Speaker 1: Lelands and Generalman.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the late de Base.
Speaker 3: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm KYLEB. Bond
Speaker 3: with Liz Storer and Joe Hildebrand, who is once again
Speaker 3: engrossed in the cryptic crossword. Later tonight we will show
Speaker 3: you the shocking numbers out of the United States about
Speaker 3: the number of people who think it would be justified
Speaker 3: to murder Elon Musk and Donald Trump. I promise you
Speaker 3: it will shock you, or maybe not if you think
Speaker 3: as much of the left as I do. In the papers,
Speaker 3: could Chris Bowen lose his seat? Will show you some
Speaker 3: new polling. And the Victorian labor powerbrokers are circling in
Speaker 3: on Jacinda Allen. She's apparently going to be given the
Speaker 3: heave ho. And a bit later, the dire wolf, which
Speaker 3: has been extinct for ten thousand years, has been quote
Speaker 3: unquote de extincted in a lab. We'll tell you a
Speaker 3: little bit more about that and the ethics of bringing
Speaker 3: back extinct animals. Now, of course, earlier tonight here on
Speaker 3: Sky News you would have seen the very first Treasurer's
Speaker 3: debate between Jim Charmers and Angus Taylor. It was slightly
Speaker 3: more interesting, I thought than the debate we got last night.
Speaker 3: There was a bit of biff, thank god, which was good.
Speaker 3: We actually got to see some difference between these two
Speaker 3: potential treasures. One of course, already is the treasurer. Angus
Speaker 3: Taylor wants to be the treasurer. One of the most
Speaker 3: interesting moments I think was a question that was set
Speaker 3: up first by Ross Greenwood, one that was then continued
Speaker 3: on by Angus Taylor. It gave a little bit of
Speaker 3: a gotcha moment to Jim Charmers. We'll start with Ross Greenwood.
Speaker 4: Will you apologize to the people of Australia tonight having
Speaker 4: your government having said that energy prices would come down
Speaker 4: by two hundred and seventy five dollars when in actual fact,
Speaker 4: average prices according to the Financial Review, are at least
Speaker 4: five hundred dollars more than what they were at that time.
Speaker 4: So you said two hundred and seventy five? Will you
Speaker 4: apologize to people of this Rather.
Speaker 5: I take responsibility for all of the decisions that we've
Speaker 5: taken in our budget, so you will apologize. Let me finish,
Speaker 5: including the fact that energy prices energy bills last year
Speaker 5: were three hundred dollars cheaper because of our energy rebates
Speaker 5: than Angus didn't.
Speaker 3: Support Ross then gave both men an opportunity to ask
Speaker 3: a question of each other. So Angus Taylor asked exactly
Speaker 3: the same question.
Speaker 6: You've seen, and you've over seen the biggest collapse in
Speaker 6: our living standards in history, bigger than any of our
Speaker 6: peer countries in the world. Will you apologize to Australians.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, I mean Angus wrote down that
Speaker 5: question and then you asked it, and he didn't have
Speaker 5: the ability to think up a second question.
Speaker 2: I think that's.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm giving you another gau Jim.
Speaker 3: It was an easy kick for charmers, it has to
Speaker 3: be said. He also had another interesting line tonight about
Speaker 3: Dougie Sucker fans, And.
Speaker 5: Here I think we've got the first contrast of the
Speaker 5: debate tonight, the first choice, because we've got a Prime
Speaker 5: Minister standing up for and speaking up for Australia, and
Speaker 5: we've got an opposition leader and an opposition which is
Speaker 5: absolutely full of these kind of those sicker fans who
Speaker 5: have hitched their wagon to American style slogans and policies
Speaker 5: and especially cuts which would make Australians worse off.
Speaker 3: Now I have to say, overall, I think Jim Charmers
Speaker 3: won this debate. It felt like he was punchier, he
Speaker 3: was on the front foot, Angus Taylor seemed a little
Speaker 3: bit nervous and on the back foot most.
Speaker 4: Of the time.
Speaker 3: Having said that, I do think Taylor performed better than
Speaker 3: I expected. He showed that he could, at least to
Speaker 3: some degree, put up a fight to Jim Charmers. Charmers
Speaker 3: is a good performer in these kinds of situations. I'll
Speaker 3: come back to it a little bit later in terms
Speaker 3: of some things that I think Taylor could have done
Speaker 3: better at, But he did hit some good points, particularly
Speaker 3: talking about the cost of living and the danger that
Speaker 3: labor is to the country and what they have wrought
Speaker 3: upon people over the last three years.
Speaker 6: Jenfp per Kapita has gone backwards for twenty one months
Speaker 6: in a row under your so called stewardship, Jim. And
Speaker 6: the result of that is our household standard of living,
Speaker 6: what our incomes combined him of goods and services, has
Speaker 6: collapsed in an unprecedented way seven point nine percent since
Speaker 6: she came into government.
Speaker 1: The buffers are gone.
Speaker 2: If you look.
Speaker 6: At household budgets that they're deep into digging into their savings, and.
Speaker 3: All of this is great, but there are two points
Speaker 3: I think that Taylor really could have taken the fight
Speaker 3: up against Charmers on, and he missed. One of them
Speaker 3: was when Jim Charmers started talking about cost of living
Speaker 3: relief and how the government had provided cost of living
Speaker 3: relief in the form of power subsidy of course, to
Speaker 3: the tune of three hundred dollars, and they're now extending
Speaker 3: that to the end of this year. And he said, well,
Speaker 3: you know, if it weren't for that, people would have
Speaker 3: been worse off. And the opposition didn't support those measures.
Speaker 3: All of that is true, but why did Angus Taylor
Speaker 3: not then turn around and say, look, it's all good
Speaker 3: and well for you to say you are helping people
Speaker 3: with the cost of living, but how about how you've
Speaker 3: contributed to the increase in the cost of living. He
Speaker 3: could have then listed off the increase in power bills
Speaker 3: and one hundred other things and saying, well, how can
Speaker 3: you possibly say you've made the cost of living better
Speaker 3: when you are actually, in many cases the root cause
Speaker 3: of the cost of living getting worse. He didn't hit
Speaker 3: on that one. And the other one that really annoyed
Speaker 3: me was Jim Charmers talking about economic growth and new businesses.
Speaker 3: I think the number he used was about eighty thousand
Speaker 3: new businesses have been created in this term of government. Well,
Speaker 3: why did Angus Taylor not turn around and say, did
Speaker 3: you not read the AFR last month, doctor Charmers where
Speaker 3: it said that more than seventy five percent of the
Speaker 3: jobs that were created in this country last year were
Speaker 3: created in government funded sectors. Sure, there might be eighty
Speaker 3: thousand more businesses in this country than there were when
Speaker 3: you came to power. Not to mention all the other
Speaker 3: ones that have gone bust, will leave that to one side.
