Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Debase.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with kayleb Bond and welcoming our new
Speaker 3: Late Debate team member, Freyer Leech.
Speaker 1: Freyer, great to have you part of the team.
Speaker 4: It's so wonderful to be here.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm looking forward to tonight because I suspect on
Speaker 3: the very first topic we're going to have an argument
Speaker 3: straight off the back, so be prepared for that.
Speaker 1: Freyer.
Speaker 3: Coming up tonight, some very strange footage from Vietnam of
Speaker 3: the French President Emmanuel mccron who's caught on camera seemingly
Speaker 3: in an.
Speaker 1: Altercation with his wife or was it a play fight?
Speaker 3: We'll let you decide. Plus, when we look at the papers,
Speaker 3: home ownership reach. Home ownership affordability reaches an historic low.
Speaker 1: But it's not all bad news.
Speaker 3: One state opposition is promising to scrap sales tax for
Speaker 3: a stamp duty rather for first home buyers.
Speaker 1: So we'll get to that shortly. But here's a question.
Speaker 3: Should prisoners be allowed to smoke cigarettes in jail? They
Speaker 3: were up until twenty fifteen when it was banned and
Speaker 3: instead prisoners were supplied with nicotine patches, But then they
Speaker 3: started using nicotine patches combined with pages from the Bible
Speaker 3: to make their own cigarettes, and so they were banned.
Speaker 3: And now we've got a situation where liquid nicotine that's
Speaker 3: used to make e cigarettes is one of the most
Speaker 3: smuggled items in prisons around Australia. Victorian authorities have seized
Speaker 3: four hundred and fifty liters of nicotine oil in the.
Speaker 1: Nine months to March.
Speaker 3: I think this is one of those issues where every
Speaker 3: solution just creates another problem, and so I can't believe
Speaker 3: I'm going to say this Freyer and Caleb I reckon
Speaker 3: allow prisoners to smoke cigarettes and solve a raft of problem.
Speaker 5: I don't see why they shouldn't be able to smoke
Speaker 5: when everyone else is allowed to smoke. And you might say, oh, well,
Speaker 5: you know you're in prison, you should be deprived of
Speaker 5: your rights. But let's be honest, prisoners are pretty prickly
Speaker 5: characters at the best of times, right, and so something
Speaker 5: to calm them down a little bit is probably not
Speaker 5: a bad thing. And it's probably also not a bad
Speaker 5: thing if they smoke themselves into an earlier grave. I mean,
Speaker 5: if you're in prison and you want to say, yep,
Speaker 5: I'm willing to give up ten years of my life
Speaker 5: so that the taxpayer doesn't have to spend one hundred
Speaker 5: thousand dollars a year to feed me and put a
Speaker 5: roof of made. At least that's what it used to be.
Speaker 5: I mean, it was one hundred and grand a year
Speaker 5: ten years ago. So I hate to think of what
Speaker 5: they're spending every year now to keep someone in prison.
Speaker 5: You want to smoke yourself into an early grave, go
Speaker 5: for your life, couldn't give a stuff.
Speaker 4: I totally disagree.
Speaker 6: I mean, we should be trying to make prison as
Speaker 6: unbearable as possible. There are very few rights for prisoners,
Speaker 6: and smoking certainly is not one of them. And then
Speaker 6: you consider the cost to taxpayers when these people are
Speaker 6: out of prison, or even while they're still in prison,
Speaker 6: cancer treatments, all the medical issues associated with smoking. I
Speaker 6: am sure that the cost of treating them, whether they're
Speaker 6: prisoners or back in the public system, will far outweigh
Speaker 6: any potential tax is we collect from cigarettes. And therefore,
Speaker 6: why are we just allowing people to continue there essentially
Speaker 6: their drug addiction and facilitating it.
Speaker 2: Well, it does, and on the tax point, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: So in this financial year, we'll pull in seven point
Speaker 5: four billion dollars in exercise, which is well down on
Speaker 5: what it used to be. By the way, it peaking
Speaker 5: at about fourteen billion. But of course the federal government
Speaker 5: buggered it all up with the illicit tobacco market and
Speaker 5: they're now losing all the tax.
Speaker 2: But the latest numbers we have from the National.
Speaker 5: Drug Research Institute is that at six point eight billion
Speaker 5: dollars a year in healthcare. So the government actually turns
Speaker 5: a profit on smokers, which is why, as I've said before,
Speaker 5: they are the true lifters of this country. Smokers and
Speaker 5: drinkers are the true lifters of this country because they
Speaker 5: spend money they give tax voluntarily to the government that
Speaker 5: other people don't. So it's actually a net profit maker
Speaker 5: for the federal government. So you can't argue it on
Speaker 5: that point.
Speaker 3: My problem with the ban is it's not achieving what
Speaker 3: it was set out to do.
Speaker 1: The bans ostensibly to improve the health.
Speaker 3: Of prisoners, except studies have shown that what is at
Speaker 3: sixty three percent of prisoniness. This is from the Medical
Speaker 3: Journal of Australia. Sixty three percent of prisoners upon release
Speaker 3: from jail smoke a cigarette the day they get out
Speaker 3: of prison, so they're not quitting even though the ban
Speaker 3: is in place. They're just finding other ways to smoke.
Speaker 3: Hence we've now got this illegal trade within prisons. Have
Speaker 3: look at this footage, amazing footage from park Lee.
Speaker 1: Prison here in Sydney. See that bin.
Speaker 3: It was left in the middle of the courtyard and
Speaker 3: if you can watch there on the screen carefully, we'll
Speaker 3: play it again. There's an item that falls from the
Speaker 3: sky perfectly into the bin. It's been dropped from a
Speaker 3: drone flown over the prison yard. It's dropping a vape
Speaker 3: and tobacco into that bin. So, aside from being bad
Speaker 3: using drones to deliver illegal goods into the prison, I
Speaker 3: reckon find the operator of the drone and give him a.
Speaker 1: Job of the ADM. He could save us at the
Speaker 1: event of war with China.
Speaker 2: I know we need him.
Speaker 5: And you know the reports I'm getting here of people
Speaker 5: having full blown fights in prison now over cigarettes because
Speaker 5: if someone manages to smuggle some in like it is
Speaker 5: genuine currency in prison now, because they have made it
Speaker 5: a currency, just like they've done of course with you
Speaker 5: listen tobacco, Margaret. While we're talking about crime and related matters,
Speaker 5: as well, checking people off into jail. It's interesting. There's
Speaker 5: two stories here. One, of course, in South Australia, the
Speaker 5: former DPP has said that they should get rid of
Speaker 5: the what do you.
Speaker 2: Call it, the parole board.
Speaker 5: I was about to go for bail because of course
Speaker 5: that's what we've been talking about excessively.
Speaker 2: Of course he wants to get rid of the parole board.
Speaker 2: He says, you'll lock people up for longer and that'll
Speaker 2: be a good thing.
Speaker 5: Something tells me that won't quite work, because you say, okay, look,
Speaker 5: here's a response to a.
Speaker 2: Problem we're having at the moment with crime. We've got
Speaker 2: rampant youth crime. So look, we'll get rid of the
Speaker 2: parole board.
