Speaker 1: Late Welcome the late base.
Speaker 2: Great thanks for joining us on the late Debates. I'm
Speaker 2: James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. Coming up tonight,
Speaker 2: Formula one drivers at the Melbourne Grand Prix told to
Speaker 2: watch their language.
Speaker 3: We'll explain why a bit later.
Speaker 2: Plus, when we look at what's making news tomorrow, the
Speaker 2: federal government's green hydrogen dreams exposed. It's just that dream,
Speaker 2: although when you look at the amount of money invested,
Speaker 2: it's more like a nightmare. And former immigration detainees, including
Speaker 2: rapists and murderers, being paid five hundred dollars a week
Speaker 2: to live in the community. We'll get to all of
Speaker 2: that a little later, but first, you know, just when
Speaker 2: you thought government waste could not possibly get any worse,
Speaker 2: have a look at this.
Speaker 3: It's been revealed in Senate estimates.
Speaker 2: That public servants have been enrolled in drama classes at
Speaker 2: twenty five thousand dollars cost to tax pay. So these
Speaker 2: public servants can learn to communicate with empathy, which kind
Speaker 2: of begs the question, if you take acting classes to
Speaker 2: show empathy, do you then need follow up acting classes
Speaker 2: to learn how to feign sincerity. The classes were provided
Speaker 2: for thirteen top bureaucrats over two days at NIDA, the
Speaker 2: National Institute of Dramatic Art. Now Claire Chandler, the Liberal Senator,
Speaker 2: was outraged by this. She told estimates on the Albenzy
Speaker 2: government's Watch Services Australia spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers
Speaker 2: money on speechwriters and drama classes, while Australians will left
Speaker 2: waiting months for their pensions to be approved. I suppose, Calebin,
Speaker 2: there's the advantage in this is for all those pensioners
Speaker 2: waiting wondering where is my welfare check? At least when
Speaker 2: you ring Services Australia you will get empathy, and not
Speaker 2: just empathy, but you'll get it with dramatic flare. She
Speaker 2: went on to say, this is a typical example of
Speaker 2: the Albaneze government's wait, full spending and bizarre priorities amidst
Speaker 2: a cost of living crisis. Liza kind of makes me wonder,
Speaker 2: how do you get to be a top bureaucrat overseeing
Speaker 2: thousands of people if you need to go to Neider
Speaker 2: to learn skills in communication, that alone, you know, showing
Speaker 2: basic empathy with people.
Speaker 4: To be honest, I'm genuinely torn on this one because
Speaker 4: while it seems.
Speaker 5: Laughable at face value.
Speaker 4: Anyone who ever tries to treat and squeeze a drop
Speaker 4: of blood out of someone on the other end of
Speaker 4: the line. You're just trying to deal with one of
Speaker 4: these government departments, and these ones, particularly Oversea Centering and Medicare.
Speaker 5: So people are trying to make.
Speaker 4: Claims there are at vulnerable points in their lives.
Speaker 5: These people do not care if you live or die.
Speaker 4: Now, luckily I haven't had much to do with Medicare.
Speaker 4: I am in good health, always have been, thank the Lord,
Speaker 4: and neither have I had much to do Center Link ever.
Speaker 4: But the exchanges that I have had with government entities
Speaker 4: when I'm just trying to like sort out parking fines
Speaker 4: or dealing with Services New South Wales who could do
Speaker 4: with their training, men's maybe hit up nider. They are
Speaker 4: completely and utterly robotic. They are dealing with people on
Speaker 4: a daily basis who are incredibly vulnerable. They are not
Speaker 4: in a good place in their lives, hence them needing
Speaker 4: to communicate with you. And these people are down right horrible.
Speaker 5: I would go so far as to say.
Speaker 4: Low key traumatic experiences with Service New South Wales.
Speaker 5: I am not kidding. I am no wallflower.
Speaker 4: I am no pushover, as you've probably figured out.
Speaker 5: But those guys took.
Speaker 4: Me to the edge of my sanity and they're not
Speaker 4: even they're not even appt at their jobs to make
Speaker 4: up for the fact that they clearly do not give
Speaker 4: a rap.
Speaker 5: And so if it was.
Speaker 4: Those kinds of people that were receiving this training, I'd
Speaker 4: say taxpayer money well spent.
Speaker 2: Don't you go to the leadership coach rather than a
Speaker 2: drama coach.
Speaker 6: Well, this is the thing, right, because you get an
Speaker 6: acting lesson on how to show empathy.
Speaker 1: Now, to tell you people at.
Speaker 6: Home what empathy means if you didn't already know.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think I'm.
Speaker 6: Telling this to the public service what empathy means, because
Speaker 6: they didn't seem to understand it. According to the Oxford Dictionary,
Speaker 6: empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings
Speaker 6: of another Now, I'm pretty sure if you take an
Speaker 6: acting lesson, you learn how to seem like you know,
Speaker 6: to be empathetic.
Speaker 1: You don't actually learn how to be empathetic.
Speaker 6: I mean, just because you've had an acting lesson, it
Speaker 6: doesn't mean you actually understand the feelings of another person.
Speaker 6: It's just that You've been taught to deal with them
Speaker 6: in such a way that it makes it look like.
Speaker 7: You understand how they're feeling.
Speaker 6: That's not empathy. That's fraud, is what that is.
Speaker 1: We need to have a fact check though, on.
Speaker 7: This business, Liz that you're always in good health.
Speaker 6: You have been splattering more than a diesel engine on
Speaker 6: a cold.
Speaker 1: Morning since you got back from.
Speaker 6: Pommy Land, so I won't be hearing any of this
Speaker 6: business about how you're in good health.
Speaker 4: Can I just say I was in perfectly good health
Speaker 4: and the woman I was sat next to on Qatar
Speaker 4: Airways otherwise known as Hamas Airways, I got in big
Speaker 4: trouble for flying Katar at art. They're all like, you're
Speaker 4: supporting the wrong people.
Speaker 5: I was like, good grief, I just got the cheapest flight.
Speaker 5: Ear thank you very much.
Speaker 4: She was sat next to me with a chesty cough
Speaker 4: the entire time. This should be grounds for a citizens arrest,
Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen, it really should be. Did not cover
Speaker 4: her mouth once, did not wear a mask, wasn't even
Speaker 4: a single semblance of apologetic for the fact that she
Speaker 4: was spreading the plague. I swear she was patient zero
Speaker 4: on that she loves and we stepped next for fourteen hours.
Speaker 5: It should be a criminal thing.
Speaker 3: You got to say something.
Speaker 2: I'm sitting here four nights a week next to someone
Speaker 2: with a chesty cough, who doesn't does not wear a mask,
Speaker 2: and has never apologized.
Speaker 3: So we will move on.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 3: Let's get back to the topic at hand.
Speaker 2: Speaking of public servants, Peter Dutton has announced that if elected,
Speaker 2: he will require public servants in Canberra to get back
Speaker 2: to the office at present. Fully a quarter of public
Speaker 2: servants in Canberra work from home at some point last year.