Speaker 3: But fundamentally, the jobs that are being created in new
Speaker 3: business in these countries in this country, sorry, is not
Speaker 3: because business is booming. It's because the government is paying
Speaker 3: for it. If the government was not stumping up money
Speaker 3: for things like the nda is, you wouldn't have any
Speaker 3: growth in the private sector whatsoever. I think there are
Speaker 3: a few of those moments that lead me to think
Speaker 3: that on paper, and this is not a judgment on
Speaker 3: the substance, but on the performance tonight, Jim Chalmers won
Speaker 3: that debate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look I think he did.
Speaker 7: I think both played pretty well, and I think it
Speaker 7: was actually more sort of fiery and sort of combative
Speaker 7: and almost fun to watch in the leader's debate, which
Speaker 7: is a very different style because you don't want to
Speaker 7: get too feisty in front of voters who are sick
Speaker 7: of politicians fighting with each other at the best of time.
Speaker 2: So in a TV studio it's a bit more like
Speaker 2: a cage match. You can really go for it.
Speaker 7: And you know, for old Ross Greenwood, it cleends to
Speaker 7: cop a few homemakers. He's big and ugly enough to
Speaker 7: handle it. So I think it did really well, and
Speaker 7: Ross did well. I think just Angus Taylor though, I
Speaker 7: just think, and this has been a occurring sort of
Speaker 7: criticism I've heard from people on his own side as
Speaker 7: well as obviously on the other, he's just not a
Speaker 7: detailed guy. He's just the actual you know, how are
Speaker 7: you going to fix these problems? And he keeps having
Speaker 7: we we'll manage the economy. Well, yeah, that's the job
Speaker 7: description of the treasurer, but how are you going to
Speaker 7: do it? And said, well, you know, we will drive growth,
Speaker 7: and it's like, well, yeah, everyone wants to drive growth,
Speaker 7: but you know, so we'll have growth, We'll have growth
Speaker 7: in the private sector. And Ross green would actually at
Speaker 7: one point said, you know, how are you going to
Speaker 7: manage the economy into a downturn? He says, well, you know,
Speaker 7: you know, by creating growth, and rosscreen He goes, but
Speaker 7: the definition of a downturn is there is no growth,
Speaker 7: So what are you going to do? And it just
Speaker 7: didn't happen to be that, And and charmers again. You know, yes,
Speaker 7: there's a cost of living crisis. Yes we're about to
Speaker 7: copy trade war. So it's not a particularly sunny scenario.
Speaker 7: But he showed that he was at least across it.
Speaker 7: He could point to things good, point to specific measures
Speaker 7: that he was doing a good point to specific outlooks.
Speaker 7: And you know, if you look at the actual figures
Speaker 7: that these guys were rattling off, it was ninety percent charmers.
Speaker 7: And you had Angus Tail there who was just more
Speaker 7: about the vibe. And I think that was what what
Speaker 7: Ross Greenwood was getting to when he was saying, look,
Speaker 7: a criticism of you is that you're just not doing
Speaker 7: the work. And we've seen, i think elsewhere in the
Speaker 7: coalition campaign just how damage it can be when you
Speaker 7: haven't done the work. You haven't got the details and
Speaker 7: you haven't got the specifics because of course that is
Speaker 7: the whole in your sort of front line that your
Speaker 7: opponents are going to drive a truck through.
Speaker 8: Charmers. Really didn't miss a trick. Here's one grab from
Speaker 8: tonight's debate where he started out talking about these secret
Speaker 8: cuts that the Liberals are going to have to make
Speaker 8: in order to fund new clear on there's going to
Speaker 8: be cuts to everything, and didn't miss the opportunity to
Speaker 8: make it about Medicare and what's happened to the past.
Speaker 5: Angus has gone to the election with three policies, first
Speaker 5: of all, to increase income taxes on every Australian taxpayer,
Speaker 5: second of all lower wages, and thirdly secret cuts to
Speaker 5: pay for nuclear reactors. And you can't find six hundred
Speaker 5: billion dollars to pay for those nuclear reactors without coming
Speaker 5: after Medicare, just like Peter Dutton did when he was
Speaker 5: the Health Minister.
Speaker 8: Sharp as attack, I got to say I also give
Speaker 8: him the gong tonight, and this was so much more entertaining.
Speaker 1: You've got to agree with me.
Speaker 8: Last night my eyes were glazed over with bottom as
Speaker 8: elbow and Dutts there was no fisty cuffs, but these guys,
Speaker 8: it was an absolute corker.
Speaker 1: But what I think for.
Speaker 8: The average Australians sitting at home watching this, all it
Speaker 8: sounds like is two guys saying everything's great, We've been
Speaker 8: doing so well, look at these stats, aren't you impressed.
Speaker 1: And the other guy being like, no, he's lying.
Speaker 8: We're not doing very well at all, and we're going
Speaker 8: to do better, and then charmers pipes in saying well,
Speaker 8: how are you going to do better?
Speaker 1: You're not doing it.
Speaker 8: What it sounds like is two guys saying, for the
Speaker 8: better part of an hour.
Speaker 1: Your line, no, you're lying.
Speaker 8: What he just said isn't true, and you walk away
Speaker 8: going if you're an average punter, okay, who is telling
Speaker 8: the truth.
Speaker 1: Someone's lying and I don't know who was.
Speaker 8: Much like last night when Peter Dutton said to Albo
Speaker 8: your government has spent more than any government in forty years,
Speaker 8: and Albo just claps back immediately saying well that's.
Speaker 1: Just not true, and we're all.
Speaker 8: Sat at homegoing, well, who's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: So that's where I feel like.
Speaker 8: These debates, as entertaining as this one was, and I
Speaker 8: very much enjoyed it. I think for the average Australian
Speaker 8: who's trying to follow along at home, that's all it
Speaker 8: sounds like.
Speaker 3: And I found I think it's indicative of the way
Speaker 3: politics is played these days as well, is that politics
Speaker 3: is not played on the front foot. It's played on
Speaker 3: the back foot. It's not about the vision, it's about, well,
Speaker 3: what's happening right now. And that's essentially what they were
Speaker 3: debate tonight. They weren't really debating what Australia is going
Speaker 3: to look like in three years now, it's look like
Speaker 3: in a decade's time. What they were debating is what
Speaker 3: Australia is going to look like maybe in six months time,
Speaker 3: what it's looked like for the last three years. It's
Speaker 3: just absent, entirely absent from politics now, it would seem.