Speaker 5: Therefore you won't have parole, so we'll lock them up
Speaker 5: for longer and that'll fix the problem. Well, you know,
Speaker 5: people sort of need a way to transition from prison
Speaker 5: to real life. Again, I think, and again, these knee
Speaker 5: jerk reactions. We saw one yesterday from Jacinder Allen the
Speaker 5: Mirror Victoria. There was terrible gang violence, as Paul was
Speaker 5: talking about before, in Melbourne over the weekend, including of
Speaker 5: course that attack at a Northland shopping center where you
Speaker 5: had a young man wielding a machete. So Cintra Allen says,
Speaker 5: I've got the answer to all of this. We'll just
Speaker 5: ban machetes.
Speaker 7: These knives are dangerous weapons. They have no place on
Speaker 7: our streets anywhere, and that is why i will introduce
Speaker 7: as many laws to get these dangerous knives off the streets.
Speaker 7: Which is why I'm announcing today that, effective immediately, will
Speaker 7: be bringing in place a ban on the sale of
Speaker 7: machetes here in Victoria. And this ban will be in
Speaker 7: place from midday on Wednesday under consumer powers. Using these powers,
Speaker 7: Victoria will be banning machetes from being sold anywhere in
Speaker 7: the state.
Speaker 5: Look, machetes don't kill people. People wielding machetes kill people.
Speaker 5: People wielding kitchen knives kill peaple. I mean, you still
Speaker 5: might have seen Andrew Bolt earlier tonight pulled in an
Speaker 5: array of things that he had.
Speaker 2: In his garden shed.
Speaker 5: You know, an axe and a hatchet and whatever that
Speaker 5: you can go and kill someone with a ringe of
Speaker 5: them with if you want to simply saying well, we've
Speaker 5: fixed the problem now, no more machines in Victoria.
Speaker 2: It does not fix youth crime.
Speaker 6: I mean, this is all a distraction technique. By the
Speaker 6: Allen government to distract from the fact that they have
Speaker 6: failed to control the youth crime crisis.
Speaker 4: Crime is at a fifteen year high.
Speaker 6: But get this, although they're committing record numbers of offenses,
Speaker 6: the number of offenders hasn't really changed. That's because this
Speaker 6: is being driven by repeat violent offenders.
Speaker 8: Now, what just since Alan won't tell.
Speaker 6: You about the event over the weekend, was that three
Speaker 6: of the four kids participating were actually out on bail.
Speaker 4: And that is the problem until.
Speaker 6: Much of this year, remand or keeping people in jail
Speaker 6: until their trial. Fourk children were seen as a last
Speaker 6: resort by courts.
Speaker 4: That man, all these violent.
Speaker 6: Kids were just immediately released onto the streets. Hence the
Speaker 6: incredible youth crime problem. So all of this is just
Speaker 6: a cover up.
Speaker 1: I reckon, I reckon. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: Talking about machetes is much easier than talking about youth crime,
Speaker 3: specifically gang crime, just much easier. I love to language
Speaker 3: knives have no place on our streets. What about gangs
Speaker 3: have no place on our streets. I will get these
Speaker 3: dangerous knives off our streets. How about getting dangerous gangs
Speaker 3: off the streets.
Speaker 1: You've absolutely failed to do that. So you've made.
Speaker 3: Machetes, and the definition of machete it's a knife blade
Speaker 3: that's longer than twenty centimeters.
Speaker 1: Well, there are bread knives that are longer.
Speaker 3: Than twenty centimeters, so big loaves of bread, it must.
Speaker 3: The other thing about this, of course, is that ban
Speaker 3: will apply from midday on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: Is this is such a big problem, why wouldn't we.
Speaker 3: Ban it immediately, but to provide opportunity for retailers to adjust.
Speaker 1: In other words, there's going to be an absolute.
Speaker 3: Run on machetes for the next two and a half
Speaker 3: days up until midday on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: People are rushing and buy them all.
Speaker 6: And when you ban machetes, wouldn't these kids just move
Speaker 6: to knives or sissys then you.
Speaker 1: Buy then you ban knives, and your band scissors.
Speaker 4: Or axes, then you buy hammers.
Speaker 6: Then you ban hammers like I could name so many
Speaker 6: rope like goodness, anything could be violent, and that is
Speaker 6: the problem. They don't want to address the underlying drivers
Speaker 6: of the crisis, so it's easier to just ban things.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 6: Should kids have access to machetes obviously not. Should we
Speaker 6: control access to machetes totally, But let's be very clear
Speaker 6: this is not some newfound desire to reign in crime.
Speaker 6: This is just into Alan trying to cover up the fact.
Speaker 4: That her government has failed.
Speaker 3: And like we talked about with the ban on cigarettes
Speaker 3: in jails, do you reckon in a couple of days
Speaker 3: time on the orb were Donga border, there'll be a
Speaker 3: big store opening up machete the machete shop.
Speaker 2: I'm going to go and do it if it doesn't
Speaker 2: really exist.
Speaker 5: But it concerns me as well how easily people are
Speaker 5: willing to give up liberties and freedoms right.
Speaker 2: And most people might sit there and say, well, I.
Speaker 5: Don't have a machete. I'm probably never going to buy
Speaker 5: a machete, so I don't really care if you ban
Speaker 5: the machete. But there are plenty of people who would
Speaker 5: go bush walking or work on farms or whatever it
Speaker 5: might be, who would argue that they have a legitimate
Speaker 5: use for a machete and that they should be able
Speaker 5: to buy one. And so you start with the machete
Speaker 5: and you say, well, for the good of the people,
Speaker 5: will stop the sale of the machetes. And one by
Speaker 5: one we have these little changes that we make to
Speaker 5: our lives and say we'll give up a little bit
Speaker 5: of freedom, a little bit of liberty, because we believe
Speaker 5: that will make the rest of us safer until you
Speaker 5: get to the point where you have no liberty or
Speaker 5: freedom left. Because that's the ultimate version of safety, is
Speaker 5: that there is no risk in life. I mean, if
Speaker 5: that's the kind of world you want to live in,
Speaker 5: go for it. But it's not the kind of world
Speaker 5: I want to live in. The kid with the machine
Speaker 5: Eddie will find something else to use. Whether he's got
Speaker 5: the machete or not, he's still going to commit crime.
Speaker 2: It doesn't change.
Speaker 3: She's dealing with the symptom and she's ignoring the root issues,
Speaker 3: which is so common amongst our governments. Another area where
Speaker 3: they continue to ignore root issues is of course, in immigration,
Speaker 3: particularly illegal immigration. Figures released from the Department of Home
Speaker 3: Affairs today just show an extraordinary situation in this country.
Speaker 3: We now have fifty one thousand failed asylum seekers living
Speaker 3: here in Australia, though they have no right to be here,
Speaker 3: which begs the question, when, if ever, will they be
Speaker 3: deported and go home. We read today there are forty
Speaker 3: three thousand, four hundred and ninety three people challenging the
Speaker 3: rejection of their visa application in the Administrative Tribunal. But
Speaker 3: the number of immigrants have gone through the system and
Speaker 3: now have no right to remain in Australia is estimated
Speaker 3: to have reached fifty one thousand, six hundred and seventeen.
Speaker 1: Let me show you a graph.
Speaker 3: You can see how the number of people who have
Speaker 3: been denied a visa but are.