Speaker 2: He says, from a coalition government's point of view, it
Speaker 2: will be five days a week back in the office.
Speaker 3: Here's Peter Dutton.
Speaker 8: I think Australian taxpayers, who are working harder than ever
Speaker 8: under this government and barely keeping the head above water.
Speaker 8: I think they expect the government and the government employees
Speaker 8: to be working as hard as they are, and people
Speaker 8: refusing to go back to work in Canberra is not acceptable.
Speaker 8: We need an efficient delivery of government services now.
Speaker 2: Whether you agree with Dutton or not, I thought and
Speaker 2: the Albanesi's response was ridiculous.
Speaker 3: He called this Trumpian.
Speaker 2: Policy bocause so obviously Gump has thought of it.
Speaker 1: People don't work bad Trump.
Speaker 2: And by the way, bear in mind, we still don't
Speaker 2: know whether America is going to hit us with tariffs yet,
Speaker 2: and so for Anthony Albanesi to be going around talking
Speaker 2: about Trumpian policy is probably not wise. The Coalition are
Speaker 2: saying simply that rather than working from home being a
Speaker 2: right as it has become under Federal Labor, it would
Speaker 2: be more a request that would be made under the Coalition,
Speaker 2: and they would handle things on a case by case basis.
Speaker 2: So women, for instance, who wanted to work from home
Speaker 2: because they had young children, well it would be considered.
Speaker 2: They're not saying no, they're just saying it's not a
Speaker 2: right that is automatically guaranteed. It would have to work
Speaker 2: for you and for the organization. That sounds eminently fair
Speaker 2: and sensible.
Speaker 1: Of course it does.
Speaker 6: As I've said many times before, get your lazy ass
Speaker 6: back to the office. The rest of us are in
Speaker 6: the office doing the things that we've all always done
Speaker 6: for time immemorial. And the problem, of course, particularly if
Speaker 6: you're a public servant and your workload's probably pretty light anyway,
Speaker 6: but if you actually want to get some work done, if.
Speaker 1: Everyone's in the office. I've got a problem needs to
Speaker 1: be solved.
Speaker 6: I can get up from my desk and I can
Speaker 6: walk five desks away and say to someone, dada da
Speaker 6: da da, problem solved.
Speaker 1: We've worked out how to do it.
Speaker 6: If you're working from home, I've got to call you
Speaker 6: up and make an appointment to get you on Zoom
Speaker 6: at two pm tomorrow afternoon in order to fix anything.
Speaker 6: If everyone is in the office, it's much easier to
Speaker 6: get jobs done. And of course you'd like to think
Speaker 6: we'd have a more efficient public service. But I think
Speaker 6: this also serves another purpose because Dutton and the Coalition
Speaker 6: have said that they want to cut the public service,
Speaker 6: specifically the thirty six thousand odd public servants that have
Speaker 6: been added to the workforce.
Speaker 1: Under the alban Easy government.
Speaker 6: And this is a good way to get rid of
Speaker 6: people without actually sacking them, because I've made the argument
Speaker 6: before at the public service everywhere needs to be cut
Speaker 6: and one of the easiest ways to do it is
Speaker 6: by attrition. When someone leaves the public service, don't hire
Speaker 6: another person.
Speaker 1: You're able to get.
Speaker 6: Your numbers down very quickly if you do that, and
Speaker 6: you don't have to fire a single person. So if
Speaker 6: they start saying, well, you've got to be in the
Speaker 6: office five days a week, and people go, well, I
Speaker 6: don't like that. They'll go and get a job somewhere else.
Speaker 6: And then you get to cut the public service without
Speaker 6: actually sacking anyone.
Speaker 1: Is that not the ideal situation.
Speaker 4: I mean, you can understand why he's doing it. He
Speaker 4: knows that this will be everyone sitting at home. We'll
Speaker 4: be like, yeah, you guys, get backed to work. But
Speaker 4: as far as I'm concerned, a coalition government, we're going
Speaker 4: to force everyone.
Speaker 5: Back to work.
Speaker 4: It was a coalition government that stood by and did
Speaker 4: fat nothing when millions.
Speaker 5: Of healthy people were forced.
Speaker 4: To work at home, millions of healthy children weren't allowed
Speaker 4: to go to school, and those adults have not returned
Speaker 4: to the workplace, and that some of those kids still haven't.
Speaker 1: Return to school.
Speaker 4: As far as I'm concerned, it's your fault, So don't
Speaker 4: come cry and now being like, oh, no, people have
Speaker 4: discovered a better work life balance and we're not going
Speaker 4: to give it to them anymore. You made this problem
Speaker 4: when you took ridiculous measures of a jolly pandemic that
Speaker 4: had a well over ninety eight percent recovery rate. Mate,
Speaker 4: so I get that you're trying to win an election,
Speaker 4: that's very obvious, But do me a favor. You guys
Speaker 4: started the problem, and nobody believes that public servants are
Speaker 4: going to be that much more productive in the workplace.
Speaker 5: Caleb, Well, maybe your.
Speaker 4: Argument does apply it to the private sector, but public sector. Please,
Speaker 4: last year alone, we forked out thirty seven point three
Speaker 4: billion dollars on just three hundred and sixty thousand employees.
Speaker 5: Are any of us better off?
Speaker 6: No, we're not now, But you see, public servants get
Speaker 6: things done over yoga sessions during the day, and of
Speaker 6: course if they're not in the office, they can't go
Speaker 6: to yoga together, can they? And can you imagine trying
Speaker 6: this on down in Victoria? Of course, because we know
Speaker 6: what their public service has been like. They've had so
Speaker 6: much trouble getting people back to the office down in Victoria,
Speaker 6: and a lot of that has come down to the
Speaker 6: weakness of the Victorian government. And we get yet another
Speaker 6: example of that today.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 6: The Herald Son, the Saturday Herald's son on the weekend
Speaker 6: had an exclusive report that kiddy crims would be allowed
Speaker 6: back into the classrooms. Specifically, there was going to be
Speaker 6: a trial of fifty kids with ankle bracelets, and these
Speaker 6: would be kids who were teenagers at high risk of
Speaker 6: bail non compliance or reoffending being allowed to go back
Speaker 6: into public school classrooms with other children. And you might go,
Speaker 6: what the hell, what you're going to let these crims
Speaker 6: go and mix with my kid at school.
Speaker 1: I don't like that. That seemed fair enough.
Speaker 6: And then of course they were asked about this the
Speaker 6: government over the weekend and they said, this is a
Speaker 6: spokesman from the Victorian government that there was strict criteria
Speaker 6: when determining who is suitable for the electronic monitoring program.
Speaker 6: Getting young people re engaged with school, training or work
Speaker 6: is a proven way to help them break the cycle
Speaker 6: of offending. We will always prioritize the safety of staff
Speaker 6: and students.
Speaker 1: So that was Saturday.
Speaker 6: At that point the government was all on board with
Speaker 6: these kids being allowed to go into the classroom. We'll
Speaker 6: fast forward to today Tuesday, and the Education Minister, who's
Speaker 6: also the Deputy Premier, Ben Carrell, says, actually, no, this is.
