: what this ad was. Carbon copy. I mean, when I
Speaker 1: saw the ad, I thought, Gee, this is a great movie.
Speaker 1: I want to go and see it. As Tom Cruise
Speaker 1: put out another version of Top Gun or something, I
Speaker 1: think he is actually putting out in another version of
Speaker 1: Top Gun. Let's go back to my old state of
Speaker 1: South Australia again for a short moment. They just elected
Speaker 1: the youngest senator in Australian history, Charlotte Walker, twenty one
Speaker 1: years old, of the Labor Party. She turned twenty one
Speaker 1: on election night. It should be noted as well. Now
Speaker 1: she was third on the Senate ticket in South Australia,
Speaker 1: of the Labour Senate ticket that is, and that's generally
Speaker 1: been an unelectable position for Labor in South Australia, certainly
Speaker 1: since rud one in two thousand and seven, so they
Speaker 1: weren't expecting that she would get up. She's just a
Speaker 1: place filler, as often is the case, in these elections,
Speaker 1: but because the swing was on, we now have a
Speaker 1: twenty one year old senator in the Federal Parliament. She said,
Speaker 1: I want to do a good job for South Australians,
Speaker 1: but I also want to show young people, particularly young women,
Speaker 1: that this is achievable and this is something that they
Speaker 1: can do. Also, not many people my age get to
Speaker 1: go to Canberra have the ability to contribute in the
Speaker 1: way that I will, so I'm also really excited to
Speaker 1: get into it, and to be perfectly honest, good luck
Speaker 1: to her is what I have to say. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: you know, she's got very little life experience or work experience.
Speaker 1: She's been a union she went to work in a union.
Speaker 1: But that's about the same as anyone who's in the
Speaker 1: Labor Party, the Parliamentary Labor Party. So whether you're forty
Speaker 1: one or twenty one, I don't think it makes much difference.
Speaker 1: And if you can vote at the age of twenty one,
Speaker 1: and of course you can, you can vote from eighteen,
Speaker 1: then you are as deserving of that spot in Parliament
Speaker 1: as anyone else.
Speaker 2: I agree with your sentiments. Good on her, well done.
Speaker 3: That's no mean feat to be elected to the Senate
Speaker 3: at the age of twenty one. But it's interesting she
Speaker 3: said there that not many people my age get to
Speaker 3: go to Canberra. And I think there's a good reason
Speaker 3: for that, because at twenty one, you presumably haven't bought
Speaker 3: a house, haven't had kids.
Speaker 2: She hasn't worked a real job.
Speaker 3: She did one year of university, dropped out, went and
Speaker 3: worked for a union. There's so much life experience she
Speaker 3: doesn't have. And it's wonderful that you could be an
Speaker 3: example of what's possible getting to Canberra. But you don't
Speaker 3: go to Canberra to show other people they can go
Speaker 3: to Canberra. You go to Canberra to enact policy and legislation.
Speaker 3: And at the age of twenty one, as Caleb said,
Speaker 3: not a bad twenty first by the way, on election night.
Speaker 1: And bloody good Barty would have been thrown.
Speaker 3: I really have what it takes to make sensible policy.
Speaker 3: And the worst thing that could happen is that she succeeds.
Speaker 3: Imagine she's in the Senate for the next twenty years.
Speaker 3: You'd end up with a forty one year old who's
Speaker 3: never had a real job making legislation for this country.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's in anybody's interests. I remember here
Speaker 3: at the Sky News studios was last year sometime talking
Speaker 3: about Barnaby Joyce and I had my son with me
Speaker 3: and I said to Barnaby, do you reckon my son
Speaker 3: should go into politics? I was stirring my son because
Speaker 3: he has no interest whatsoever. And Barnaby Joyce said, if
Speaker 3: you want to go into politics, my advice is how
Speaker 3: old you My son said eighteen or whatever, and Barnaby said,
Speaker 3: wait until you're thirty and get ten eleven twelve is
Speaker 3: life experience, and then minimum age thirty. Then go into politics,
Speaker 3: but get some life experience. I think that's good advice,
Speaker 3: good luck to this girl, but I don't know that
Speaker 3: it's a great thing for our country.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's exactly right, because there are certain
Speaker 4: things that you can only really understand by going through life.