Speaker 1: Yet to be deported has grown over.
Speaker 3: The last few years while Labor has been in power.
Speaker 3: There is currently ninety five, one hundred and ten of whom,
Speaker 3: as I said, fifty one thousand have now exhausted all
Speaker 3: of their court options and yet are still here in
Speaker 3: this country now. Tony Burke, when answering questions from journalists
Speaker 3: about this extraordinarily Freyer said, what we expect them to leave?
Speaker 1: Well, these are.
Speaker 3: People, many of whom arrived here illegally, others who have
Speaker 3: gained the system using all sorts of novel excuses to stay,
Speaker 3: and Tony Burke, the Immigration Minister, says, well, we expect
Speaker 3: them to live. You can't expect these people to just
Speaker 3: voluntarily leave. The government has to do something.
Speaker 6: He's essentially asking people to self deport Trump style, except
Speaker 6: he's not offering them any incentive to do so. In fact,
Speaker 6: why would anyone want to leave Australia at all.
Speaker 4: We are one of the.
Speaker 6: Best countries on earth, so I totally understand why tens
Speaker 6: of thousands of people are willing to break the law
Speaker 6: in order to stay here.
Speaker 4: But that doesn't mean it's right.
Speaker 6: And actually this was an issue even back in Margaret
Speaker 6: Thatcher's time, and she made this great comment in Parliament
Speaker 6: in the UK.
Speaker 9: Kable gentlemen is suggesting that we ever get to a
Speaker 9: position when you cannot return illegal immigrants to that country
Speaker 9: of origin, then here's proposing international chaos.
Speaker 6: And that is one of the key issues. In order
Speaker 6: to deport people who've had their asylum claims rejected, the
Speaker 6: country that they originate from has to accept them back.
Speaker 6: Now an increasing list of countries are simply refusing to
Speaker 6: do so, and it is straining the international order. How
Speaker 6: can we be expected to cooperate with these countries when
Speaker 6: they don't respect our sovereignty and our right to control
Speaker 6: our borders.
Speaker 4: Kalab Well, this.
Speaker 2: Stuff should be so simple.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, James, if you were decided to
Speaker 5: rock up to my waterfront, padded beal Maine, because you
Speaker 5: can't resist the view of the Sydney Harbor.
Speaker 3: Bridge whenever I ring the bell and you never answered, Well,
Speaker 3: that in the driveway suspicious.
Speaker 5: I'll tell you why. If you've read the doormat it's
Speaker 5: his wine required for intro. Yes that he's actually written
Speaker 5: on my door, and he's never brought the wine. But say,
Speaker 5: I'll let you in, and you block yourself on the
Speaker 5: Eames chair and you sit there and look at the
Speaker 5: harbor Bridge and you go, bug it, I'm staying here.
Speaker 2: I'm not leaving.
Speaker 5: Well, i'd call up the coppers, and the coppers have
Speaker 5: come and take you away for trespass, right, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, surely it is as simple as that. If you
Speaker 2: have allowed yourself into an area.
Speaker 3: What if I had a really good lawyer who was
Speaker 3: funded by the government and by taxpayers to provide twenty
Speaker 3: different appeal boards.
Speaker 2: That I complicating facts?
Speaker 1: That's what I went there.
Speaker 5: And you know, I mean, how hard is it you
Speaker 5: come to my property you're not meant to be that
Speaker 5: the police will come and take you away as you trespassed.
Speaker 5: It should be exactly the same. You're not meant to
Speaker 5: be here. We have ruled that you are not an
Speaker 5: asylum seeker. So you should be on the first plane
Speaker 5: back home.
Speaker 2: And I'm really worried we're going to go the way
Speaker 2: of the UK.
Speaker 5: And we keep getting these insane stories out of the
Speaker 5: UK recently. I mean, my favorite one was that the
Speaker 5: Albanian bloke who he couldn't go back to Albania because
Speaker 5: he had a child in the UK who didn't like
Speaker 5: foreign chicken nuggets and so it would be against his
Speaker 5: human rights to send him back to Albania.
Speaker 2: Because this is the cheat code.
Speaker 5: You go to the country, but you're not meant to be,
Speaker 5: saying you're a student or whatever.
Speaker 2: You apply for asylum status.
Speaker 5: It takes us about seventeen years to assess whether or
Speaker 5: not you're actually allowed in the country. In the meantime,
Speaker 5: you hook up with some bird, getter up the duff,
Speaker 5: have a few kids, bag we can't get.
Speaker 2: Rid of you now because you've got roots in this country.
Speaker 3: What the Albanizer government did, and we said earlier, there's
Speaker 3: about forty three thousand people still going through the appeals process,
Speaker 3: so freer. They gave extra funding, right to move people
Speaker 3: through the process quicker, But all that achieves is putting
Speaker 3: more people into the position where now they've exhausted their
Speaker 3: legal rights. You've got to do something about those people.
Speaker 3: It's one of those situations where it starts off as
Speaker 3: so small we won't bother addressing it, but quickly it
Speaker 3: becomes so big. If you're going to address it, it's
Speaker 3: going to cost a mozza. And can you imagine the
Speaker 3: controversy once they start physically deporting and forcing people out
Speaker 3: of the country. If they don't start on this soon,
Speaker 3: we're going to end up with chaos.
Speaker 4: And that's the thing.
Speaker 6: Last month, less than five people were actually involuntarily imported,
Speaker 6: five out of over fifty thousand.
Speaker 4: It's an absolute joke.
Speaker 6: But moving on now, I feel like councils always give
Speaker 6: us so much to talk about, and this time it's
Speaker 6: Melbourne City Council. Of course, during COVID they had a
Speaker 6: one hundred million dollar fund with them and the state
Speaker 6: government and it was all about trying.
Speaker 8: To revive the businesses that.
Speaker 4: They shut down.
Speaker 6: Except it's now been revealed under a Freedom of information
Speaker 6: request that instead of spending this money supporting businesses, they
Speaker 6: actually spent it making Melbourne even more unlivable. Eight hundred
Speaker 6: and twenty five thousand dollars from Melbourne's fund has been
Speaker 6: diverted to changing these speed limits in suburbs from fifty
Speaker 6: and sixty kilometers down to forty kilometer zones. That sounds great, Yes,
Speaker 6: let's have this money to revive the city we killed,
Speaker 6: and let's.
Speaker 4: Kill it even more.
Speaker 6: I just think that's ridiculous. Shouldn't that money be going
Speaker 6: to business as Kyler?
Speaker 5: Of course it should, But I mean this is just
Speaker 5: typical stuff, right, I mean, they've done this in so
Speaker 5: many places now, so many councils across the country just
Speaker 5: made vast swayes, not only cities with suburbia forty kilometers
Speaker 5: an hour for whatever reason, because I don't know, some
Speaker 5: dumb kid runs out.
Speaker 2: On the road and you'd hit them a little.
Speaker 5: I mean, seriously, forty kilometers now fifty kilometers an hour.
Speaker 5: Unless you're screaming down the street at seventy it is
Speaker 5: probably not that much of a difference. But they tried
Speaker 5: this in Adelaide in twenty thirteen. They need a trial
Speaker 5: in the CBD where they cut the speed limit back
Speaker 5: when Steven Yard would my great mate not was lord mayor.