Speaker 1: Off the agenda now, we're not going to do it.
Speaker 6: But the most interesting part is that he said he
Speaker 6: learnt about this by reading it in the paper. Yes,
Speaker 6: he picked up the Herald Son on Saturday morning and
Speaker 6: learned as the Education Minister and Deputy Premier that his
Speaker 6: government was going to allow fifty child criminals to mix.
Speaker 1: It with normal kids.
Speaker 7: Here he was at a press conference today.
Speaker 9: Well, my reaction was at the bureaucracy got this wrong
Speaker 9: and it's not appropriate for kids wearing ankle bracelets to
Speaker 9: be in mainstream school settings. That's why I've sent the
Speaker 9: department back to the drawing board.
Speaker 1: The bureaucrats have got it wrong.
Speaker 6: He is correct in saying that, But you're the education minister, mate,
Speaker 6: Like this got to the point where the trial was
Speaker 6: going to go ahead next month.
Speaker 1: It turns up in.
Speaker 6: The paper and that's the first you've heard of child
Speaker 6: criminals being allowed to mix it with other kids in schools.
Speaker 6: Does the bloke have any control of his department whatsoever?
Speaker 6: And of course it comes hot on the heels of
Speaker 6: a few weeks ago the Premier announcing justinter Allen that
Speaker 6: there would be a review of bail laws. Then the
Speaker 6: Police Minister comes out and says, well, there's not really
Speaker 6: a review of bail laws at all.
Speaker 1: I've got some ideas in my bottom.
Speaker 6: Drawer that I could pull out to make it all work.
Speaker 6: And then the Attorney General didn't speak for four days,
Speaker 6: and then she finally came out and and didn't tell
Speaker 6: us anything we didn't already know. And the only reason
Speaker 6: she came out to talk to us eventually was because
Speaker 6: she found out again another thing that a minister didn't
Speaker 6: know that bail services in Victoria were being run by
Speaker 6: private companies. And one of these companies had just stopped
Speaker 6: working and not told the government that they were doing it,
Speaker 6: and they had criminals on bail at large walking around Victoria, and.
Speaker 1: They had no idea where they were. Just this government
Speaker 1: had any.
Speaker 6: Idea, the politicians specifically, any idea what is going on
Speaker 6: in Victoria.
Speaker 2: My big takeaway from this is thank god Ben Carroll
Speaker 2: read the paper on You know, I don't imagine the
Speaker 2: state of Victorian schools if just for whatever reason Ben Carroll,
Speaker 2: I don't know, he just didn't bother to pick up
Speaker 2: the Herald's son and read what was happening in his
Speaker 2: state and what was proposing to be done by his government.
Speaker 2: It's a hell of a way to run a state.
Speaker 2: But we all know that Victoria's being run like hell.
Speaker 2: The other big thing about this is for bureaucrats to
Speaker 2: come up with an idea where fifty high risk juvenile
Speaker 2: criminals would be put into mainstream schools.
Speaker 3: They would have, as you said, ankle bracelets.
Speaker 2: Teachers would have to be taught not only how to
Speaker 2: monitor the fact that these ankle bracelets are being worn,
Speaker 2: but also teachers would be trained to help destigmatize, which
Speaker 2: I think is hilarious because we want all the kids
Speaker 2: to get used to.
Speaker 1: This is normal over all.
Speaker 5: These kids, that's that speculative.
Speaker 2: We know what they're doing, right, They're focusing on the
Speaker 2: feelings of a very small minority of people who are
Speaker 2: doing the wrong thing and ignoring the welfare of the
Speaker 2: overwhelming majority, which is pretty much the way governments right
Speaker 2: around the country are running everything right now. It's all
Speaker 2: about the feelings of a very small group of people
Speaker 2: to the exclusion of the welfare of the majority.
Speaker 5: I don't know that it is about the kids feelings.
Speaker 4: I mean, the research is very very comprehensive that kids,
Speaker 4: if they're sent to juvie, for instance, have much higher
Speaker 4: rates of recidivism. They are far more likely to be
Speaker 4: re arrested, far more likely to fall into a life
Speaker 4: of crime. Because of course the people that they're associating
Speaker 4: with are all criminals. So the real question here is, Okay,
Speaker 4: if these kids can't go to school, where are they
Speaker 4: going to go. They still need to be educated, and
Speaker 4: it is to their great detriment if they are then
Speaker 4: only allowed to socialize with other kids with the same proclivities.
Speaker 4: So this is not a new argument, but it's a
Speaker 4: very necessary one to have.
Speaker 5: And again it sounds very good for a politician to
Speaker 5: come out and say, well, you know, we can't have this.
Speaker 4: I very much believe that if these kids are walking
Speaker 4: around with an ankle bracelet on, they're not being accused
Speaker 4: of crimes like I don't know, bodily harmed to somebody else.
Speaker 4: We're probably talking about theft, We're probably talking about those
Speaker 4: kinds of crimes. They're not talking about all their high
Speaker 4: risk in terms of their going to harm a fellow
Speaker 4: kid at school. And again, the research shows that if
Speaker 4: these kids are properly socialized, they're far more likely to
Speaker 4: grow out of those kinds of behaviors. Because what is
Speaker 4: the other option, how do they get their education homeschooling?
Speaker 4: I don't think so A lot of these kids. Heil
Speaker 4: from troubled homes. So you're not going to send them
Speaker 4: home to parents or a parent and be like, Okay,
Speaker 4: their education is now your responsibility. That simply doesn't make sense.
Speaker 4: So again I'm torn here because I know that it
Speaker 4: sounds well and good to be like, well, these kids
Speaker 4: have an unkle bracelet, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed
Speaker 4: to socialize with normal children. But the research shows them
Speaker 4: socializing with normal children, having friends who are from good
Speaker 4: functioning homes, and forming a great social kids are.
Speaker 5: So it's all about peers.
Speaker 4: It's all about peer pressure, and that works for the
Speaker 4: good and.
Speaker 5: For the bad.
Speaker 4: So if these kids are to go to school, and
Speaker 4: again they're not, they're not on the record for harming
Speaker 4: people bodily, they've probably stolen something or the like. They're
Speaker 4: to go to school to end up with a good
Speaker 4: circle of friends.
Speaker 2: And that's the argument is it works both ways, right,
Speaker 2: So if you're a parent and you're sending your kid
Speaker 2: to the local public school, you don't want your kid
Speaker 2: hanging around with some kid who is so prone to
Speaker 2: breaking the law that he requires twenty four to seven
Speaker 2: government surveillance.
Speaker 3: So the whole you know, like attraction.
Speaker 5: I say, I'm both ways, I'm torn, and.
Speaker 6: That's that's all fine, But how is it that the
Speaker 6: department decides this is going to happen and the Education
Speaker 6: Minister has no idea If you're going to have the discussion,
Speaker 6: that's one thing, but clearly it was a discussion that
Speaker 6: was had with no involvement from the minister whatsoever. What
Speaker 6: sort of control do you have over your government and
Speaker 6: your department if the Education Minister is not involved in
Speaker 6: such an important discussion an issue as that.