Speaker 3: And again it goes to my point I was making
Speaker 3: about Angus Taylor, like, you know, why didn't he pick
Speaker 3: up on things like the fact that more than seventy
Speaker 3: five percent of jobs created in this country last year
Speaker 3: were in government related sectors. Say that and then give
Speaker 3: us a vision for how you're actually going to boost
Speaker 3: the private sector.
Speaker 2: But that's just not how they growth. Yeah, we'll growth,
Speaker 2: but this is just managing the economy. That's how well
Speaker 2: done growing.
Speaker 3: That's not how politics prey anymore. And I think we're
Speaker 3: all worse off for it, to be perfectly honest. One
Speaker 3: of my favorite moments, though, before we move on, I
Speaker 3: have to say, is he gave Ross green Wood, gave, gave,
Speaker 3: and then took away to each of them, n Jim
Speaker 3: Charmers and Angus Taylor. To Angus Taylor, he said, everyone
Speaker 3: I talk to says, you know, you've got a mighty intellecture,
Speaker 3: a Rhodes scholar. You've been told since you're a kid
Speaker 3: that you'll be prime minister when you grew up. You
Speaker 3: were essentially made for this job. But people say that
Speaker 3: you don't put in the work. And he sort of
Speaker 3: danced around that. Then he said to Jim Chalmers, everyone
Speaker 3: I talked to you says, you're across your brief. You've
Speaker 3: got the numbers, Your work hard, your staff work hard,
Speaker 3: but you've got one floor. And I think Charmers in
Speaker 3: his response, actually proved it.
Speaker 4: The one thing they say is you've got a bit
Speaker 4: of a glass jaw that you don't cop criticism well,
Speaker 4: or just say that.
Speaker 5: I think over time, I've learned to understand that you
Speaker 5: take the good with the bad.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the glass kind of comes through.
Speaker 8: At the very moment where the last thing you should
Speaker 8: do is get defensive, and he got defensive to Queensland.
Speaker 8: Now where a university student at the University of the
Speaker 8: Sunshine Coast there's lost points on an assessment because she
Speaker 8: didn't do a welcome to country.
Speaker 1: She's in the last two.
Speaker 8: Weeks of her course, the course being crime Diversity and
Speaker 8: what was the rest of the name of it, Crime
Speaker 8: Diversity and Justice, so rather broad and she'd given this
Speaker 8: oral assessment.
Speaker 1: So imagine her shock when she gets her marks back.
Speaker 8: And here's a clip of the screenshot of the feedback
Speaker 8: she got. An acknowledgment of country would have been appropriate,
Speaker 8: writes the marker, given your chosen topic of course.
Speaker 1: The student was taken aback.
Speaker 8: By this, given it wasn't in the criteria for the assessment. Now,
Speaker 8: anyone who's been a student knows we pour over the
Speaker 8: criteria to make sure you've ticked every box and that
Speaker 8: you can't be marked down on something that obvious. If
Speaker 8: they've asked for it, you give it to them. But
Speaker 8: it was not asked for therefore she did not do it.
Speaker 8: She took it up with the lecturer. She said, excuse me,
Speaker 8: have I been marked down, to which they confess to her.
Speaker 8: Had you included a welcome to country, you would have
Speaker 8: got one or two more points. Here is the student
Speaker 8: who's chosen to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, speaking to
Speaker 8: four BC today.
Speaker 9: And the fact that it was on a criteria sheet,
Speaker 9: you know, and I still got marked down for it.
Speaker 9: That's pretty annoying. And you know, especially I'm paying sixty
Speaker 9: grand for this degree. It's really not fair. These classes
Speaker 9: are very judgmental. You feel like you'd say something and
Speaker 9: you'd get threatened or like just looked that funny if
Speaker 9: you didn't believe the same things. Even one of the lecturers,
Speaker 9: like she definitely had her own opinions, and if you
Speaker 9: didn't believe that, you looked upon differently.
Speaker 8: It's what we know is going on in classrooms, not
Speaker 8: only in our schools, but also.
Speaker 1: In our universities. Now.
Speaker 8: It was just last month talking about mcquarie University including
Speaker 8: a mandatory welcome to country in one of their law courses.
Speaker 1: Once that got blasted in the.
Speaker 8: Media, they turfed it as they should then just Monday
Speaker 8: night we discussed a senior law lecturer at the University
Speaker 8: of Queensland.
Speaker 1: Who was threatening.
Speaker 8: Her students regarding their future prospects because they got up
Speaker 8: at one point in her lecture in which she was
Speaker 8: majoring on all things Indigenous and walked out. The level
Speaker 8: of brainwashing happening in these universities is being laid bare
Speaker 8: by these students who are bravely blowing the whistle on
Speaker 8: their own lecturers.
Speaker 3: Well, is it any wonder that our academic results just
Speaker 3: keep going through the floor. I mean, if this is
Speaker 3: the stuff that you now get marked on, whether you
Speaker 3: put an acknowledgment of country in your essay or I mean,
Speaker 3: it has nothing to do with the academic rigor of
Speaker 3: the work you have put together. It's like saying you
Speaker 3: get extra marks because the font on the front of
Speaker 3: it look nice. I mean, it has no bearing on
Speaker 3: the contents of what you have written. Surely you ought
Speaker 3: to be marked on whether the essay you've written a
Speaker 3: makes sense and is spelt properly, and if you're writing
Speaker 3: about diversity, crime and justice relates to that topic and
Speaker 3: is factually correct. That's what it's all about, is it not?
Speaker 3: If we're going to start saying you get to points
Speaker 3: for acknowledgment of country. It's wrote learning is what they're
Speaker 3: trying to do is that you you must do this
Speaker 3: because we tell you you must do this. And the
Speaker 3: thing that saddens me the most about this every time
Speaker 3: we see an example like this, or you go to
Speaker 3: an event and every speaker gets up and gives their
Speaker 3: own acknowledgment of country, even though the MC is the
Speaker 3: one at the start, and then everyone starts groaning and going.
Speaker 7: On God exactly.
Speaker 3: But the thing that saddens me the most about it
Speaker 3: is it's when they go overboard like that that people
Speaker 3: truly do start to go, well, I don't care about
Speaker 3: any Indigenous issues anymore because they feel like it's been
Speaker 3: rammed down their throat all the time. The people who
Speaker 3: are pushing this stuff forward because they think they're doing
Speaker 3: great things for the Indigenous community are actually hurting.