Speaker 5: In twenty thirteen, they cut the speed limit in parts
Speaker 5: of the city to forty and Less than a year later,
Speaker 5: they scrapped it because they realized it didn't make a
Speaker 5: lick of difference, and all it did was discourage people
Speaker 5: from driving into the city because oh good, say we're
Speaker 5: going to go at forty kilometers an hour. I go
Speaker 5: to the places where I can go fifty because I
Speaker 5: want to be actually able to move around. There are
Speaker 5: places in Melbourne now where they're actually reducing the speed
Speaker 5: limit to thirty kilometers an hour. I mean, where does
Speaker 5: an end you go from fifty to forty, forty to thirty,
Speaker 5: thirty to twenty and then it'll be bike lanes everywhere,
Speaker 5: which is probably their ultimate goal anyway, because that'll be
Speaker 5: the fastest way to move.
Speaker 3: And like Freya said, this just makes the cities even
Speaker 3: more unlivable when the point of the fund was to
Speaker 3: reinvigorate CBD businesses after they were devastated during the pandemic
Speaker 3: eight hundred and what was it fifty million thousand dollars
Speaker 3: towards bike lanes slowing down cars to forty kilometers an hour.
Speaker 3: I love what one of the council spokesman said when
Speaker 3: trying to defend this decision, that there was one hundred
Speaker 3: million dollars allocated right to reviving inner city businesses, and
Speaker 3: the spokesperson said, and I quote, more than sixty million
Speaker 3: dollars was directed to support businesses. Now, my math isn't
Speaker 3: great the best of times, prayer, but you've already cottoned on.
Speaker 3: If one hundred million dollars was dedicated and they have
Speaker 3: spent sixty million, to what happened to the other forty
Speaker 3: million that was meant to help businesses a that this
Speaker 3: is typical though Mooney Valley Council famously a few years
Speaker 3: ago there were floods in the area and they spent
Speaker 3: flood recovery money funding an indigenous artist to do an
Speaker 3: Indigenous sculpture for a children's playground which was far removed
Speaker 3: from the area that was flooded. So councils continually use
Speaker 3: money allocated for one thing to fund their pet projects.
Speaker 1: If you did that in any other sector of.
Speaker 3: Society, you'd be at least sacked, if not investigated and prosecuted.
Speaker 3: And yet councils repeatedly use rate payer money for things
Speaker 3: other than what it was intended for, and in this.
Speaker 1: Case, to make things worse rather than better.
Speaker 6: But one of the problems as well, is that the
Speaker 6: people who live in these inner city areas and who
Speaker 6: vote for the councils are often perfectly happy to just
Speaker 6: ride around on their bike, no cars.
Speaker 4: They don't even want businesses.
Speaker 6: Half of them are socialists, and so the councils can
Speaker 6: get away with this stuff. But it's the businesses that
Speaker 6: ultimately pay. And that's what I think is really sad.
Speaker 6: It's going to be the small businesses, the mums and
Speaker 6: dads who can't afford to keep up as these draconian,
Speaker 6: anti fun, anti freedom councils have their way.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's all anti car.
Speaker 5: I mean, have a look around any city now and
Speaker 5: look at how many loading zones there are.
Speaker 2: And it's not to say it's anti track the whole thing.
Speaker 5: How do they think that cities operate? I mean things
Speaker 5: get brought into cities on trucks. Trucks need loading zones
Speaker 5: to park. Oh, we'll take the loading zones out more
Speaker 5: to bike lane in instead. They just well, I think
Speaker 5: they do get it. They know exactly what they are doing.
Speaker 5: The point is to stop you from driving your car.
Speaker 5: But newsflash, when if you can't drive your car, people
Speaker 5: just won't go places and it'll hurt the cities, and
Speaker 5: then there won't be anyone to pay the rates anymore,
Speaker 5: and then there'll be no counsel, which perhaps is the
Speaker 5: best thing that could happen for all of us. Sometimes
Speaker 5: I scratch my head and I think, why have you
Speaker 5: made this decision?
Speaker 2: That's one of them. I mean, why would you reduce
Speaker 2: the speed limit?
Speaker 5: And another one of those moments I had today, ADHD
Speaker 5: diagnosis in New South Wales is now going to be
Speaker 5: extended to GPS. So currently if you want a diagnosis
Speaker 5: of ADHD you have to go to either a pediatrician
Speaker 5: if you're a child, or a psychiatrist they're also qualified
Speaker 5: to give out ADHD medication. Well, the New South Wales
Speaker 5: state government says no, no, we should be able to
Speaker 5: allow GPS to do it now, just the average family
Speaker 5: doctor to say, yes, you can have an ADHD diagnosis,
Speaker 5: and you can have an ADHD diagnosis, and why don't
Speaker 5: we sign everyone up for an ADHD diagnosis, because that's
Speaker 5: where we seem to be going these days. I mean,
Speaker 5: every second kid apparently has ADHD and ADHD is not
Speaker 5: on the NDIS, but one in ten young boys is
Speaker 5: now on the NDAs with autism or some such thing.
Speaker 5: And of course the schools encourage parents to get ADHD
Speaker 5: diagnoses because I get special dispensation funding and all sorts
Speaker 5: of things. Parents cutcrook if their children don't get diagnoses
Speaker 5: that they ask for, whether it be ADHD or autism
Speaker 5: or whatever. All the autism they've been diagnosed with is
Speaker 5: two miles so they can't get on the NDAs. This
Speaker 5: is going on all the time, and it's a serious diagnosis.
Speaker 5: So you say, well, without any real basis, we'll just
Speaker 5: allow an average GP to start maybe start making these is.
Speaker 2: They've got to take another course so.
Speaker 5: That they can have the power to give out ADHD diagnosis. Well,
Speaker 5: once it gets around that the GP down at this
Speaker 5: clinic is handing out ADHD diagnoses, how many kids do
Speaker 5: you reckon?
Speaker 2: We'll be lined up out the front with their parents
Speaker 2: to go and get it. It's just a business.
Speaker 3: Rule, and no one's denying there's an issue here. But when,
Speaker 3: as you said, between six and ten percent of young
Speaker 3: people in this country have got a mental health disorder,
Speaker 3: wouldn't the response be to say, WHOA, let's stop for
Speaker 3: a second and figure out what is going on, rather
Speaker 3: than to say let's make it as easy as possible
Speaker 3: for these kids to get diagnosed and then prescribed and
Speaker 3: put on medication. And I've got firsthand experience of this,
Speaker 3: as many parents around the country would where your child
Speaker 3: goes to school misbehaves, and then in our situation, it
Speaker 3: was teachers saying, we need you to go and get
Speaker 3: your child seen to and diagnosed with ADHD because then
Speaker 3: the school gets extra funding for extra support to provide
Speaker 3: behavioral management in classrooms, et cetera, et cetera. And so
Speaker 3: we took our kid along because we don't want our
Speaker 3: kid to suffer and be behind at school. And I
Speaker 3: was actually shocked with a pediatrician at how quickly after
Speaker 3: one consultation that was very brief, Oh yeah, ADHD put
Speaker 3: them on whatever the ADHD drug is. And as parents,
Speaker 3: we were kind of horrified. We had the school encouraging
Speaker 3: us very strongly from one end, we had a health
Speaker 3: professional who seemed pretty quick to diagnose and prescribe, and
Speaker 3: as parents, you just want the best for your kids,
Speaker 3: and I certainly don't think most parents want to put
Speaker 3: their children on some sort of drug. So we're going
Speaker 3: to get an explosion in diagnoses. You would think, as
Speaker 3: you said, Caleb, if you've got GPS.