Speaker 2: Well, the government should probably have some discussions about their
Speaker 2: policy on the Ukraine because they seem to be all
Speaker 2: over the place at the moment as well. Just yesterday
Speaker 2: the Defense Industry Minister Pat Conroy said that he did
Speaker 2: not envisage a situation where Australian soldiers would be sent
Speaker 2: to Ukraine as peacekeepers. But today Anthony Albanezi said, well,
Speaker 2: Kostama Macron, they're talking about putting together a coalition of
Speaker 2: the willing, and yeah, Australia is very open to sending peacekeepers.
Speaker 2: Here's the Prime Minister.
Speaker 10: There's discussion at the moment about potential peacekeeping and from
Speaker 10: my government's perspective, we're open to consideration of any proposals
Speaker 10: going forward.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to guess what Chris Min's view on peacekeepers
Speaker 2: really or Peter Dutton has a completely different view when
Speaker 2: it comes to Australia's obligation Ukraine.
Speaker 1: In terms of.
Speaker 8: Whether we should have boots on the ground in Ukraine,
Speaker 8: I don't support that. I think the Europeans have that
Speaker 8: task and I think what President Trump's pointed out is
Speaker 8: that the Europeans need to do more in the defense
Speaker 8: of Europe and that's a statement of the obvious.
Speaker 2: Listening to Anthony Albanese say yeah, I'm very open to
Speaker 2: sending diggers to Ukraine as peacekeepers, I'm thinking there must
Speaker 2: be a large Ukrainian.
Speaker 3: Population in Western Sydney.
Speaker 2: That's the only thing I can kind kind of think
Speaker 2: that must be behind this. Well, we've just spent the
Speaker 2: last week absolutely failing to surveil Chinese warships off our coast.
Speaker 3: But no, no, we're good.
Speaker 2: To send soldiers to the Ukraine to patrol the Russian Army.
Speaker 2: I just think Anthony Albanese is all over the shop
Speaker 2: when it comes to foreign affairs and to defense matters,
Speaker 2: and on top of that, can't get a meeting with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump before we go spooking any response from Australia
Speaker 2: to what's happening in uk Kraine. It might be worth
Speaker 2: getting a phone call to the leader of the Free World,
Speaker 2: our major ally and security partner, and just trying to
Speaker 2: get on the same page before he starts mouthing off.
Speaker 6: Well, and this is the thing, right, I'm not so
Speaker 6: operturbed by the idea of peacekeepers. I mean, we've been
Speaker 6: involved in peacekeeping for a long time. I think we're
Speaker 6: still in Sudan. We were in Cyprus until twenty twenty one.
Speaker 6: We've been there since the sixties. We don't tend to
Speaker 6: lose people on peacekeeping missions because you go there after
Speaker 6: a war has ended.
Speaker 1: But the war is still going.
Speaker 6: So why are we talking about will send peacekeepers when
Speaker 6: we literally have not negotiated and into this war yet.
Speaker 1: The effort at the moment should be to.
Speaker 6: Get the war over before you start talking anywhere near
Speaker 6: Sending peacekeepers in Datan is correct though, and this is
Speaker 6: the point. But of course Trump has been trying to
Speaker 6: drive that this is a war in the European zone
Speaker 6: and the only reason that Ukraine has been able to
Speaker 6: not repel Russia because Russia has taken territory. But being
Speaker 6: able to sustain the war to this extent, to this
Speaker 6: point is because the US has funded it and we
Speaker 6: now have a president who doesn't want the war to continue,
Speaker 6: and so he's saying, my support, you know, by money,
Speaker 6: which is what allows you to keep going here, is
Speaker 6: contingent on the plan that we end this thing. That's
Speaker 6: why we had from Trump today that he's cutting off
Speaker 6: military aid until such time as they can come to
Speaker 6: an agreement, because that's the point here. The point is
Speaker 6: we want the war over. That is what we should
Speaker 6: be talking about. That's what Albanezi should be talking. It's
Speaker 6: what everyone should be talking. Peacekeepers is rather beyond the
Speaker 6: point at the moment.
Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerruy're.
Speaker 5: Sending Australians is absolutely out of the question. We've known
Speaker 5: from the beginning. This is NATO's war.
Speaker 4: Okay, This is between NATO and Russia, period, end of
Speaker 4: It's in the name North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Speaker 5: Are we a member state?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: Are we anywhere near the North Atlantic?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. Also, how is this one eighty from Dutton?
Speaker 4: It was just last year he was berating the Albanezy
Speaker 4: government for not spending enough, fast enough, Oh send the tank,
Speaker 4: send this they need more, like Australia should have anything
Speaker 4: to do with this war now, of course, because Trump
Speaker 4: has stepped up to the plate, put his foot down
Speaker 4: and said, oh, we're capping at a two hundred billion mate,
Speaker 4: You're not getting any more money out of us, thank
Speaker 4: you very much. Now Dutton's saying, oh no, no, we
Speaker 4: wouldn't put all the boots on the ground. But before
Speaker 4: that he seemed to be all for it. So once
Speaker 4: again we have this beautiful case of world leaders watching
Speaker 4: Trump ripping a note out of that notebook and saying, okay,
Speaker 4: now I can wave this around.
Speaker 5: Now I can make it my own.
Speaker 4: Now I can include this as a spook in my
Speaker 4: campaign strategy.
Speaker 5: So it's not really that bolshee.
Speaker 4: But again I'm glad he's saying it not our circus,
Speaker 4: not our monkeys. Australia never has been, never should have been.
Speaker 4: I want my one point five billion dollars back that
Speaker 4: we have spent in Ukraine.
Speaker 5: I think we've actually spent more than that at this point.
Speaker 4: Because Trump knows, and Australia should be well aware, we
Speaker 4: have other theaters of war to worry about. China, Taiwan, Israel,
Speaker 4: Iran potentially it is. It is absolutely mind blowing the
Speaker 4: amount of media this war has taken up. You'd think
Speaker 4: it was the only conflict happening on the face of
Speaker 4: the planet, but it has been blown up to be
Speaker 4: this ginormous thing all of a sudden. It's everybody's business. No,
Speaker 4: I'm an Australian. I don't want my money going over there,
Speaker 4: and Trump.
Speaker 5: Has rightly said Europe, it's up to you.
Speaker 4: But we all know once America pulls the plug and
Speaker 4: it has it's over. It doesn't matter what Starma and
Speaker 4: Macron are saying, and it certainly doesn't matter what Albanese's promising.
Speaker 5: It is over. Red Rover end of.
Speaker 2: Just a couple of things in terms of, you know,
Speaker 2: this war being blown up. One point five million people
Speaker 2: have died, reportedly.
Speaker 4: Unnecessarily, as Trump has pointed.
Speaker 2: Out, necessarily or unnecessarily. You're hardly blowing up a war
Speaker 2: when you know and exaggerating it when that many people
Speaker 2: have died.