Speaker 2: I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 7: And you're actually seeing Indigenous speak Indigenous bodies saying you
Speaker 7: know what, enough with the acknowledgement of the country.
Speaker 2: It's become tokenistic.
Speaker 7: It's become sort of a perfunctory, performative thing that actually
Speaker 7: has no real value. It certainly doesn't change anything. It
Speaker 7: doesn't improve a lot of Indigenous people in Australia, which
Speaker 7: is something we really need to do.
Speaker 2: And they're say, we're going to get to that shortly.
Speaker 7: And again this was just a I mean, this wasn't
Speaker 7: even I mean, this wasn't even essay. It was just
Speaker 7: someone standing up and giving an oral presentation. Presumably that
Speaker 7: facility at which that was happening, where there were god
Speaker 7: knows how many other students doing presentations. Presumably if people
Speaker 7: were that exercised about having an acknowledgment of country, and
Speaker 7: the teachers and the markers who were presumably they're listening
Speaker 7: on the same bit of country listening to the student
Speaker 7: were there too, but they're to hear it, they would
Speaker 7: have actually done the thing to say if they cared
Speaker 7: that much. But again it just makes no difference whatsoever.
Speaker 7: It's not relevant to the actual coursework.
Speaker 8: She wants to be a policewoman, and it's like, how
Speaker 8: dare you not do it?
Speaker 7: Welcome, I'd like to know that I'm giving you a breathalyzer.
Speaker 7: But it's just it's ridiculous and it actually hurts things.
Speaker 7: It's things like this, which is why the Voice referendum
Speaker 7: went down because there was stigma and why as we're
Speaker 7: about to find out, real issues Indigenous communities are not
Speaker 7: being adequately addressed exactly.
Speaker 3: And you mentioned that these real issues that are not
Speaker 3: being addressed, I could not believe today. And props to
Speaker 3: Matt Cunningham for taking this up and Just Enterprise as well.
Speaker 3: Our Watch, which is supposedly an anti domestic violence group
Speaker 3: they get to twenty million dollars in funding every year
Speaker 3: from the federal government, put out this booklet to media
Speaker 3: about how to report on issues of violence in Indigenous communities.
Speaker 3: And in this booklet, they say, when you talking about
Speaker 3: domestic violence or family violence in Indigenous communities, particularly against women, quote,
Speaker 3: do not suggest violence is part of Indigenous culture, by
Speaker 3: which they're saying that if you link the violence that
Speaker 3: is happening to Indigenous women in particular to the fact
Speaker 3: that it's Indigenous people perpetrating it, you are somehow racist.
Speaker 3: And by doing that, what they effectively do is shut
Speaker 3: down any discussion about why there are massive rates of
Speaker 3: violence in Indigenous communities. Thirty four times more likely Indigenous
Speaker 3: women are in this country than anyone else to be
Speaker 3: hospitalized with domestic violence related injuries. There are eleven times
Speaker 3: more likely than anyone else to be killed through domestic violence.
Speaker 3: Seventy two percent of assaults that result in hospitalization for
Speaker 3: Indigenous women are because of family violence, and about ninety
Speaker 3: percent of the violence committed against Aboriginal women in this
Speaker 3: country is believed to not be reported. We have a
Speaker 3: serious problem here, and you have a supposedly anti domestic
Speaker 3: violence group saying we can't talk about the real issues
Speaker 3: just siner nemperduper price as you can imagine, saw red
Speaker 3: and said, this is gas lighting Indigenous people.
Speaker 1: Suggest that.
Speaker 10: Violence is not used in traditional cultural related to traditional
Speaker 10: culture and not impacting the rates of violence we see
Speaker 10: in communities and interpersonal violence. Now is to gaslight the
Speaker 10: Australian public and is to control the controlled journalism in reporting.
Speaker 10: That is a form of gas lighting and silencing and
Speaker 10: doesn't do any good whatsoever for domestic and family violence victims,
Speaker 10: especially women who live in remote communities, who live under
Speaker 10: traditional customery law and those sorts of issues.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is not me a white man saying it.
Speaker 3: It is an Aboriginal woman saying the idea that this
Speaker 3: is not somehow linked to indigenous culture is not her
Speaker 3: experience as an Indigenous woman and our Northern Territory, corresponded
Speaker 3: Matt Cunningham earlier this morning on am Agenda, explained very
Speaker 3: succinctly why this is an issue we do need to
Speaker 3: talk about.
Speaker 11: You know, more than eighty women have been killed in
Speaker 11: the Northern Territory in domestic violence incidents in the past
Speaker 11: two decades, and I think about seventy eight of those
Speaker 11: women are Aboriginal and the vast majority of the perpetrators
Speaker 11: in those cases Aboriginal men. We've seen an eighty two
Speaker 11: percent increase over the last eight years in violence against
Speaker 11: women domestic violence in the Northern Territory. Again, the vast
Speaker 11: majority of the victims are Aboriginal women and the vast
Speaker 11: majority of the perpetrators are Aboriginal men.
Speaker 3: And shocking, and yet one of the peak anti domestic
Speaker 3: violence groups in the country, Joe says, we shouldn't be
Speaker 3: talking about whether this is a cultural problem.
Speaker 7: Yeah, look, it's completely ridiculous. Now some of the you know,
Speaker 7: the stats you mentioned, they're absolutely correct. They come from
Speaker 7: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and they were
Speaker 7: raised by just enter Price alongside Josephine Cashman and Marshall
Speaker 7: Langton back when they were all friends at the National
Speaker 7: Press Club years.
Speaker 1: Ago, twenty sixteen.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think it was about ten years ago that
Speaker 7: I was about saying, so, yeah, that'd be about right.
Speaker 7: And I just remember seeing that, I remember listening to
Speaker 7: it live as it was happening. I remember seeing it
Speaker 7: was on the front page of this Joy And the
Speaker 7: next day I thought, this is it finally, because this
Speaker 7: is something that you know, i'd been talking about as
Speaker 7: well and having you know, there's fights with crazy social
Speaker 7: justice warriors on Twitter who were insisting that there was
Speaker 7: no sort of correlation between you know, remote disadvantage indigenous
Speaker 7: communities and domestic violence. There were people that, honestly, people
Speaker 7: who said, oh, well yeah, just because all the victims
Speaker 7: are much more likely to be indigenous, how do we
Speaker 7: know it's not just white men and coming to these
Speaker 7: communities and doing all this like I don't know clear
Speaker 7: that person has never ever ever been to one of
Speaker 7: these communities, and and it just it just did my
Speaker 7: head in because, of course, and I've spoken to these people.