Speaker 1: Now prescribing this.
Speaker 3: They're already giving out four point six million prescriptions for
Speaker 3: ADHD drugs. That was between twenty twenty three and twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four in one year, four point six million prescriptions.
Speaker 1: This will make it more and I'm not sure it's
Speaker 1: a good thing.
Speaker 6: Well, it's so sad, and we also don't know what
Speaker 6: the long term consequences are of essentially drugging a significant
Speaker 6: proportion of an entire generation in one of the biggest
Speaker 6: medical experiments on children we've ever conducted what happens, and
Speaker 6: we do see from some of the early research coming
Speaker 6: out that, particularly in boys, one of the things it
Speaker 6: does is reduce their drive and ambition, and that's partly
Speaker 6: why now across our education system you're actually seeing girls
Speaker 6: now outperforming boys, and now there's a reverse gender gap
Speaker 6: where girls are excelling at record rates, but it's boys
Speaker 6: being left behind because the system, now if you're not
Speaker 6: a nice little girl in school, will go put you
Speaker 6: on medication with no idea about the long term consequences.
Speaker 8: And so once again it is children.
Speaker 6: It is society's most vulnerable people that are going to
Speaker 6: pay the price for this.
Speaker 3: Experiment, so I should point out quickly because I used
Speaker 3: some personal experience. We just adjusted some behavioral management issues
Speaker 3: with our son and that he's now doing brilliant and
Speaker 3: it's probably the best kid in this country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very good.
Speaker 5: But you see, of course, you pathologize increasingly things that
Speaker 5: are part of the normal human experience. You know, worry
Speaker 5: becomes anxiety, sadness becomes depression. You know, a boy mucking
Speaker 5: around because he's perhaps not being treated as he should
Speaker 5: or no one really understands him. Where he's got ADHD
Speaker 5: And that's the point of ritalin and all these other
Speaker 5: means is to try and essentially dull and create an
Speaker 5: equilibrium for these kids. But the rought that I talked
Speaker 5: about before, where do you think that the number one
Speaker 5: school in New South Wales that had the most students
Speaker 5: approved for disability provisions under the HSC last year?
Speaker 2: Have I guess where it was.
Speaker 1: And what school it was? I wouldn't even know where
Speaker 1: to begin with edge.
Speaker 6: I've got to Gasfoya Kayla. Was it a school in
Speaker 6: the eastern suburbs?
Speaker 2: Wasn't in the eastern suburbs?
Speaker 4: It was?
Speaker 2: It was in Cremorn, so right right next to all
Speaker 2: Redlands where.
Speaker 5: Forty nine point four percent of HSC students had some
Speaker 5: kind of special dispensation to do with disability. And that's
Speaker 5: exactly why they want the diagnosis, because it means the
Speaker 5: students will maybe get some extra time in their exam,
Speaker 5: or they get to mixed through assistance, or they can
Speaker 5: do something a bit differently, and the schools use.
Speaker 2: That to jack up their results. I mean, why wouldn't
Speaker 2: you do it?
Speaker 6: And Caleb, the thing is as well, kids from truly
Speaker 6: disadvantaged backgrounds often don't have the resources or the know
Speaker 6: how to work through the medical system to get these
Speaker 6: diagnoses and get the special privileges. So once again it
Speaker 6: is the most vulnerable that tend to suffer.
Speaker 4: But let's move on now.
Speaker 6: So the ABC has been forced to apologize to two
Speaker 6: national MP's after one of its political reporters falsely claimed
Speaker 6: that they abandoned their electorates while people were dying.
Speaker 4: Check this out.
Speaker 10: I think the other thing that's probably really important to
Speaker 10: regional communities is that they have a local member who's
Speaker 10: there when their electorate is, for example, flooding. So I
Speaker 10: went through this earlier today. I went and check so
Speaker 10: on Wednesday afternoon. There was a sixty three year old
Speaker 10: man in Moto that's near Tyree. That's in Allison Penfold's
Speaker 10: seat the National He died on Thursday morning. The body
Speaker 10: was recovered of a thirty year old a man his
Speaker 10: thirties in Rosewood that's in her seat as well. On
Speaker 10: Thursday afternoon, that's when we had the press conference from
Speaker 10: the Nationals in the Hall. Just to go over that timeline,
Speaker 10: a sixty year old woman died in her car near
Speaker 10: Koff's Harbor in this flood. That's in Pact Conahan's seat
Speaker 10: of Kauper.
Speaker 1: I think the.
Speaker 10: Important thing is that when you're in opposition, it's also
Speaker 10: still your job to be a local member and represent
Speaker 10: your communities, to be there for them.
Speaker 6: Now, initially when I saw this story, I thought, oh, no,
Speaker 6: some poor reporter we've never heard of has made an
Speaker 6: innocent mistake. Oh this is really sad and awkward. But
Speaker 6: you can hear there this was no an innocent mistake.
Speaker 6: She was on a witch hunt to attack National Party MPs.
Speaker 8: She researched everyone who had died in their.
Speaker 6: Electrics, which is totally a tragedy, but she failed to
Speaker 6: check where that the MP's were actually there, and in
Speaker 6: fact they were they never abandoned their electorate.
Speaker 3: Fifty percent of her research was outstanding. It was just
Speaker 3: the other fifty percent, which was pretty much nonexistent and
Speaker 3: meant that the ABC had to issue an apology, which
Speaker 3: is pretty embarrassing. It just goes to show it it's
Speaker 3: just easy to whack a member of the coalition, and
Speaker 3: the ABC are pretty proficient at that, and it's a
Speaker 3: classic example of just take a whack without checking first
Speaker 3: to see whether it was deserved or in fact based
Speaker 3: on truth.
Speaker 5: Well, I think this might have proved that it's not
Speaker 5: that easy to take a whack at a member of
Speaker 5: the coalition because there was no basis for the whack whatsoever.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, if you're going to go for someone,
Speaker 5: you've actually got to get your facts right before you
Speaker 5: do it. And I had a situation a bit like this,
Speaker 5: not involving the ABC, but a journalist at an outlet
Speaker 5: that will.
Speaker 2: Remain unnamed sent me this email recently saying you said
Speaker 2: this on air, and this is wrong and that was wrong,
Speaker 2: and we're going to write it up.
Speaker 5: And I went back and methodically went through exactly what
Speaker 5: I had said on air, and how it all had
Speaker 5: basis in fact, and that what they were telling me
Speaker 5: I had said was wrong.
Speaker 2: I could point to the exact.
Speaker 5: Piece in the document where it said, no, what I've
Speaker 5: said is exactly true. Funnily enough, that piece didn't end
Speaker 5: up getting written. At least they did the due diligence
Speaker 5: to reach out beforehand and ask before they ran the piece.