Speaker 4: And no, I'm simply saying there there are so many
Speaker 4: conflicts going on in the world today that people have
Speaker 4: no idea about because the media decides which one is important.
Speaker 3: To Dutton's defense.
Speaker 2: I do think there's a distinction between saying we should
Speaker 2: send military equipment and we should send Australian soldiers. I
Speaker 2: do think there's a distinction between those two. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that's a.
Speaker 1: Contradiction, no, And I don't think he's ever been supported.
Speaker 4: It certainly sounds I don't think anyone here.
Speaker 5: We couldn't do enough fast enough, you know, and.
Speaker 2: Some helicopters and say hey, have them use them, which
Speaker 2: would just send our sons over there, which would.
Speaker 7: Which would fair, And they were just anyway, right.
Speaker 6: But the point is that it was legitimate to argue
Speaker 6: that age should be given to Ukraine at previous points
Speaker 6: of this war.
Speaker 1: But it's three years.
Speaker 6: In now, right, and so unless someone puts a circuit
Speaker 6: breaker in place, it will just continue ad for Nitum.
Speaker 6: Now that's not good for Ukraine. It's not good for
Speaker 6: Russia either. It needs to be noted they've lost a
Speaker 6: lot in the process of this.
Speaker 1: War as well. But in order to end.
Speaker 6: This war, and it needs to happen otherwise it will
Speaker 6: go on forever, someone has to seed some ground. And
Speaker 6: I think Nigel Frads was quite correct when he was
Speaker 6: talking to Paul Murray earlier in saying that the real
Speaker 6: problems Lensky had when he walked into that meeting with
Speaker 6: Trump the other day was that he's not yet willing
Speaker 6: to concede that crimera is going to go to the Russians.
Speaker 6: That's probably just a fact of how it's going to
Speaker 6: play out, because if you want to win the war,
Speaker 6: you're going to have to concede some ground and hand
Speaker 6: something over.
Speaker 1: He's not yet willing to make that.
Speaker 6: Moral decisions that they can do that, but that's the
Speaker 6: only way it's going to end.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, that's the only way it's going to end.
Speaker 5: And people are still hailing him as a hero for that.
Speaker 4: It is not heroic to feed tens of thousands more
Speaker 4: Ukrainians into the gun mouths of the Russians in the
Speaker 4: name of patriotism.
Speaker 5: That is nonsense.
Speaker 4: Again, when America pulls the plug, you know that you
Speaker 4: are fighting a losing war. And so many in the
Speaker 4: West have been told at nauseum for three years now,
Speaker 4: this is for democracy.
Speaker 5: I've told you before. There's a lot more to this
Speaker 5: war than that.
Speaker 1: But guess what.
Speaker 4: Even that whole farce of oh, well, this is democracy
Speaker 4: against Russia.
Speaker 5: Has been a farce.
Speaker 4: As new head of Intelligence under the Trump administration, Tulsey
Speaker 4: Gubbard pointed out earlier today.
Speaker 11: When we actually look at what's happening in real reality
Speaker 11: in these countries as well as with Zelensky's government in Ukraine,
Speaker 11: is the exact opposite. You have the canceling of elections
Speaker 11: in Ukraine. You have political parties being silenced or even
Speaker 11: criminalized or thrown in prison. You have the freedom of religion,
Speaker 11: churches being shut down, you have political opposition being silenced.
Speaker 1: You have total.
Speaker 5: Government control of the media.
Speaker 11: We could go down a whole laundry list of issues
Speaker 11: that are against the values of democracy and freedom.
Speaker 4: Goodness said it better myself, all that stuff that you've
Speaker 4: been told about.
Speaker 5: Oh well, this is for democracy.
Speaker 4: The Ukrainians would like some democracy too, Thank you very
Speaker 4: much to Poland. Now we're a Polish fellow by the
Speaker 4: name of Kamenda has taken Ikea to court for an
Speaker 4: unfair dismissal. He says that LGBTIQ Agenda was shoved down
Speaker 4: his throat while he was working at Ikea, and as
Speaker 4: a Christian, he couldn't stand for it, so he stood
Speaker 4: up for his religious freedoms. He was unceremoniously dismissed from Ikea,
Speaker 4: took it to the court and can you believe it's
Speaker 4: taken a few years, But he's one we read in
Speaker 4: the paper commander used two quotes from the Bible regarding
Speaker 4: homosexual practices to express his criticism, after which he was
Speaker 4: fired from his job. First a district court and then
Speaker 4: a regional court ruled that his dismissal had been unjustified,
Speaker 4: and most recently, the Supreme Court also refused to hear
Speaker 4: an appeal filed by Ikea. Now this was after he
Speaker 4: had been fired for speaking out against this indoctrination.
Speaker 5: He's like, I'm an Ikea employee.
Speaker 4: Why do you have to keep telling me that I
Speaker 4: have to uphold these values and preach and teach them.
Speaker 6: Like you do.
Speaker 4: But I ask you, do you think this would happen
Speaker 4: in Australia.
Speaker 5: I've got a friend who works for.
Speaker 4: Ikea and on the very first day they were handed
Speaker 4: out all these lanyards, rainbow lanyards. My friend is a Christian.
Speaker 4: We don't wear rainbow lanyards. We don't celebrate particular lifestyles
Speaker 4: that is condemned by our faith. And in very black
Speaker 4: and white terms in our scriptures. So luckily they didn't
Speaker 4: have to decline to wear this because the person ran
Speaker 4: out of lanyards before they got to my friend. But
Speaker 4: you can bet your bottom dollar that person would have
Speaker 4: been flagged as extremely problematic and may have also ended
Speaker 4: up being dismissed even if they just had to put
Speaker 4: their hand in the air and say, I'm sorry, I'm
Speaker 4: not wearing this lanyard. Just give me a blue and
Speaker 4: yellow one like normal ikea stuff.
Speaker 5: Why are we being made to wear this stuff? Just
Speaker 5: like the manly players.
Speaker 4: Who were like, no, no, this is not in line with.
Speaker 5: My personal beliefs.
Speaker 4: Can I get some respect for those It's taken this
Speaker 4: guy years and goodness knows how much money in those
Speaker 4: legal costs, since this was the third and final court.
Speaker 5: Of appeal that I could could go.
Speaker 4: To, and despite losing in all three, they genuinely believed
Speaker 4: that they were on the right side ramming this kind
Speaker 4: of indoctrination down their employees.
Speaker 2: Next, what was interesting about the court decision is the
Speaker 2: court found that IKA were going against their own retoric
Speaker 2: of inclusivity by sacking somebody for their religious beliefs and
Speaker 2: their worldview. So the court pointed out the hypocrisy and
Speaker 2: the inherent contradiction. The other thing that Court pointed out
Speaker 2: is that participation in an employer's social initiatives should be
Speaker 2: voluntary just because you are a specialist in flat packs.
Speaker 3: Wish that I was, Kayleb. I absolutely destroy them, but.