Speaker 7: I've spoken to just Center Price about her own experience
Speaker 7: with domestic advance, which I did not believe was actually
Speaker 7: at the hand of indigenous man, but she certainly knows
Speaker 7: how terrible it is. And and you know, I've spoken
Speaker 7: to people about you know, women coming from will Kenya
Speaker 7: to the to the Parliament. They ended up speaking Indigenous
Speaker 7: antists coming from will CanYa to the National Parliament, and
Speaker 7: they ended up speaking to Pauline Hanson because no one
Speaker 7: else would talk to them, none of the actual people
Speaker 7: would talk to them. And I think they couldn't get
Speaker 7: any media there. I think for maybe maybe the SBS
Speaker 7: rocked up or maybe and I think the National Indigenous
Speaker 7: TV and ITV rocked up, and I don't I think
Speaker 7: they ended up sort of burying the yarn. They didn't
Speaker 7: seem to be any adequate explanation for that. There were
Speaker 7: you know, urban indigenous activists who then kind of took
Speaker 7: the piss out of them and we're kind of saying,
Speaker 7: was this this isn't a real story, and it's amazing,
Speaker 7: it's amazing, And all of this happened, All of this
Speaker 7: happened in plain view. This is on social media or
Speaker 7: in mainstream media, and you just wonder how many more
Speaker 7: people have to die, how many more women, how many
Speaker 7: more black women, Indigenous women. Are these activists happy to
Speaker 7: see die just so they can perpetuate a kind of
Speaker 7: false narrative or just so they can, you know, fight
Speaker 7: against racism wherever they see it. There is the most
Speaker 7: racist thing you could possibly do, exactly to continue to
Speaker 7: allow the most vulnerable cohort of women in the country
Speaker 7: to die, to be attacked, to be hospitalized, to be
Speaker 7: I mean, my wife worked in the in Tea for
Speaker 7: years and some of the you know a little bit
Speaker 7: Matt Cunningham as well, some of the stories of the
Speaker 7: viciousness of these attacks. You just would not believe that
Speaker 7: unrepeatable here. How many more are they prepared to tolerate
Speaker 7: by just pretending that everything's okay and there's no correlation,
Speaker 7: there's nothing to see here, and anyone who suggests otherwise
Speaker 7: is a racist. I mean, that is literally the definition
Speaker 7: of racism, because you're happy to see black women die
Speaker 7: in a way that would never be tolerated in the
Speaker 7: broader community. Just to pretend that everything's the fault of
Speaker 7: colonization and not the fault of some men, not or
Speaker 7: by any stretch, but some men in these indigenous communities, and.
Speaker 8: Denying the lived experience of these women. That's essentially what
Speaker 8: you're talking where it's just protecting the men at the
Speaker 8: expense of the women. It's utterly infuriating. I remember a
Speaker 8: two thousand and four case in which a fifty five
Speaker 8: year old Indigenous man had rate to fourteen year old
Speaker 8: and assaulted.
Speaker 1: Her with a boomerang, and he pleaded guilty to this.
Speaker 8: But the fellow was genuinely astounded because to his understanding
Speaker 8: of no understanding of white men's law, but to his
Speaker 8: understanding of Aboriginal law, neither of these things were off
Speaker 8: the table, and that's his understanding.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking to every Indigenous person's understanding.
Speaker 8: Of indigenous law, but to say that there aren't cultural
Speaker 8: elements of this that someone can say, to be honest,
Speaker 8: I was completely ignorant that this wasn't even something that
Speaker 8: was allowed.
Speaker 7: Sina has talked to me about that sort of stuff,
Speaker 7: and I just do not have the knowledge of it.
Speaker 7: She has said sort of similar things that there are
Speaker 7: these kind of trace elements. But I think the problem
Speaker 7: is not that there's any genuine indigenous culture that legitimizes this.
Speaker 2: The problem is that this is happening for various reasons.
Speaker 7: Including poverty, you know, booze, substance, unemployment, all these things
Speaker 7: that we know contributes to social dysfunction. This is happening
Speaker 7: disproportionately in Indigenous communities because of that social breakdown and dysfunction.
Speaker 7: And whether or not it's a part of actual genuine
Speaker 7: Indigenous culture, I do not know, but there is clearly
Speaker 7: a correlation and we need to shine more of a
Speaker 7: light on these things, not say oh no, you can't
Speaker 7: talk about.
Speaker 3: It exactly, and of because our watches are suggesting is
Speaker 3: that these discussions are off the table, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 3: You don't fix a problem if you can't talk about it.
Speaker 3: And it's astounding how fast, particularly white inner city lefties
Speaker 3: in this country will rush to talk about Australia Day
Speaker 3: or the Voice or you know, colonization and all these other.
Speaker 2: Blog bands are racist. Yes, so we've got to let.
Speaker 3: The grog flow and we've got to change the flag
Speaker 3: and all these other things that actually make no material
Speaker 3: difference to the life of any Indigenous person in this country,
Speaker 3: but they're easy to talk about and you know, it
Speaker 3: makes them feel good, and it just it frustrates me
Speaker 3: so much that we just cannot talk genuinely about these issues,
Speaker 3: and of course if you are affected by any of
Speaker 3: these issues, you can call the number that we will
Speaker 3: show on the screen.
Speaker 8: Well, on Sunday we all saw the Liberal Party stand
Speaker 8: down Ben Britten from running for the seat of Whitlam
Speaker 8: because he had said ed shock, horror, women should not
Speaker 8: be on the front lines of combat. They are not
Speaker 8: suited to combat roles. And he very eloquently explained his
Speaker 8: position and the Libs turfed him saying, oh, well, these
Speaker 8: aren't in line with our views. Well, some very astute
Speaker 8: observers have then bought up the fact that Andrew Hasty
Speaker 8: said the exact same thing in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 12: Here he was then my personal view, since you've asked me,
Speaker 12: is that close combat roles are incredibly exacting. That's why
Speaker 12: we have rigorous selection courses. And my personal view is
Speaker 12: that the fighting DNA of a close combat unit is
Speaker 12: best preserved when it's exclusively male.
Speaker 1: Who among us would disagree.
Speaker 8: But now that Labor has had this brought to light,
Speaker 8: Richard Miles, who is the Defense Minister, obviously Andrew Hasty
Speaker 8: being the shadow Defense Minister, Richard Miles has decided well
Speaker 8: for this crime of acknowledging the bleeding of v S.
Speaker 1: Andrew Hasty has got to go.