Speaker 5: What has happened here is a journalist has gone on
Speaker 5: air and run her mouth and said, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 5: why aren't they in their electric now? If she had
Speaker 5: made the point that all of this is a great
Speaker 5: side show while there is a natural disaster going on,
Speaker 5: and that the Nationals as a party roof point should
Speaker 5: have been far more interested in flood victims than their
Speaker 5: own personal issues this week, that would have been a
Speaker 5: totally legitimate point to make. But she deliberately and specifically
Speaker 5: pointed out MP's and suggested that they weren't in their
Speaker 5: electorates when they were. I mean, it is the most
Speaker 5: basic stuff. And here, but for the grace of God
Speaker 5: goes oh. You and I have worked as newspaper reporters, James,
Speaker 5: We've all made mistakes before and had to issue retractions
Speaker 5: for some minor issue or whatever, but this is a
Speaker 5: pretty big one.
Speaker 3: Well, and when you're talking on live television, off the cuff,
Speaker 3: you can say things, you know, in the heat of
Speaker 3: the moment that maybe it was not exactly correct, or
Speaker 3: maybe you're kind of sure but not totally sure. But
Speaker 3: as you said, Freyer, she had her notes there. She
Speaker 3: came prepared to make this charge, to fire this bullet,
Speaker 3: only to find it wasn't true at all. And of
Speaker 3: course the damages always that so many more people actually
Speaker 3: see the initial report, which is inaccurate, then see the retraction,
Speaker 3: and so the damage is done.
Speaker 6: And it also just continues to erode public trust in
Speaker 6: the ABC. And that's what's happening consistently over time. When
Speaker 6: you make these political tacks that clearly are politically and
Speaker 6: emotionally motivated, people get annoyed.
Speaker 5: Well, remember ABC had to deal with our mit for
Speaker 5: a fact check units, right, I mean, if that would
Speaker 5: have happened to that, if that will by the wayside,
Speaker 5: because they were even the APENC worked out that the
Speaker 5: affection unit wasn't all that crash on, but if it
Speaker 5: still existed, this is something that they should be looking at.
Speaker 3: Let's go to Queensland quickly because the LNP government have
Speaker 3: made an interesting decision that I think will please a
Speaker 3: lot of people. They have canned the approval for a
Speaker 3: wind farm forty kilometers outside of Rockhampton. This was a
Speaker 3: massive wind farm, eighty eight turbines, a one billion dollar project.
Speaker 3: It was going to supply power to over two hundred
Speaker 3: thousand homes. But the LNP have said no, it will
Speaker 3: not go ahead because the locals were not properly consulted.
Speaker 3: The l ANDP of created new laws saying that from
Speaker 3: now on local councils must give consent and there's mandatory
Speaker 3: consultation with locals before any renewable company can lodge a DA. Now,
Speaker 3: of course, as you would expect, the Labor leader, Stephen
Speaker 3: Miles has labeled this just dumb quote unquote, saying that
Speaker 3: this proves the NP hate renewables or maybe they're just
Speaker 3: really sympathetic to people who hate wind turbines being put
Speaker 3: up in their backyard.
Speaker 1: Though this does raise.
Speaker 3: Some questions for me Caleb if the LNP in Queensland,
Speaker 3: who would not support nuclear power going into the federal election,
Speaker 3: but nor do they want wind turbines. They're not opening
Speaker 3: coal fired power stations anytime soon. So I'm just wondering
Speaker 3: where does the power come from in the lnp's plan.
Speaker 3: I like that decision to scrap the wind farm, but
Speaker 3: it just means they've got to come up with some
Speaker 3: better policy really, because it doesn't quite make sense yet
Speaker 3: to me.
Speaker 2: No, you don't get power.
Speaker 5: China gets power with the coal that we're selling them,
Speaker 5: but we don't get power in the end or handles,
Speaker 5: which is well, I mean, you know that's where they
Speaker 5: want to go essentially, right. I mean that the idea
Speaker 5: that we can't use coal and we can't use cheap
Speaker 5: and efficient forms of energy is essentially a form of regression.
Speaker 5: I mean, we have spent all of eternity, all of humanity, progressing,
Speaker 5: and we've now reached the point it apparently we've progressed
Speaker 5: too much, and so we need to regress backwards.
Speaker 2: It's a common sense decision, right, of course.
Speaker 5: The community should be consulted on these things. But most
Speaker 5: often when you have community consultation, whether it's from state
Speaker 5: government or council or whatever, they already made up their
Speaker 5: mind and then they go out with the bit of
Speaker 5: paper and saying, excuse me, sir, what do you think
Speaker 5: And cir comes back and says I don't like it,
Speaker 5: and they say, well, I don't care, made my mind
Speaker 5: up anyway, so it doesn't particularly matter. And maybe this
Speaker 5: is an example of how un actually doing what they'll
Speaker 5: say they'll.
Speaker 4: Do, no exactly.
Speaker 6: And then the problem is as well with community consultation,
Speaker 6: like we see this in housing all the time. How
Speaker 6: many councils willingly accept new homes in their council areas
Speaker 6: Very few. But I think we've gone too far the
Speaker 6: other way, where communities have been bulldozed and disrespected and
Speaker 6: not considered at all, which is actually breaking with precedent.
Speaker 4: So if you want a massive.
Speaker 6: Agriculture project or mining, you have to consult the people
Speaker 6: that will be affected. But there's a double standard when
Speaker 6: it comes to renewables. So seeing that corrected is a
Speaker 6: good thing.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people will be very happy
Speaker 3: with that decision.
Speaker 2: Let's just be real for a moment as well.
Speaker 5: So we've got all the green hydrogen projects gone right,
Speaker 5: Twiggy's pulling all of his money out. I think it's
Speaker 5: ninety nine percent of the green hydrogen projects having got
Speaker 5: past the approval stage. You've got wind projects gone. They're
Speaker 5: all disappearing overnight. And yet we're still saying that we're
Speaker 5: going to make net zero by twenty fifty, and we're
Speaker 5: going to have eighty percent of the grid renewable by
Speaker 5: twenty thirty. It's not going to happen. Everyone in the
Speaker 5: energy sector knows it's not.
Speaker 2: Going to happen. So why don't we just admit it
Speaker 2: won't happen and get rid of it.
Speaker 3: We'd of saying, thank God, it won't happen, because if
Speaker 3: you get eighty percent renewables in the grid, the experience
Speaker 3: of Spain is the grid won't sustain that, So God willing,
Speaker 3: we'll never get there.
Speaker 1: All right, we're going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including how's it Affordability hits a historic low, but one
Speaker 3: state opposition is promising to scrap stamp duty for first
Speaker 3: home buyers. We'll bring you all of that and more
Speaker 3: in just a moment. Welcome back. Let's take a look
Speaker 3: at what's making headlines tomorrow. We'll start with the Daily Telegraph.
Speaker 3: The headline reads special report Housing affordability hits a historic low.
Speaker 3: Sydney's Unlucky thirteen. I'll explain the significance of thirteen. Shocking
Speaker 3: new data reveals owning a home is the impossible dream
Speaker 3: for young Sydney siders, with the median house price now
Speaker 3: thirteen times the average salary. The Australian Property Institute's report
Speaker 3: highlights the stark reality in which new buyers have been
Speaker 3: shut out of the market. The median house price in
Speaker 3: Sydney is now one point six million dollars and to
Speaker 3: afford a home in Sydney now they're saying you need
Speaker 3: to be on two hundred and fifty grand a year
Speaker 3: to be able to afford a home. So, as the
Speaker 3: article reports, just so many young people now just despairing
Speaker 3: that they will not even thinking about ever owning a home.