Speaker 4: And also the Senate is quite different. So why Roy
Speaker 4: was younger than this new senator. He was twenty when
Speaker 4: he got elected, but he got elected in the lower House,
Speaker 4: so he had to run a campaign, He had to
Speaker 4: engage with voters at town hales do daw knocking the
Speaker 4: whole thing.
Speaker 5: Now, I think that is more justified.
Speaker 4: Obviously, I ran as a candidate in an unwinnable seat
Speaker 4: in the state election had to do the same thing
Speaker 4: and it was a really good learning experience and.
Speaker 5: You have to come face to face with voters.
Speaker 4: The difference with the Senate is no one's really voting
Speaker 4: for you, and it more just underscores the fact that
Speaker 4: the Liberals absolutely tanked at the last election and Labor
Speaker 4: romped it in. But in any case, I don't think
Speaker 4: it'll really matter if she's there or not, because Labor
Speaker 4: senators and members of Parliament for that matter, have basically
Speaker 4: no freedom in what they do. When we saw how
Speaker 4: this all worked out for Fatoma payment last time they
Speaker 4: put a twenty something year old in the settus, I'm.
Speaker 1: Going to put you up on something.
Speaker 6: Mac.
Speaker 1: You say, you know, probably as an owner house and
Speaker 1: no kids and all these things, which is fair. I
Speaker 1: doubt she does. But are they prerequisites to go into parliament,
Speaker 1: because this is probably.
Speaker 3: The prerepposite is you're old enough to vote, you're Australian citizen,
Speaker 3: and that's the prerection. I'm just saying, is it great
Speaker 3: to have people who have virtually zero life.
Speaker 1: Experience what you're describing. His whole problem with the party system,
Speaker 1: not with the age because the party has chosen people
Speaker 1: who will be loyal foot soldiers of the ALP and
Speaker 1: they are mostly people who have their history in the
Speaker 1: Union or working in a labor politician's office. Right, So
Speaker 1: whether you're twenty one or forty one, or fifty one
Speaker 1: or sixty one, they're all of the same book. They're
Speaker 1: all from the same gene pool. True. I don't think
Speaker 1: it makes any different difference. I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: problem with democracy, I suppose in some respects is that
Speaker 1: it has to represent everyone, and that's the person with
Speaker 1: the lowest IQ up to the highest IQ, and the
Speaker 1: least successful person to the most successful, and the youngest
Speaker 1: to the oldest, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, she's been elected as a labor senator, right,
Speaker 3: Don Ferrell, who's a labor statesman, he described her and
Speaker 3: as I quote, very young and very very lucky. That's
Speaker 3: hardly a rigging endorsement.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's the reality of it. But you do
Speaker 4: make a good point. But I think ultimately we want
Speaker 4: our politicians to be leaders that we can aspire to
Speaker 4: and look up to as well. So we'll see how
Speaker 4: this all plays out. But let's move on now. Last
Speaker 4: week we covered a story of a transgender athlete in
Speaker 4: California who was allowed to compete as a biological male
Speaker 4: against biological females, and predictably, this athlete beat the women
Speaker 4: in their category and took home first place.
Speaker 5: And there's now been a development in that story.
Speaker 4: The mother of this fleet was confronted by other parents
Speaker 4: at the athletics tournament who were rightfully extremely upset that
Speaker 4: her son was being allowed to compete against their daughters.
Speaker 5: There's not belong competing against those girls, period. What a
Speaker 5: coward of a woman you are allowing that? Telling a woman?
Speaker 1: Telling? Are a woman?
Speaker 4: Telling girls to go and compete against the boy?