Speaker 6: I can tell you it's much easier if you do
Speaker 6: it in the middle of the night with a bottle
Speaker 6: of red, as I did recently.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean that you have to support.
Speaker 3: Maybe your employer wants to promote.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I know, well I think it's flat pack ideology. Basically,
Speaker 6: they've just taken it off the shelf and.
Speaker 1: Here it is, this is what we should all do.
Speaker 6: Unless it relates to your job in any way, I
Speaker 6: don't see how it's relevant, right, Like I could understand
Speaker 6: why a church, for instance, would have certain ideals about
Speaker 6: the values of the people that it employs, and likewise
Speaker 6: a religious school or perhaps a business that deals exclusively
Speaker 6: with LGBTQ people. I don't know what's something that might be,
Speaker 6: like a sexual health testing place whatever. Right, there are
Speaker 6: circumstances where you.
Speaker 3: Would say organized exactly.
Speaker 6: There are circumstances where you would say it is entirely
Speaker 6: fair that an employer would expect you to uphold a
Speaker 6: certain set of values like that, But to sell flat
Speaker 6: pack furniture in a shop I don't think is one
Speaker 6: of those circumstances, and so it shouldn't come into it.
Speaker 6: And this was appealed all the way up to the
Speaker 6: High Court. That's how hard IQ was trying to prove
Speaker 6: the point I suppose here, and at one of the
Speaker 6: courts along the way, the court said that it should
Speaker 6: not even in the name of tolerance in the broader
Speaker 6: since lead employees to feel coerced into changing their beliefs.
Speaker 5: I e.
Speaker 6: Should be able to go to your job as a
Speaker 6: salesman and not have to worry about political ideology.
Speaker 1: In the process. It seems pretty straightforward if I.
Speaker 2: Care to do this In Poland, where I think it's
Speaker 2: seventy one percent of the population are Catholic and very
Speaker 2: staunch Catholics. There's another case currently in the court in
Speaker 2: Warsaw where an IT specialist has been sacked because he
Speaker 2: refused to participate in an equality parade. So there's a
Speaker 2: few of these instances in the courts in Poland.
Speaker 5: I just love to see a play out in Australia.
Speaker 5: Because I do not think a Christian here would be
Speaker 5: half as successful.
Speaker 4: Also, my friend told me about this massive drag queen
Speaker 4: that was put up in the bathrooms of all places.
Speaker 4: Why can't you even p in pace no and doctrination
Speaker 4: and the bathrooms.
Speaker 5: Someone drew over the top of it.
Speaker 4: They have Muslim employees, they have Christian employees, they have
Speaker 4: all matter of employees.
Speaker 5: Like Ikea is a very big place, and.
Speaker 4: Yet Okia just reply the signage like no, no, didn't
Speaker 4: even just remove it and be like Okay, clearly someone
Speaker 4: objects to this, someone who has different beliefs.
Speaker 5: It just seems to be very dogged.
Speaker 4: It's in their emails, it's in all their employee training.
Speaker 5: Et cetera, and so on.
Speaker 4: And long before this case came up, my friend had
Speaker 4: been telling me just about how stringent and how militantly
Speaker 4: Ikea was making sure that all employees were bowing down
Speaker 4: before this idol of DII, specifically the LGBTIQ agenda.
Speaker 6: And I mean, if you can avoid it anyway, don't
Speaker 6: buy Flackpeck furniture. Try and get something in auction or
Speaker 6: Facebook marketplace, secondhand, good quality.
Speaker 1: It'll last to a hill of a lot longer.
Speaker 6: I can tell you speaking of things lasting longer than
Speaker 6: they should.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about paid parking.
Speaker 6: I know it sounds like a bit of a strange segue,
Speaker 6: but it makes sense because in Adelaide at the moment,
Speaker 6: it is the Fringe Festival. And anyone who's been to
Speaker 6: the Fringe or lives in Adelaide knows just how big
Speaker 6: the Fringe Festival is. It is a month long party
Speaker 6: in the Adelaide CBD arts, music.
Speaker 1: Comedy, the whole lot.
Speaker 6: It is a fabulous time and so Adelaide City Council
Speaker 6: of course watch all these people stream into the city
Speaker 6: and go to their restaurants and cafes and businesses. It's
Speaker 6: great for the city. So what do you think the
Speaker 6: council would do about it?
Speaker 1: I know what they'll do.
Speaker 6: They'll turn free parking spaces into paid parking spaces.
Speaker 12: Take a look Adelaide City Council finding a brand new
Speaker 12: but contentious solution to the increased demand. They say to
Speaker 12: give more people a fair go at getting a spot,
Speaker 12: getting a taste and getting out, extending the time they
Speaker 12: charge to park near the East End.
Speaker 5: It's not a cash grab.
Speaker 12: It is there purely to have more people to enjoy
Speaker 12: the precinct than perhaps we were able to achieve last year.
Speaker 1: Ah, let's more people enjoy the precinct.
Speaker 6: Well, I'll tell you they're going to come into the
Speaker 6: city anyway, whether it's in a car or on a bus,
Speaker 6: if they've got a ticket to go and see a
Speaker 6: show the fringe. I don't think they're going to avoid
Speaker 6: it because there was free parking or otherwise. But clearly
Speaker 6: what happens here is people who know it to be
Speaker 6: a free parking zone after six pm, as it always
Speaker 6: has been, go and park there and then they come
Speaker 6: back to their car after the show and no one
Speaker 6: behold there is a fine on it because they haven't
Speaker 6: paid the fee. I mean, could you be any more
Speaker 6: opportunistic than this. It is such an economic boon for
Speaker 6: Adelaide when the Fringe is on and the Council's like,
Speaker 6: how can we make a buck out of it?
Speaker 1: I know that's all logic.
Speaker 3: Makes no sense.
Speaker 2: By making it more expensive to attend, we're hoping more
Speaker 2: people will attend.
Speaker 3: It just makes no sense.
Speaker 5: Can you saying though they're hoping for higher turn over?
Speaker 4: That way someone can be like, well I've had my
Speaker 4: three hours, I've got to go, so somebody will be like,
Speaker 4: oh right, now I can have this buck, That's what
Speaker 4: he was saying.
Speaker 1: But you know what that means. Yes, that means you've
Speaker 1: got to leave the city.
Speaker 6: So if you'd had someone who parked there for six
Speaker 6: hours and then someone who came on the bus and
Speaker 6: stayed for six hours, they're going to spend twice as
Speaker 6: much money as two people who've used that car park
Speaker 6: for three hours each.
Speaker 4: So if these were privately owned and you were the owner,
Speaker 4: you wouldn't do this. What do you mean if I
Speaker 4: had opportunistic revenue raising plate, you.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you give it out for free in the first place.
Speaker 2: The point is they're denying that it's revenue raising.
Speaker 3: That's the point.
Speaker 2: If they just paid, this is a great boon for
Speaker 2: the city. We're going to make some extra money and
Speaker 2: use it to fill potholes.
Speaker 4: The government, they're not going to actually admit this is
Speaker 4: just revenue raising. None of their revenue raising is revenue raising.