Speaker 5: It is utterly untenable that the alternative defense Minister of
Speaker 5: this country has a view that women should not be
Speaker 5: serving in combat roles.
Speaker 1: Untenable.
Speaker 8: It's just an acknowledgment of the obvious.
Speaker 1: I couldn't have.
Speaker 8: Agreed more heartily with another combat veteran who called into
Speaker 8: three AW today to give us a very practical reason
Speaker 8: why women should be nowhere near the front lines.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 13: I've got the greatest respect for women in uniform. They
Speaker 13: can do all sorts of things. But in a combat unit,
Speaker 13: if I'm unconscious or wounded and they have to carry
Speaker 13: me off the battlefield, well, I'm six foot three on
Speaker 13: away one hundred and ten kilos more with all mcgearon.
Speaker 13: They are unlikely to carry me over their shoulder off
Speaker 13: the battlefield. If I'm unconscious in the hatch of an
Speaker 13: armored vehicle, they're unlike we'll be able to reach down
Speaker 13: and pull me out of the burning vehicle. So my
Speaker 13: safety's compromised, and we make safety is compromised unless they
Speaker 13: can do that.
Speaker 1: Who among us would disagree with that? Mate? If you're
Speaker 1: in any of those situations, and I toddle along. Just
Speaker 1: know you're going to die in the best of company.
Speaker 1: But that's the best I can do for you, both women,
Speaker 1: Even the fittest I own dumbells.
Speaker 8: By the way, even the fittest we've got the upper
Speaker 8: body strength of a dead guinea pig compared to even
Speaker 8: the weakest of men. This is how God designed us, period.
Speaker 8: And the fact that Ben Britton was stood down now
Speaker 8: means of course the Dutton's got egg all over his face.
Speaker 8: The last thing he needs now is more egg on
Speaker 8: that face. But he's got it because you stood Ben
Speaker 8: Britton down for saying this, buddy, and your own shadow
Speaker 8: Minister of Defense who's also been on the front line,
Speaker 8: so jolly well knows far better than you said it
Speaker 8: years ago. So how do you explain your way out
Speaker 8: of this one? I you don't think you can.
Speaker 2: I think you can. I'm going to give it a
Speaker 2: red hot guy.
Speaker 7: Firstly, Andrew Hasty did not say that in the middle
Speaker 7: of an election campaign. And when you are in the
Speaker 7: middle of election campaign, all these things are hyper sensitive
Speaker 7: and they're sort of ratcheted up to eleven, so they
Speaker 7: take on a much much greater importance. Than to what
Speaker 7: you might say as a purely personal view, so not
Speaker 7: a matter of government policy.
Speaker 2: But this is his own that's not fair.
Speaker 1: So it's down to time and yes.
Speaker 2: And he was not.
Speaker 7: And of course it is yeah, absolutely an election campaign,
Speaker 7: the rules are completely different and you just have to
Speaker 7: make really quick, immediate hard decisions to limit quarterize whatever
Speaker 7: damage you see coming so you don't there is zero
Speaker 7: tolerance for mistakes and any mistakes that are made have
Speaker 7: to be immediately quarterized.
Speaker 8: And so from this though, I mean I was astounded
Speaker 8: that he did this, No, I dare say the base,
Speaker 8: much like me, was like, what the hell do you think.
Speaker 2: Is going to vote from anyway?
Speaker 7: So this is the thing he has to win over
Speaker 7: undecided voters, soft voters, and he really really really has
Speaker 7: to win over women because that is where Peter Dutton's
Speaker 7: support is softest, is weakest, but get women voters, he
Speaker 7: doesn't get elected. And so if he lets comments like
Speaker 7: this stand in an election campaign, and of course you
Speaker 7: know the Labor Party would have been sitting on them
Speaker 7: for a while and then drop them out.
Speaker 3: And this is what the males is trying to play on.
Speaker 2: I don't think the woman problem that I don't think
Speaker 2: that will get it.
Speaker 7: Firstly, I am not going to say anything negative about
Speaker 7: a former SAS captain who has served his country with
Speaker 7: absolute distinction. And I like Andrew Hasty and I think
Speaker 7: he's a very decent man, and I think the way
Speaker 7: he made those comments were extremely.
Speaker 2: Sort of thoughtful.
Speaker 7: He stressed that it was his personal view, he gave
Speaker 7: his sort of thinking for it. I mean, by that definition,
Speaker 7: pretty much every man I know would also not qualify
Speaker 7: for the combat unit, because I don't think I held
Speaker 7: any of my mates.
Speaker 2: I've got a couple of mates chance that's not pure muscle.
Speaker 7: So yeah, I think if a woman can get up
Speaker 7: to the necessary physical standards, but they.
Speaker 1: Lowered, and that's.
Speaker 3: If everyone met the same standard, I don't think.
Speaker 7: We need more troops than those standards do need to
Speaker 7: be lower or maybe that is something Well, two people
Speaker 7: who pull.
Speaker 3: Out, we can we can talk to your mate about
Speaker 3: whether one hundred and ten kilos of pure VB could
Speaker 3: get you over the last and you're not one hundred
Speaker 3: and ten kilos and it's not pure V but it's
Speaker 3: pure Pikes reasons and a.
Speaker 2: Bit of Crown lagger because I'm aspirationing.
Speaker 1: This man is on KFC. I have no idea how
Speaker 1: you remain spell that's amazing.
Speaker 3: Genuinely, I don't know the last time I had a crowdy. Actually, no,
Speaker 3: I do know the last time I had a crowdy.
Speaker 1: I had a crowdy a.
Speaker 3: Couple of months ago, actually because I was like, I
Speaker 3: couldn't remember the last time I had one, and I thought, well,
Speaker 3: I've got to do it, just to say I've done
Speaker 3: it now. I told you at the top of the
Speaker 3: show that i'd give you some shocking numbers when it
Speaker 3: comes to how many people want Donald Trump and Elon
Speaker 3: Musk dead, and here they are, like, this is genuinely shocking.
Speaker 3: This is a polling research that's been done by the
Speaker 3: Network Contagion Research Institute in the US, and what they
Speaker 3: do is look at how people feel about ideologies and
Speaker 3: particular threats that may come out of them. And you
Speaker 3: can see the graph there on the screen that of
Speaker 3: people who say they are left of center, forty eight
Speaker 3: point six percent say there is justification for the murder
Speaker 3: of Elon Musk, and more than half fifty five point
Speaker 3: two percent say there is justification for the murder of
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. He has got fifty seven point six percent
Speaker 3: who say that there is a justification to destroy Tesla dealerships.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is your brain on leftism. This is
Speaker 3: the piece lift it's now saying it's okay to go
Speaker 3: around murdering presidents and people who clean up the public service.