Speaker 5: How embarrassing. How you're a mother, You're a mother, Stand
Speaker 5: up like a mother. I am a mother. I'm compecting girls.
Speaker 5: You want a boy? How many people.
Speaker 2: Support the boy?
Speaker 1: Girl?
Speaker 4: I can really understand the anger that those parents must
Speaker 4: feel seeing their daughters, who have worked their guts out
Speaker 4: to get there take home second place or third place,
Speaker 4: or no place at all because a male is beating
Speaker 4: their daughters. That's outrageous. And it's also been revealed in
Speaker 4: this article that the male managed to change his birth
Speaker 4: certificate very recently for a small sum of twenty three dollars,
Speaker 4: and that's what allowed him to compete in the female category.
Speaker 4: Now he's got the opportunity to access college scholarships, the
Speaker 4: state finals, and all sorts of athletic opportunities. Not a
Speaker 4: bad return on investment, I say, but a very unfair
Speaker 4: outcome for women.
Speaker 3: Not bad at all. And have a look at how
Speaker 3: this athlete fared. We'll show you the results in the
Speaker 3: girl's long jump. Ab Hernandez is the male who's competing
Speaker 3: in the female category. You can see there that he
Speaker 3: won the women's event with a jump of five point
Speaker 3: eight eight meters, But if he was to jump in
Speaker 3: the boys event, the winning jump was not five point
Speaker 3: eight eight it was seven point four to zero meters,
Speaker 3: So Hernandez would have been two meters short of winning
Speaker 3: the men's event. In fact, his jump was so short
Speaker 3: enough to win the girl's event, but so he would
Speaker 3: have finished last by sixty centimeters from the next lowest
Speaker 3: placed getter in the boys event. So very clearly identifies
Speaker 3: as a girl. Absolutely smashes it in the female event.
Speaker 3: But if he had remained in the boys event, would
Speaker 3: have finished last.
Speaker 2: It would have been nineteenth and by a margin.
Speaker 1: Well, twenty three bucks is a pretty good price of admission.
Speaker 1: And I'm starting to think, James, you and I should
Speaker 1: go and have a go at the afl W because
Speaker 1: I think we could show them a thing or two.
Speaker 1: But I mean, what you saw there was pretty unedifying
Speaker 1: two parents going at each other. But this is the
Speaker 1: logical consequence of the authorities that ought to be taking
Speaker 1: this stuff seriously not taking the matter seriously, because, as
Speaker 1: I've said many times, this is a matter of fairness, right,
Speaker 1: and we're continually told, well, no, it's a matter of
Speaker 1: inclusion and that everyone ought to feel included in school
Speaker 1: and junior sport. And I get the intention of what
Speaker 1: they're trying to say, but you have to teach fairness
Speaker 1: from a very young age, and fairness is such an
Speaker 1: important tenet of sport. It's what sportsmanship, or maybe sportswomanship
Speaker 1: or sports day them ship these days is all about.
Speaker 1: And when the authorities don't take it seriously that girls
Speaker 1: ought to be able to compete on a level playing field,
Speaker 1: then of course you're going to end up in a
Speaker 1: position where parents will start lashing out like that and
Speaker 1: saying this is not good enough, and they'll take it
Speaker 1: out on other people who perhaps they ought not be
Speaker 1: taking it out on, because these things should be settled
Speaker 1: in much more civil ways. But the people who can
Speaker 1: settle these things in civil ways seem to have no
Speaker 1: interest in doing so. That's the biggest problem.
Speaker 2: And you're absolutely right about parents in sport.
Speaker 3: I've spent a lot of the time pacing the sideline
Speaker 3: at kids' sport, and you do get emotional, and you
Speaker 3: do get wound up, and when you see your child
Speaker 3: being disadvantaged, tempers get hot, and politicians should do something
Speaker 3: to head that off. We're coming into flu season, of course.
Speaker 3: An interesting survey from the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne.