Speaker 1: It's his rent.
Speaker 6: And this is a failure of government, this is a
Speaker 6: policy failure. We live in a huge country, but we
Speaker 6: have this housing crisis because we've had too little supply
Speaker 6: and too much demand from massive levels of immigration. But
Speaker 6: if we move on now on that theme of housing,
Speaker 6: to the Herald Son, Libb's call of duty stamp duty
Speaker 6: acts for first home buys spending up to one million
Speaker 6: dollars under bold election promise from Victorian Opposition stamp duty
Speaker 6: would be acts for first home buys spending up to
Speaker 6: one million dollars if the Opposition is elected next year.
Speaker 6: Under the massive one billion dollar commitment, first home buyers
Speaker 6: would save up to fifty five thousand dollars in taxes
Speaker 6: on the purchase.
Speaker 4: Of any existing new home.
Speaker 6: Now it's estimated that this would benefit seventeen thousand Victorians
Speaker 6: in the first full year of operation. As someone who
Speaker 6: did just purchase a first home, I actually qualified for
Speaker 6: the I think it was fully stamp duty exempt, actually
Speaker 6: New South Wales, and it was huge.
Speaker 4: It was massive.
Speaker 6: Stamp duty is one of the most inefficient taxes in
Speaker 6: our tax system. It locks young people out of the
Speaker 6: property market. I think good on the Victorian Liberals.
Speaker 5: You know, when I bought my first joint, I think
Speaker 5: it was like a year when I was in South Australia.
Speaker 5: It was like a year before they brought in rules
Speaker 5: down there to get rid of stamp duty.
Speaker 2: So I paid full tot odds.
Speaker 5: To Steven Marshall at the time when he was running
Speaker 5: the joint, and he didn't take too kindly to me.
Speaker 5: After that it would seem so I'm sorry I made
Speaker 5: that donation to him. I think the point is to
Speaker 5: go back to the previous story. But you know, the
Speaker 5: impossible dream, as Andy Williams once saying, you should still
Speaker 5: dream the impossible dream and fight the unbeatable foe. But
Speaker 5: we have to recognize that even with these things like
Speaker 5: you know, removing stamp duty for first home bars, that
Speaker 5: number that it is now thirteen times.
Speaker 2: The average wage to buy a house is.
Speaker 5: A lot more than it was twenty years ago, and
Speaker 5: it's a lot more than it was twenty years before that.
Speaker 2: And I understand the argument.
Speaker 5: You know, young people pull yourselves up by your bootstraps,
Speaker 5: and times out of ten, I would absolutely say that, yes,
Speaker 5: don't sit around winging and asking for things and waiting
Speaker 5: for a handout and complaining how bad you've got it.
Speaker 5: But the reality is that the housing market has exploded
Speaker 5: and it is more difficult to buy a home now
Speaker 5: than it used to be. It's not just because all
Speaker 5: the kids are having avocado on toast. It is actually
Speaker 5: more difficult to buy a home. And if you don't
Speaker 5: address those I mean, I don't know. You've got two
Speaker 5: young sons, how do they feel, James about the possibility
Speaker 5: of buying their own home, and.
Speaker 3: It's how do I feel about having those two young
Speaker 3: sons and living with me forever?
Speaker 1: You mentioned Adelaide.
Speaker 3: Did you know Adelaide is now the sixth most expensive
Speaker 3: city in the world buy a house. Yep, more expensive
Speaker 3: than London, more expensive than New York, more expensive than Chicago.
Speaker 2: So that's no great surprise to everyone wants to be
Speaker 2: set you up beautifully to It is self evident, and
Speaker 2: lot people like me who bought but at the.
Speaker 5: Right time are cheering about that because I have made
Speaker 5: so much money in the last five years by doing
Speaker 5: literally nothing right. I bought the place right before the
Speaker 5: market went through the roof, and I've just sat on
Speaker 5: the asset and I've done well. I'll acknowledge that I've
Speaker 5: done very well by buying when I did, but I
Speaker 5: feel sorry for my younger brother. It's only a few
Speaker 5: years younger than me, but you know, the chances of
Speaker 5: him buying a home are exponentially more difficult than they
Speaker 5: were for me.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Let's move on to the.
Speaker 5: Australian tomorrow, where it says USI's Darwin Port Prize the
Speaker 5: US private equity firm with strong tires to the Trump
Speaker 5: administration is poised to make an offer to buy the
Speaker 5: Port of Darwin from its Chinese owner in a test
Speaker 5: of Anthony Albernizi's resolved to bring the port back under
Speaker 5: Western control.
Speaker 2: The Australian can reveal New.
Speaker 5: York based Cerebras Capital Management is preparing a formal proposal
Speaker 5: to buy the port from Landbridge Group billionaire owner Yi Ching,
Speaker 5: who was a close confidante of seeingior Chinese Communist Party figures.
Speaker 5: And let's hope that they actually managed to pull it off.
Speaker 2: I mean, the.
Speaker 5: Fact that we ever gave away the Port of Darwin
Speaker 5: in the first place is a disgrace. Thank you Malcolm
Speaker 5: Turnbull for that. And then, of course, when Anthony Albanizi
Speaker 5: had the opportunity to do something about this, commissioned to
Speaker 5: report that he then sat on for six months and
Speaker 5: released at four pm. I remember I was in here
Speaker 5: four pm on a Friday afternoon saying there's absolutely nothing
Speaker 5: wrong with the Port of Darwin being owned by the Chinese,
Speaker 5: approximately a week before he flew to China to meet
Speaker 5: with Jiji Pink. I mean, it's the oldest trick in
Speaker 5: the book. And then of course in the election.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, well we'll do about the border, Darwen.
Speaker 2: I mean, for goodness sake.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean he made that pledge during the election
Speaker 3: to try to get ahead of the coalition, who of
Speaker 3: course always saw national security as one of their strengths.
Speaker 2: He didn't even know what he was pledging, but he has.
Speaker 3: Gotten quick, so he tried to, you know, nullify that
Speaker 3: as an issue. I don't believe that he's serious about
Speaker 3: I don't think many people really do.
Speaker 5: Indeed, another story on in front of the Ulster tomorrow,
Speaker 5: PM's Israel, since he hailed Palestine's representatives in Australia have
Speaker 5: ordered comments by Anthony Albinezi decrying Israel's actions in Gaza,
Speaker 5: describing his indivention as a significant quote unquote advancement in
Speaker 5: Australia's position on Palestine and urging the government to take
Speaker 5: concrete action against the Jewish state.
Speaker 2: These were the Prime Minister's comments today.
Speaker 11: Australia finds these actions as completely unacceptable and we find
Speaker 11: Israel's excuses and explanations completely untenable and without credibility. People
Speaker 11: are starving and the idea that a democratic state with
Speaker 11: hold's supply is an outrage.
Speaker 5: And of course there is talking about the supply of aid,
Speaker 5: food and supplies of course into Gaza. It's a vex
Speaker 5: question because of course it is immoral to deprive people
Speaker 5: of food and aid that they rightly deserve and absolutely need.