Speaker 7: At least there are two and a half percent of
Speaker 7: leftists who would destroy a Tesla dealership.
Speaker 2: But not kill anybody. Yeah, well they're the true heroes?
Speaker 2: Are they the true free.
Speaker 3: It is just it's just insane. And if you wanted
Speaker 3: an example of just how bad all of this has become,
Speaker 3: this was from a recent rally, and this is the
Speaker 3: retoric they are using. They are talking about, let's kill
Speaker 3: Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: The ahead of Donald Trump, are you calling for his death?
Speaker 1: I am yes. I believe it's time that the people
Speaker 1: street cut off.
Speaker 2: Fine says.
Speaker 14: If you want to know how fascism ends, ask Benito Mussolini.
Speaker 2: And they hung him right, yep, they hung him.
Speaker 14: By his feet from a lamp post. That's exactly what
Speaker 14: every fascist deserves. The only good fascist is a dead fascist.
Speaker 2: Now are you calling for that to happen to our president?
Speaker 1: Right now?
Speaker 14: I believe that the minute the Donald Trump decided to
Speaker 14: start ignoring judicial orders, he gave up the right to
Speaker 14: be the rightful president of the United States. He's an
Speaker 14: enemy of the nation, and yes, I'd like to see
Speaker 14: him hung by his feet by a lamppost.
Speaker 2: So you wouldn't necessarily call for violence, would you?
Speaker 15: Are you supporting violence?
Speaker 1: I think there's the people in power. That's all they're
Speaker 1: going to listen to. At this point.
Speaker 8: I feel like we've done the rallies, We've done all
Speaker 8: these things, and they don't listen.
Speaker 1: And that was something that finally got people to listen.
Speaker 2: For christ Sack.
Speaker 3: If that don't put Trump arrangement syndrome in the next
Speaker 3: edition of The Dame, I'm going to rally about it
Speaker 3: because it is a genuine mental illness at this point.
Speaker 8: One hundred percent, and as we know from the previous
Speaker 8: assassination attempts on Trump's life, all it takes is one
Speaker 8: of these crazies just going a little bit of an
Speaker 8: extra mile, and they genuinely believe.
Speaker 1: As you just soar and as.
Speaker 8: This pole depicts this is called for, you would be
Speaker 8: doing the world a favor.
Speaker 1: That is what they believe.
Speaker 2: They are extremists.
Speaker 7: They are extremists and again, I think that their freedom fighters,
Speaker 7: they think they're doing the right thing, and they've got
Speaker 7: their little reasons and that's exactly how.
Speaker 3: Terrorist indeed, and they will come for him, mark my words.
Speaker 2: After the break, Cindra Allen.
Speaker 3: Could be in a bit of trouble. Labor powerbrokers are
Speaker 3: plotting for her demise. We'll talk about that after this.
Speaker 3: In further news about Joe's cryptic crossword, we've just come
Speaker 3: up with foot rot.
Speaker 7: We have nineteen down in the time. Sorry, if you're
Speaker 7: doing it at Harden into like a soiling order at
Speaker 7: the first adversing problem in flock.
Speaker 3: Can't You can't go around doing that, Joe.
Speaker 7: That's that's like when they were any good, if they cared,
Speaker 7: they would have already die.
Speaker 2: Well, that's that's true.
Speaker 3: But I sometimes hear people call up on the ABC
Speaker 3: after midnight and they give out the word, I mean.
Speaker 1: You can't do that.
Speaker 2: We haven't done it yet.
Speaker 3: Let's get to the front of the ods tomorrow, which
Speaker 3: says Judge Lash's Child Gender Meds and Experts in blow
Speaker 3: for Peak Clinic. This is an extraordinary store exclusive here,
Speaker 3: one of the one of Australia. Sorry, foremost child gender
Speaker 3: meds and experts has been ruled to have misled the
Speaker 3: family Court when giving evidence to support a mother who
Speaker 3: wished to prescribe her child puberty blockers, in an astonishing
Speaker 3: judgment that calls into question the integrity of one of
Speaker 3: the nation's peak gender clinics. Justice Andrew Strum's judgment, which
Speaker 3: stripped the mother of custody and effectively prevented the child
Speaker 3: from accessing treatment, criticized the approach of hospitals to children
Speaker 3: questioning their gender, saying this is quite interesting the decision
Speaker 3: to affirm unreservedly any child that raises concerns over their
Speaker 3: gender is quote oddly binary. Funny about that. It also
Speaker 3: turns out that this kid and the mother had been
Speaker 3: saying that he had gender dysphoria and should be treated.
Speaker 3: The father disagreed and said that he shouldn't be treated.
Speaker 3: So this is why it's been going through the courts.
Speaker 3: But it turned out that this kid, despite being treated
Speaker 3: at this hospital since the age of six, was not
Speaker 3: given a formal diagnos of gender dysphoria until this court
Speaker 3: case started. I mean, there are so many questions and
Speaker 3: holes in this and I'm glad to see the family
Speaker 3: Court finally waking up to the dangers.
Speaker 2: Of this day.
Speaker 1: Here, Justice Andrew Strom, you have my heart, buddy. This
Speaker 1: is the first time an.
Speaker 8: Australian judge has blown a hole in this whole idea
Speaker 8: of odd gender affirming and we're using best practice here
Speaker 8: at these gender affirming clinics.
Speaker 1: No you're not.
Speaker 8: You are activists and you are butchers in my humble opinion.
Speaker 1: And props to.
Speaker 8: The dad for pursuing this to the nth degree and
Speaker 8: getting justice for his child. He simply said, I just
Speaker 8: want to let the kid be the kid.
Speaker 1: And we'll see what happens. It was the mum who
Speaker 1: was ramming down this gender.
Speaker 8: Affirming care and thank goodness, this judge has stripped the
Speaker 8: mother of her custody. It's like you were doing the
Speaker 8: wrong thing by the child. You were not protecting this child.
Speaker 8: And some of these quotes from this justice he said,
Speaker 8: this is a case about a child, and a relatively
Speaker 8: young one at that, not one about the cause of
Speaker 8: transgender people.
Speaker 1: How many times do we see.
Speaker 8: A particular lobby take up these cases as if it's
Speaker 8: all about them, instead of making it about the individual
Speaker 8: case of a child and what is best for that child.
Speaker 8: I just I love this story that justice has finally
Speaker 8: been done. Read the rest of the article because the
Speaker 8: rest of the quotes by this justice are absolute gold.