Speaker 3: Two thousand people surveyed and found a third of parents
Speaker 3: were hesitant to have their children vaccinated. Seventeen percent said
Speaker 3: they wouldn't get their child vaccinated at all, twenty two
Speaker 3: percent said they were unsure whether they would go ahead
Speaker 3: with their vaccination of their child. Of those that said
Speaker 3: they were hesitant, staggering thirty nine percent said the reason
Speaker 3: was they didn't trust doctors or nurses information. That's compared
Speaker 3: to thirteen percent of parents planning to vaccinate, who were
Speaker 3: still a little bit skeptical of what they were being
Speaker 3: told by doctors and nurses. When I read this, I
Speaker 3: got to say, I wasn't that surprised, because it's in
Speaker 3: recent memory that we lived through a period where doctors
Speaker 3: and nurses were pretty much banned from telling you their
Speaker 3: honest opinion about the COVID vaccine nless they be deregistered,
Speaker 3: and so you'd go to your doctor and you weren't
Speaker 3: sure whether they were telling you what they really believed,
Speaker 3: or whether they were just towing the government line. And
Speaker 3: of course everything has consequences, Freyer, Vaccination is an incredibly
Speaker 3: important thing broadly speaking, but now we've got a whole
Speaker 3: segment of our population who were looking at their children saying,
Speaker 3: I don't think you should get vaccinated because they've been
Speaker 3: taught you're not always being given the right information. Can
Speaker 3: you blame parents for being a little skeptical. It's all
Speaker 3: very well to anti vaxx's conspiracy theorists, but we've got
Speaker 3: living memory of being told one thing when the opposite
Speaker 3: was in fact the case.
Speaker 4: And I think it's really sad because trust is so
Speaker 4: hard to build but so easy to destroy. And the
Speaker 4: really sad part of this is that vaccination rates for
Speaker 4: children across the board are down. So the percentage of
Speaker 4: children around twelve months old who are up to date
Speaker 4: on their vaccinations has fallen by about five percent since COVID,
Speaker 4: And that's huge. And once you cross a certain threshold,
Speaker 4: you won't have enough people vaccinated to reach hurt immunity.
Speaker 4: You open yourselves up to a whole lot more dangerous diseases,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera. But this is the cost, This
Speaker 4: is the true cost that I think no one wanted
Speaker 4: to consider at the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I get from a public health perspective
Speaker 1: why it's bad. But you know, these are the consequences
Speaker 1: of your actions. Right, if you trusted us and treated
Speaker 1: us a little better during COVID, perhaps we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: responding to what you did then. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's all good and well to say, Oh, I can't
Speaker 1: believe it. The numbers are going down. How could that
Speaker 1: possibly happen? I mean, it's like the big bad wolf
Speaker 1: saying that you ought to trust him after he came
Speaker 1: and blew your house down. It's fine, it's fine, I've
Speaker 1: learnt my lesson. It's all good. Now I'll rebuild the
Speaker 1: house for you. No, I don't want the big bad
Speaker 1: wolf to come and do it. I'd rather talk to
Speaker 1: someone else. Thanks, and can you blame people for it?
Speaker 1: Before we get to a break good news story very
Speaker 1: quickly again, another council is going to make an attempt
Speaker 1: to get rid of Welcome Country and acknowledgments of Country
Speaker 1: as well they should. This time it's Flinder's Island Flinder's
Speaker 1: Council in Tasmania, where a councilor Gary Blindcorn says, I
Speaker 1: believe the two protocols are Welcome to Country and the
Speaker 1: Acknowledgement of Country have served their purpose and it is
Speaker 1: now time to move on. These protocols are not historical
Speaker 1: and have only existed for around fifty years now. They
Speaker 1: were early adopters to all of this anti Australia Day stuff.