Speaker 5: On the other hand, you don't want to basically har
Speaker 5: mass with extra things.
Speaker 2: You know, the risk is that they take it away.
Speaker 2: So what do you actually meant to do?
Speaker 6: And one of the problems was this aid that was
Speaker 6: coming in and being distributed would inevitably end up in
Speaker 6: the hands of her mass.
Speaker 4: They would then sell it on the black.
Speaker 6: Market, rake in profits and use that to pay their
Speaker 6: people and keep recruiting this. But this comes back to
Speaker 6: the fundamental question of the entire war. The best thing
Speaker 6: for Palestinians, the best thing for Garzens, is to get
Speaker 6: rid of her Maas, and any way the Israelis can
Speaker 6: do that by depriving them of by depriving her Mass
Speaker 6: of access to the aid that they can loot and root,
Speaker 6: is a good thing. And also the accusation that there
Speaker 6: was going to be mass starvation in Israel was a
Speaker 6: shameless libel against the Jewish state that was categorically debunked totally.
Speaker 4: There is suffering but that's war. So let's get rid
Speaker 4: of her maas and end the war, return the hostages.
Speaker 6: This is just a classic case. I think now Albaneze
Speaker 6: has won the prime won the election again, he doesn't
Speaker 6: care about the Jewish community and is abandoning them once again.
Speaker 3: Well, I'd just like him to speak as strongly as
Speaker 3: he did then about the hostages exactly being released. As
Speaker 3: he does every time he talks about his perceived wrongs
Speaker 3: regarding Israeliti's never the same.
Speaker 4: Let's move on to another story.
Speaker 6: Two foreign nationals have been banned full life from Ularu
Speaker 6: after they were busted defacing it, with their embassy issuing
Speaker 6: the ban and an apology to the Anangu traditional owners
Speaker 6: for the deep offense the foreign nationals cause. Now this
Speaker 6: is in the Northern Territory News and the headline reads
Speaker 6: banned for life. Apparently they're from the Bhutan embassy. A
Speaker 6: quick Google search showed so I don't really know what's
Speaker 6: going on here. I kind of want to know.
Speaker 8: How they defaced Ularu.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's bad no matter what it was, but
Speaker 6: I'm just curious what they did.
Speaker 3: It shows how sensitive this is that their own embassy
Speaker 3: have said they are gone and they.
Speaker 1: Will never return.
Speaker 2: They got the twig out.
Speaker 5: We was here as you used to put in the
Speaker 5: tree back in primaries.
Speaker 1: Hey really quickly before we go to a break.
Speaker 3: The Gold Coast Bulletin has a story for AFL lovers
Speaker 3: on the cusp of history. The Gold Coast Sons have
Speaker 3: never started better as they close in on a final spot.
Speaker 3: Got my attention, Caleb, you're an AFL man. The Sons
Speaker 3: have been in the competition for well over a decade,
Speaker 3: have never made the finals. But has any Gold Coast
Speaker 3: sporting team on a national basis ever done well?
Speaker 1: And why would they?
Speaker 3: You young people on the Gold Coast, you're on lots
Speaker 3: of money, you're on the beachrav than training and becoming
Speaker 3: the best athlete.
Speaker 5: You think it'd be a bit like Geelong because all
Speaker 5: the players go in there because they love the lifestyle.
Speaker 2: It's a very good question. I don't know of anywhere
Speaker 2: that's done it. I just love that. Ross Lyne, the
Speaker 2: coach of Sint Kilda the other day, called them the
Speaker 2: Nippo babies that.
Speaker 1: Did not go down.
Speaker 3: Well, we're going to go to a break when we
Speaker 3: come back. Some extraordinary footage of the French president was
Speaker 3: he having a fight with his wife. Were they just
Speaker 3: mucking around? Will let you decide in just a moment.
Speaker 3: Welcome back, Caleb. Some extraordinary footage of the French president.
Speaker 3: It's got me puzzled this way.
Speaker 5: I think we needed a welfare check to be perfectly honest,
Speaker 5: on Emmanuel Macron. He landed in Vietnam and this is
Speaker 5: what the camera's captured. As the doors opened on the
Speaker 5: front of the plane. There's the president there, and then
Speaker 5: you will see he gets.
Speaker 2: Smacked in the face, or at.
Speaker 5: Least pushed, and he sort of gestures back to the
Speaker 5: bloke there, smiles at him, and then turns around and
Speaker 5: with a far more stern look on his face, walked
Speaker 5: back onto the play And then you can see that
Speaker 5: is the sleeve that you saw pushing Macron in the face.
Speaker 2: Was that of his wife, Bridget.
Speaker 5: Now you know whether or not that was some sort
Speaker 5: of playful tiff or she was actually going at him,
Speaker 5: you know, I mean, that's a potential case to domestic
Speaker 5: violence right there.
Speaker 2: I think it should be pointed out.
Speaker 5: If that was him doing that to her, there wouldn't
Speaker 5: even be a discussion about it. He would have to
Speaker 5: resign tomorrow and I don't think we can have double
Speaker 5: standards about this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a really interesting point.
Speaker 3: And you can see his reaction there when he realizes
Speaker 3: there are cameras and his stern face becomes a quick smile,
Speaker 3: waves and then disappears back in. It's very weird footage.
Speaker 3: I don't know if we'll get an explanation such.
Speaker 6: A strange moment, but there's a lot about the French
Speaker 6: that's quite weird. But moving on now to another weird episode.
Speaker 6: Chris Bowen was reprimanded by a Catholic priest for chomping
Speaker 6: down on a bowl of knocky pasta mid mass. He
Speaker 6: arrived late to the mass, then proceeded to enter and
Speaker 6: sit down in the front row and started eating his
Speaker 6: pasta through the rest of the mass. Now, rightfully, religious
Speaker 6: leaders have criticized this as being quite disrespectful and insensitive.
Speaker 6: But he's claiming he didn't even know he was in
Speaker 6: a mass. I don't know what's more ridiculous.
Speaker 3: I think it's easy to believe Chris Bowen had no
Speaker 3: idea where he was, because he typically has no idea
Speaker 3: about anything. Let's give the final word tonight to former
Speaker 3: US Vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris. She of course,
Speaker 3: is in Australia speaking on the weekend and the Gold
Speaker 3: Coast at a real estate conference of all things. She
Speaker 3: was interviewed extensively, and he's just a short clip of
Speaker 3: some of what she said.
Speaker 2: As I said, I think your best work is a
Speaker 2: hinterview for sure, one hundred percent.
Speaker 4: Unemployed right now.
Speaker 1: Two things. Thank god she's unemployed.
Speaker 3: But for the host to say, Kamala, your best work
Speaker 3: is ahead.
Speaker 1: Of you, I don't think that would be very difficult.
Speaker 5: I was going to say, I think that is entirely
Speaker 5: true because she is now unburdened by what has been
Speaker 5: so everything that does come ahead of you is surely
Speaker 5: better than any things she's done in the past.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, That's all we've got time for tonight. Appreciate your company.
Speaker 3: This evening stick around to coming up in just a
Speaker 3: moment is to read a penny show.
Speaker 1: Good Night.