Speaker 4: It's for our own benefit, as is this.
Speaker 2: And so then they just lie to our faces. And
Speaker 2: that's the problem. We know that what it's all about.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: we look at what's making news tomorrow, including former detainees
Speaker 2: out in the public and being paid five hundred dollars
Speaker 2: a week by taxpayers to be so all that more
Speaker 2: in just a moment, Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow.
Speaker 2: You remember back in twenty twenty three about one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty non citizen dangerous detainees were released back into
Speaker 2: the community because of a High court decision. Well, it
Speaker 2: continues to trouble the labor government have look at this
Speaker 2: headline from the Adelaide Advertiser as an exclusive one hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars blown on upkeep for foreign murderers, rapists, killers
Speaker 2: get five hundred dollars a week, reads the headline. The
Speaker 2: article begins hundreds of former immigration detainees convicted of offenses
Speaker 2: such as murder and rape are receiving up to five
Speaker 2: hundred dollars a week in payments, with the total bill
Speaker 2: for their time in the community costing one hundred million.
Speaker 3: Dollars and counting.
Speaker 2: This is one of those stories that just continues to
Speaker 2: roll on. You be aware that Tony Burke announced that
Speaker 2: one of these criminals was being sent to Nauru, which
Speaker 2: was obviously a in the bucket, and of course now
Speaker 2: that is being challenged in the courts. So whichever way
Speaker 2: you look at it's a disaster for the government. And
Speaker 2: now we find out we're still paying for it.
Speaker 6: I mean, this is an absolute joke that someone can
Speaker 6: come to this country and do these things to our people,
Speaker 6: and then we find out that it's somehow illegal to
Speaker 6: get rid of them, so we have to have them
Speaker 6: walking around in the community, and then we have to
Speaker 6: pay for the privilege of doing so. Is bloody outrageous. Now,
Speaker 6: did the government not pass laws that would allow them
Speaker 6: to redetain people that they thought were a danger to
Speaker 6: the community. How many of these people have been redetained.
Speaker 6: I'm not aware of a single one that has been.
Speaker 6: So what was the point you wanted them locked up?
Speaker 1: You left them?
Speaker 6: The government left them locked up some of the many
Speaker 6: of them had been locked up since the previous government,
Speaker 6: but the Labor government did nothing about releasing them at
Speaker 6: any point. They had been locked up for all this
Speaker 6: time because they're not citizens, they shouldn't be in this country.
Speaker 6: But we say we can't send them back once they
Speaker 6: came because it would.
Speaker 1: Be too dangerous for the way. I don't care.
Speaker 7: Just feed them to the lines, as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: But if you've already.
Speaker 6: Been okay with them being locked up, why have we
Speaker 6: not just locked them all back up again. Wasn't that
Speaker 6: the point of this whole thing that the laws didn't
Speaker 6: allow us to do it previously, so we changed the
Speaker 6: law so we could, and then we pay them to
Speaker 6: walk around the committity.
Speaker 2: The point of the law change was a headline, and
Speaker 2: then they were hoping that the whole thing would just
Speaker 2: go away. But it's not going away. Every couple of
Speaker 2: weeks we get another revelation of it.
Speaker 5: The point is always the headlines. That's the one oh
Speaker 5: one of politics. The point is the headline.
Speaker 4: There's a saying in politics which everyone in the know knows,
Speaker 4: which is the less you intend to do about something,
Speaker 4: the more of a song and dance you've got to
Speaker 4: make about it, the more you've got to talk about it,
Speaker 4: the more headlines you need about it in order.
Speaker 5: To make it look like you are doing something. And
Speaker 5: of course this just costs us, even the.
Speaker 4: Locking up you're talking about, Caleb, the years of it
Speaker 4: that was all on our time. I don't understand why
Speaker 4: we don't simply amend the laws to say if you
Speaker 4: come here and you break the rules.
Speaker 5: You get to go back and we owe you nothing.
Speaker 4: There's no like, oh, we're concerned what might happen if
Speaker 4: we send them back. They should have thought about that
Speaker 4: before they committed a heenus crime in the country that
Speaker 4: was so kind to take them in to the Australia
Speaker 4: now the best paper in the nation. Truth of green
Speaker 4: hydrogen fantasy. I think you and I both know the
Speaker 4: truth already, but let's have some more of it. Australia's
Speaker 4: green hydrogen industry has failed to fire, with ninety nine
Speaker 4: percent of a one hundred billion dollar supply pipeline failing
Speaker 4: to progress beyond the concept stage, punching a hole in
Speaker 4: Anthony Albanesi's aim to develop a major export industry by
Speaker 4: twenty thirty and meet net zero goals. So tell us, elbow,
Speaker 4: are we still got to be a renewables powerhouse? Is
Speaker 4: the world still going to look to us for all
Speaker 4: their unewable energy?
Speaker 5: I don't think so.
Speaker 6: There was a story on one of the papers yesterday,
Speaker 6: it might't have been the Newcastle Herald, about an offshore
Speaker 6: wind project that the government has sort of put out
Speaker 6: to tender, and there was a mob that had agreed
Speaker 6: to it. They'd signed up, they're going to do it,
Speaker 6: and now they're not so sure they want to do
Speaker 6: it anymore. I mean, it seems every day we get
Speaker 6: another story about how none of this is working green hydrogen.
Speaker 1: None of it's happened.
Speaker 6: Everyone's pulled their hydrogen projects down. In South Australia. Of course,
Speaker 6: we were told that hydrogen green hydrogen was going to
Speaker 6: power the steel works in Wayala, except the steel works
Speaker 6: were so expensive to run that Sanjeev Gupta has been
Speaker 6: put into administration.
Speaker 1: The whole thing's gone.
Speaker 6: Bus So the state government now has to spend money
Speaker 6: bailing that out, which means they won't be spending that
Speaker 6: money on green hydrogen. It goes on and on, and
Speaker 6: somehow we're still sitting here going ah yeah, n zero
Speaker 6: lardi dadi dara.
Speaker 1: It's all going to happen. It ain't going to happen.
Speaker 1: Why do we bother with this anymore.
Speaker 2: The other article that's just been posted on the Tizer
Speaker 2: website Hydrogen South Australia chief under scrutiny by Premier and
Speaker 2: cabinet as office staff slashed.
Speaker 3: He's on six hundred thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 2: And what the article goes on to say is they're
Speaker 2: trying to work out he's a really good guy. He's
Speaker 2: really good at what he does. Oh right, yeah, where
Speaker 2: could we use him? Because clearly the hydrogen dream ain't happening.
Speaker 2: And it's like Elbanezey talks about, you know, we're going
Speaker 2: to become a renewable energy superpower. How many times you
Speaker 2: heard that phrase. None of us know what it means.
Speaker 2: There was a plan to connect the cable, wasn't there
Speaker 2: from the Northern Territory.
Speaker 3: It was going to run underwater Moon.
Speaker 2: We're going to export sunbeams or something Singapore or something.
Speaker 5: That we have so much sun in Australia.