Speaker 1: As far back as twenty thirteen they were having sort
Speaker 1: of alternative events on Australia Day, Sorry Day, or whatever
Speaker 1: the hell it is they call it. But you know,
Speaker 1: it feels like with every passing day there's more and
Speaker 1: more people waking up to this and I know people
Speaker 1: pointed to the fact that it was brought up at
Speaker 1: the end of the election campaign and it didn't help
Speaker 1: the coalition because you know, people were voting on cost
Speaker 1: of living at that election. It's a completely separate thing.
Speaker 1: But since the voice went down, it does feel like
Speaker 1: incrementally people have started to wake up to the fact
Speaker 1: that this is so tokenistic, it's overdone, it's lost all
Speaker 1: its meaning. People don't want to sit through it anymore.
Speaker 4: And it's more often being used as a political statement
Speaker 4: to undermine the legitimacy of Australia.
Speaker 5: And push a left wing political bias.
Speaker 4: Rather than actually moving towards practical reconciliation, actually doing things
Speaker 4: to help Australia's most marginalize. How about the Council, instead
Speaker 4: of spending thousands of dollars on welcomes to country, gives
Speaker 4: that money to indigenous communities in a practical way that
Speaker 4: actually helps people.
Speaker 3: This council member says that he's had at least one
Speaker 3: hundred people come to him wanting to abandon these ceremonies,
Speaker 3: which is ten percent of the town. That's a pretty
Speaker 3: significant number. So they'll vote on that tomorrow, so it
Speaker 3: will be interested to see how.
Speaker 2: That vote goes. We're going to take a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including the bizarre excuse a former afl umpire gave for
Speaker 3: missing a court hearing that's coming up in just a moment.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the program. Let's take a look at
Speaker 3: tomorrow's headlines. Kleb, you've got the career mails.
Speaker 1: State gets on the gas, it says, and I think
Speaker 1: just steam co host here of mister McPherson was on
Speaker 1: the gas a little earlier, but we'll leave that to
Speaker 1: one side, says. Nine new gas fields will be opened
Speaker 1: up in Queensland as the state government signals a planned
Speaker 1: to cut red tape and get more of the fuel
Speaker 1: out of the ground in order to drive down the
Speaker 1: electricity bills. What a strange IDEA Resources Minister Dale Last
Speaker 1: will unlock sixteen thousand square kilometers to explorers to tap
Speaker 1: into gas reserves across the Cooper Erimannga and Bowen Surratt basins.
Speaker 1: I can't believe it. I'm literally I'm genuinely lost for
Speaker 1: words that like this has got to go to. What's
Speaker 1: the date today? Tomorrow's the twenty eighth, So today's the
Speaker 1: twenty seventh of May twenty twenty five. That a government,
Speaker 1: a state government was like, I know what we can do.
Speaker 1: We can use the resources that are under the ground.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is extraordinary in modern Australia. This is
Speaker 1: legitimately extraordinary. It's a brand new discovering that who knows
Speaker 1: it could spark it? I don't know an industrial revolution.
Speaker 1: Who knows? This is a win on every side.
Speaker 3: It means increased royalties, it means increased jobs, and of
Speaker 3: course it will mean cheaper power. And it comes a
Speaker 3: day after we talked last night Freyer about this same
Speaker 3: government nixing a one billion dollar wind turbine farm because
Speaker 3: locals weren't happy about it. This is a much better
Speaker 3: plan and to make it happen. What they're doing ostensibly
Speaker 3: is just getting read of red tape, streamlining approvals so
Speaker 3: that investment will start to flow into gas.
Speaker 5: And that's the thing.
Speaker 4: A lot of the people that claim, oh, no gas
Speaker 4: and coal, that's uninvestable, it's not profitable. That's only because
Speaker 4: of all the regulations and the red tape and the
Speaker 4: fact that governments.
Speaker 5: Won't approve it.
Speaker 4: So if you start approving this stuff, people will invest absolutely.
Speaker 3: I wonder if Victoria will take note We've got a
Speaker 3: lot of gas there that they're not accessing.
Speaker 1: Let's go it comes from Jacqueline SARMs.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure much good is going to come from there.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the Mercury. In Tasmania, firebrand MP squeaks
Speaker 3: home in tight Senate count, Jackie's Jackie Lamby grabs fifth seat.
Speaker 3: Outspoken MP Jackie Lamby has survived a protracted battle to
Speaker 3: retain her Senate seat in a tight count which has
Speaker 3: taken more.
Speaker 2: Than three weeks to finalize.
Speaker 3: She edged ahead of six plate Liberal incumbent Richard Kolbeck
Speaker 3: and a challenge from the Labor candidate Bailey Falls. Of course,
Speaker 3: Pauline Hansen's daughter was also involved in that contest and
Speaker 3: just failed to win.
Speaker 2: The seat there.
Speaker 3: Jackie Lamby, of course started back in twenty thirteen. She's
Speaker 3: been in politics. I just find it extraordinary. He's been
Speaker 3: around twelve years now. Started with Clive Palmer's Mob. Didn't
Speaker 3: last long, as not many of Clive Palmer's mob did.
Speaker 3: I think it was a year later she went independent
Speaker 3: and I guess, no matter what you think of Jackie Lamby,
Speaker 3: she's been a stayer and now she's going to be
Speaker 3: around for another Don't roll your eyes, frail another six years.
Speaker 2: Would you rather a twenty one year old.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know.
Speaker 4: No, she's certainly got a lot of hootspa, she's got
Speaker 4: a lot of pizazz. Australian politics needs a bit more
Speaker 4: of that sometimes, and there's never a dull moment with her.
Speaker 1: Well you know, I think many of us laughed when
Speaker 1: she first got elected and said, oh, oh, look at
Speaker 1: this idiot. But she's carved a great niche for herself
Speaker 1: as a representative of Tasmania, and that's what you want
Speaker 1: a good state senator to be. She's looking after an
Speaker 1: underdog state and she does that well and that's why
Speaker 1: they keep electing her. And to jump from the sixth
Speaker 1: spot up to the fifth spot is again another endorsement
Speaker 1: in that. I was a bit concerned though, because that
Speaker 1: the headlines is Jackie grabs fifth seat and I remember
Speaker 1: many years ago a story about her saying she wanted
Speaker 1: a bloke with a big package. So I'm not sure
Speaker 1: putting grabs sneaks to Jackie Lamby is a terribly good idea.
Speaker 5: Oh my goodness, typical Jackie.
Speaker 4: Let's move on to The Australian Now and the headline
Speaker 4: says small Business levee cut to boost GDP.
Speaker 5: Cutting the small.
Speaker 4: Business tax rate by five percent would increase GDP by
Speaker 4: up to eleven billion dollars over the forward estimates, including
Speaker 4: cloring back almost all the tax revenue in five years.
Speaker 4: Modeling shows the data places pressure on Jim Charmers to
Speaker 4: consider implementing company tax recommendations from the Productivity Commission.
Speaker 5: And now this is the thing.
Speaker 4: Australia has a very high company tax rate, and when
Speaker 4: you actually cut company tax, what you do is you
Speaker 4: boost the supply side of the economy. So all of
Speaker 4: a sudden, businesses become more productive, they become better and
Speaker 4: therefore end up paying more tax to actually make up
Speaker 4: the full gone revenue that you've given up when you've
Speaker 4: cut the tax rate. So this is supply side economics.
Speaker 4: It's basically HC economics. But for some reason labor can't
Speaker 4: understand it.
Speaker 3: And that's the problem because you're describing HSC economics and
Speaker 3: clearly that's not something they're.
Speaker 5: FAILUAB not PhDs in political science.
Speaker 2: Sorry exactly.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that we're going to see businesses getting
Speaker 3: a tax cut. Would be great for productivity, as explained
Speaker 3: in the Australian but I'm not sure that's the inclination
Speaker 3: of Jim Chalmers or the left leaning part of the
Speaker 3: Party which are going to be in the ascendency over
Speaker 3: the veryveryation is to.