Speaker 2: Go back to headlines, right, they just say these things
Speaker 2: go it's amazing, and they hope we forget.
Speaker 4: And don't scratch beneath the surface. That is what the
Speaker 4: bank on. Don't scratch beneath the surface. You'll never figure out.
Speaker 5: That it's all a pile of blooney.
Speaker 4: To the second headline in the Odds Coalition vowels to
Speaker 4: fix heritage laws car crash. The Coalition has promised to
Speaker 4: overhaul federal heritage laws should it return to powers. New
Speaker 4: analysis shows the indigenous group that sank the Blamy Goldmine
Speaker 4: has become one of the most successful and litigious applicants
Speaker 4: under the current system.
Speaker 5: Dare we dream that some of.
Speaker 4: This nonsense, at least the nonsense overseen by the federal
Speaker 4: government in this respect, could come to an end under
Speaker 4: a coalition government. Surely that alone has got to bag
Speaker 4: in a few more votes.
Speaker 2: That they're not making massive changes. I think what they're
Speaker 2: proposing is that the Aboriginal Land Councils, who are the
Speaker 2: legislated recognized bodies, would be the go to rather than
Speaker 2: these odd sort of indigenous groups that pop up out
Speaker 2: of nowhere and suddenly make claims. So the way I read, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it's not like the coalition are going to make major changes.
Speaker 2: They're just saying we've got established indigenous bodies that are
Speaker 2: able to recognize what's sacred and what's not. They will
Speaker 2: be the voice and we won't listen to these other
Speaker 2: groups that are making all these outrageous claims. What they
Speaker 2: sprinkled this guy's ashes back in Yeah, that's a sacred
Speaker 2: Over two years ago, Johnson's car were spread all over
Speaker 2: the top of the mountain. In nineteen eighty three. I
Speaker 2: know it's pretty sacred to that Green's tough. Ford Felcat
Speaker 2: is on exactly.
Speaker 1: His name is escaping me now.
Speaker 6: But Chris Kenny was talking earlier this evening to the
Speaker 6: former chairman of the.
Speaker 7: New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.
Speaker 6: And he made the point that they hate groups like
Speaker 6: this because when there is a legitimate cause to be
Speaker 6: talked about, everyone then goes here.
Speaker 1: But what about those wallies that.
Speaker 6: Were going on about how Mount Panorama should be a
Speaker 6: sacred site and it actually discredits people who want to
Speaker 6: do genuine work around Aboriginal affairs. And I think he's
Speaker 6: quite right importing that out before we go to a
Speaker 6: break on the front of the Mercury tomorrow down in Tazzy,
Speaker 6: it's all bad news, I'm sorry to report.
Speaker 1: We'll probably just leave it there are. They're actually not
Speaker 1: going to get any news at all if you look
Speaker 1: at the screen by the looks of it.
Speaker 6: But I'll just I'll just show it to you right there,
Speaker 6: you go. That's what it's got on the front of
Speaker 6: the MRK tomorrow. It's all bad news, as I say.
Speaker 6: One headline says government seeks four hundred and sixty eight
Speaker 6: million dollars to pay the bills. They've had to go
Speaker 6: off the Liberal government to the Parliament for us for
Speaker 6: permission to spend some more money because they've had big
Speaker 6: budget blowouts of.
Speaker 1: The tune of half a billion. And the next one
Speaker 1: says clear the debts.
Speaker 6: The state government is considering selling off some of his businesses,
Speaker 6: including the state's Motor Accidents Insurance Board and public transport
Speaker 6: operated Metro to pay down.
Speaker 1: That soaring debt.
Speaker 6: It just seems to go from bad to worse for Tasmania,
Speaker 6: certainly does.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break when we come back.
Speaker 2: Grand Prix drivers arriving in Melbourne shortly for the GP
Speaker 2: have been told to watch their language.
Speaker 3: We'll explain why in a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Well, the Melbourne Formula one Grand Prix is just a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks away. But Caleb, the drivers have been
Speaker 2: given some interesting instructions.
Speaker 5: Indeed they have.
Speaker 6: I'm so excited that it's back, but I mean, for
Speaker 6: heaven's sake, the world has gone so soft. Now you
Speaker 6: can imagine you're driving around in a Formula one car.
Speaker 6: You're going two three four hundred kilometers an hour. You know,
Speaker 6: the serious speeds these people are driving at. And occasionally
Speaker 6: things go wrong. There are crashes, tires blow up, all
Speaker 6: sorts of things happen on the on the track right,
Speaker 6: and sometimes you get a bit frustrated and well there's
Speaker 6: an F bomb here or an S word or whatever.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is high precious spot.
Speaker 6: But the drivers have been told, I don't know, as
Speaker 6: well as driving these machines of death around the track,
Speaker 6: you must watch your language now, and if you don't,
Speaker 6: we will make you pay.
Speaker 1: For it quite seriously too.
Speaker 6: The first time they swear on their team radios, they'll
Speaker 6: be slagging sixty six thousand, eight hundred and ninety six dollars,
Speaker 6: the second time one hundred and thirty three thousand, seven
Speaker 6: hundred and ninety one dollars, and the third time two
Speaker 6: hundred thousand, six hundred and eighty seven dollars in a
Speaker 6: two year period.
Speaker 1: So you know, this normal reaction is now banned. Wonderful
Speaker 1: covert there, what idiot?
Speaker 6: Yes, imagine having a real human reaction while you're driving
Speaker 6: a very fast car on the track. I mean, bab
Speaker 6: and sack Oscar Piastre, who is the light of the
Speaker 6: Australians at the moment has hit out at it and
Speaker 6: said it's absolutely ridiculous, and it is because you're in a.
Speaker 1: High pressure situation.
Speaker 6: If there's any time you want to say the F
Speaker 6: word every now and again, that's it, it isn't it.
Speaker 2: You want to watch Lewis Hamilton, not Mother Teresa driving
Speaker 2: a car.
Speaker 4: Drivers about it has bleeped out anyway, So if anyone's
Speaker 4: watching Broadcom offended by an F bomb in a high
Speaker 4: pressures situation, also, the last thing these guys need to
Speaker 4: be doing is minding their p's and q's.
Speaker 5: That milli second of hesitation their lives. In some of
Speaker 5: those situations, it.
Speaker 2: Just goes to show that whatever sport you're talking about
Speaker 2: really is entertainment, isn't it.
Speaker 3: And so they have to manage it and.
Speaker 2: Massage it to be packaged to be provided for consumers.
Speaker 2: And so whether it's football or racing car drivers, at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, they are entertainers.
Speaker 1: That's part of the entertainment.
Speaker 6: You want to know what they're really feeling when something
Speaker 6: goes wrong. I mean, you know, can you imagine the
Speaker 6: Pstree crashres you go, oh, good, heavens, I have had
Speaker 6: a mischief. You're on the track.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not what we're waiting.
Speaker 2: James Hunt used to speak, that's the end for us.
Speaker 2: Tonight stick Around coming up against the Ride Penny Show.
Speaker 3: Good Night,