Speaker 1: Halt productivity by putting in taxes like unrealized gains. And
Speaker 1: I agree with the idea of cutting the small business
Speaker 1: tax rate further, because at the moment it's thirty percent
Speaker 1: on a big business twenty five percent on a small
Speaker 1: or medium business, so you'd go down to twenty percent
Speaker 1: for small businesses. But I think more precingly we actually
Speaker 1: need to cut the corporate tax rate for big business
Speaker 1: because the problem we have as a country with one
Speaker 1: of the highest rates in the world is the profit
Speaker 1: shifting that companies engage in, where they send their losses
Speaker 1: to Australia to claim that on tax, so they pay
Speaker 1: no TEXT here and then they have their profits in
Speaker 1: other countries where they pay a much lower rate of TEXT.
Speaker 1: So if you lower the corporate text rate, you equalize
Speaker 1: that out and we don't bear the losses of the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, which we're currently doing. Seems like
Speaker 1: a no brainer to me.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's pretty straightforward.
Speaker 4: Now if you're thinking ahead to eurosummer or media holidays.
Speaker 4: You might want to think again, because one of the
Speaker 4: headlines in the Australian for tomorrow is TWU chaos.
Speaker 5: We are clear for takeoff.
Speaker 4: Transport Workers Union will investigate deploying multi employer bargaining agreements
Speaker 4: across the aviation industry as flight attendants launch action demanding
Speaker 4: an increase to minimum pay rates of up to thirty
Speaker 4: percent in a new industrial relations flashpoint. The TWU's National
Speaker 4: Council has endorsed a strategy to explore advancing multi employer
Speaker 4: bargaining agreements beyond ground crew to thousands of cabin crew
Speaker 4: and airport staff as well.
Speaker 5: I mean, as if flying.
Speaker 4: At aviation wasn't already expensive enough in Australia. We live
Speaker 4: on an island in a tiny corner of the world,
Speaker 4: far away from anything, and now it's effectively going to
Speaker 4: get more expensive if we have everyone going on strike.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with you, except when I read this article,
Speaker 3: I was astonished to find that entry level wage for
Speaker 3: a flight attendant fifty three thousand dollars And people.
Speaker 2: Say, wow, there are trolley dolly, they're just serving drinks.
Speaker 2: But you're away from home all the time.
Speaker 3: It's pretty taxing at altitude trying to do that job
Speaker 3: fifty three grand?
Speaker 2: Why would you do it?
Speaker 1: And to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of on the
Speaker 1: union side here because I have no sympathy for Quantus, etc.
Speaker 1: Which illegally sacked workers during COVID and tried to outsource
Speaker 1: it all to Donata, like they have tried to cut
Speaker 1: costs at every single turn and then charge us more
Speaker 1: to give us less servers, and now they're going to
Speaker 1: win the work. Actually want to be paid a fair wage.
Speaker 1: To be honest, good luck to you. Now, let's go
Speaker 1: to the advertiser tomorrow where it says really bad excuse
Speaker 1: boom boom. A former AFL umpire blamed a kangaroo for
Speaker 1: his failure to attend court to answer claims that he
Speaker 1: defrauded his employer of eight point seven million dollars. Troy Pannell,
Speaker 1: who was umpired two hundred and nineteen AFL games, remains
Speaker 1: wanted by a police outter. Victoria's Supreme Supreme Court sorry
Speaker 1: issued a warrant for his arrest last week. A kangaroo,
Speaker 1: Oh you know, sorry, sorry magistrate or judge or whoever
Speaker 1: it might be. I ran over a kangaroo on the
Speaker 1: way in. I mean we've all sort of been there
Speaker 1: at one point or another. You get the car fixture,
Speaker 1: rock up to court. I mean court's more important, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Can I just say, as a North Melbourne supporter, the
Speaker 3: kangaroo's always being killed by afl umpires. I tell you
Speaker 3: every weekend when you go to a break when we
Speaker 3: come back, the Chinese have launched a brand new sport,
Speaker 3: robot boxing.
Speaker 2: You've got to see it to believe it will show
Speaker 2: you in a moment.
Speaker 3: We thought we'd finish the show by showing you some
Speaker 3: unusual sports. We'll get to the Chinese in a moment.
Speaker 3: But Caleb, the British pretty weird when it comes to sports.
Speaker 1: Oh it's quite incredible actually, you know they say people
Speaker 1: will beat on anything two cockroaches or two flies ago
Speaker 1: and have a wall or whatever it might be. Here's
Speaker 1: a product they should be selling over in the UK.
Speaker 1: It's become a big thing now. Started out as just
Speaker 1: a small, little local event, it's now a worldwide phenomenon.
Speaker 1: People tuning in from all over over the world to
Speaker 1: watch cheese racing in Gloucestershire. No, I am not joking.
Speaker 1: They roll a large three kilogram wheel of Gloucester cheese
Speaker 1: down a hill and get people to chase it. Take
Speaker 1: a look there it is.
Speaker 2: Done on the twenty twenty five prowis. Oh, but it
Speaker 2: is the German again.
Speaker 1: The German looks good. He might be done. I think
Speaker 1: he's done crazy. This was madness. The hill this year
Speaker 1: was dry and unforgiving. I'm lost for words. In spite
Speaker 1: of I'm looking good. Superman's even better.
Speaker 2: Superman looks like you might witness one.
Speaker 1: Superman has done it.
Speaker 5: When it started going, I don't stop this.
Speaker 1: Up and fantastic. The hill was dry and unforgiving. It
Speaker 1: sounds like me trying to explain why one of my
Speaker 1: horses failed to do so well in a race. One
Speaker 1: bloke had to be flown off to the hospital because
Speaker 1: he injured himself in all of this palava, and you
Speaker 1: can understand why that might be. During the height of COVID,
Speaker 1: when there was like no sport going on, it was
Speaker 1: like racing and that was it. You could go online
Speaker 1: and bet on Ukrainian and Russian ping pong, table tennis,
Speaker 1: and I was absolutely hammering this stuff because it was
Speaker 1: the only thing you could get your hands on. If
Speaker 1: they had cheese wheel racing, I would have been all
Speaker 1: over it. I reckon, that's brilliant. You've got the stall
Speaker 1: gift and cheese racing.
Speaker 2: All right, I reckon.
Speaker 3: Worse than cheese racing is robot boxing. That's what the
Speaker 3: Chinese are now into. It's more roboflop than robo cop
Speaker 3: Check this out. Well, they certainly showed their metal. What
Speaker 3: I can't work out is why those robot boxes were
Speaker 3: wearing boxing gloves and helmets frayer while they wearing protective gear.
Speaker 4: And seriously, it would be a lot more fun if
Speaker 4: the guys with the little remote controllers just got in
Speaker 4: the ring themselves and punched on because no one is interested.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is the fall of men. If you're
Speaker 4: at a point where you have to use remote controlled
Speaker 4: robots to box, like, come on, man up box each other.
Speaker 1: But we showed vision a few weeks ago of one
Speaker 1: of these robots going absolutely WoT at the bloke who
Speaker 1: had made the thing. Right, So if these robots really
Speaker 1: wanted to box on, I'm can vinced they good box
Speaker 1: on and I don't want to be getting in the
Speaker 1: ring with one.
Speaker 3: So that is a sport I think it would take
Speaker 3: off robot versus human being.
Speaker 1: I know the answer to that one. The robot wins.
Speaker 1: What's the point in having this sport in the first place.
Speaker 3: That's all We've got time for tonight, but don't go anywhere.
Speaker 2: Coming up in just a moment is the Reader Penalty Show.
Speaker 2: Good Night,