Speaker 7: And another bit of gold and very interesting anyway, is
Speaker 7: at the bottom of the eyes. Bowen trials local tech
Speaker 7: millionaire in shock poll. Climate change and Energy Minister Chris
Speaker 7: Bowen is in danger of losing his Western Sydney seat
Speaker 7: of McMahon to local tech millionaire Matt Cammonzoli. According to
Speaker 7: independent polling. It shows power bills as a top concern.
Speaker 7: Now Chris Bowen holds his seat by a country mind,
Speaker 7: I think he holds it by about twenty percent or
Speaker 7: something like that.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely huge. But I hear you here we go.
Speaker 7: Not only does this poly show miss bown behind the
Speaker 7: local businessman, also just below no that company right anyway,
Speaker 7: amazing stuff.
Speaker 8: I actually met the second bit here. Compass polling last
Speaker 8: weekend shows him. You're quite right about the ten percent margin.
Speaker 8: But Compass polling last weekend shows him on nineteen percent support,
Speaker 8: with mister camon Zulie on forty one percent.
Speaker 16: I don't believe it.
Speaker 2: I would find that. I don't believe any tiny bit
Speaker 2: You've got to believe. But anyway, we can dream. But
Speaker 2: I did, can I say?
Speaker 7: I did meet Matt Cammonzoli on Friday, I believe last
Speaker 7: Friday at the Western Sydney for and he came up
Speaker 7: and said hello, and his campaign manager was very quick
Speaker 7: who who I had known it as, very quick to
Speaker 7: grab my details and get in touch and blah blah,
Speaker 7: and he said it's on.
Speaker 2: He said, we are speaking to people all the time.
Speaker 7: We're getting absolutely I didn't know anything about this pole,
Speaker 7: but he said, there's actually a real And to be honest,
Speaker 7: I've been focusing on the sort of Muslim vote threat
Speaker 7: to Tony Burke in Watson and Jason Claire and Blackslan
Speaker 7: hadn't really been thinking about Chris Bowen and McMahon.
Speaker 2: That much and Chris and Chris Bowen was also at
Speaker 2: the event and looked a little bit uncomfortable. So that
Speaker 2: was why can imagine but that was.
Speaker 3: That was that is if that happens, well, on paper,
Speaker 3: it should be the easiest place to take up that
Speaker 3: kind of fight because you're literally in the electorate of
Speaker 3: the guy who you can say drove up your power bills, right,
Speaker 3: so it would seem an easy one to be able
Speaker 3: to prosecute whether or not the numbers who like primary
Speaker 3: support for Bowen dropping to nineteen percent and.
Speaker 1: They're ahead of him by one point, So they've got the.
Speaker 8: The nineteen percent and camon Zulie is on forty one.
Speaker 3: That would be utterly extraordinary. But let's just hope that
Speaker 3: there is some element of truth to it that would die.
Speaker 2: This is the great guy.
Speaker 17: To the front page of the Herald Son while we're
Speaker 17: talking about good news, Labor bombshell premier facing pressure to
Speaker 17: quit if Victorian seats a hit hard in May third
Speaker 17: federal poll.
Speaker 8: With powerbrokers canvassing bold move to replace her amid collapse
Speaker 8: in public support.
Speaker 1: Just Center may Day reads the splash.
Speaker 8: Jacinta Alan will face pressure to quit if labor is
Speaker 8: hit hard in Victoria at the fourthcoming election, with senior
Speaker 8: party figures actively canvassing a move against her. Labor powerbrokers
Speaker 8: have been in talks for weeks about a leadership change.
Speaker 8: The shock move comes amid a collapse in her public
Speaker 8: support and anger over her government's handling of youth crime
Speaker 8: and continued commitment to the Jolly suburban rail loop.
Speaker 1: It doesn't say jolly, I just inserted that in there.
Speaker 1: Could it be?
Speaker 7: Could it be yeah again just to put my ABM
Speaker 7: I ALP little all the things you hate ALP A
Speaker 7: V C A C T you A okay, all the
Speaker 7: way with LBJ. But so if this was to happen,
Speaker 7: the most likely person to replace her would be Ben Carroll,
Speaker 7: has senior figure from the right and deputy. And this
Speaker 7: would mean that even though the left still would technically
Speaker 7: control the branch and i say, the caucus in Victoria,
Speaker 7: the leadership would finally return to the right of the party,
Speaker 7: which is the way that God wants it, and and
Speaker 7: it would be hopefully the beginning of the sort of
Speaker 7: reversal of what happened when they put Daniel Andrews in,
Speaker 7: which was when the right controlled the party machine and
Speaker 7: the caucus, and then put Dan Andrews as a kind
Speaker 7: of at the governor's pleasure, at the behest.
Speaker 2: Of the of the right, thinking they would always have control.
Speaker 8: But do you think that is what will actually happen though,
Speaker 8: or wouldn't it be? The article says if they lose
Speaker 8: three seats.
Speaker 1: Or more in Victoria, they're going to turf her.
Speaker 8: But will the natural succession take.
Speaker 1: Place or will there just be in all.
Speaker 2: Our faction war or left could so what happened?
Speaker 7: So the left could say absolutely, under no circumstance will
Speaker 7: we tolerate a cannon from the right. But MPs are
Speaker 7: very fond of one thing.
Speaker 2: That is their jobs.
Speaker 7: And so if he's seen as a person who can
Speaker 7: save the most seats, then they'll say, all right, whatever.
Speaker 7: And because labor is so headed for a wipeout, everyone,
Speaker 7: every labor and is going to be watching their own back.
Speaker 3: And don't forget, when Andrews left, it was thought that
Speaker 3: Tim Pallace would be the depity, and then.
Speaker 1: You'd have two people who the science was left again.
Speaker 3: And he has since from the right to left right correct, correct,
Speaker 3: And at the time the right did a route and
Speaker 3: got Ben Carol into the second position. So nothing's out
Speaker 3: of the question. Start as I'm concerned, lever there because
Speaker 3: it's the best chance we have of breaking the circuit
Speaker 3: to get rid of the alp in Victoria. After the break,
Speaker 3: the dire Wolf has been brought back from extinction after
Speaker 3: ten thousand years. I've never seen Joe so exting what
Speaker 3: I did.
Speaker 2: Possibly go wrong?
Speaker 3: Talk about a topic before he'll get into it.
Speaker 1: After this.
Speaker 3: Joe's still trying to crack that cryptic crossword. But something
Speaker 3: you are well across is the dire Wolf.
Speaker 7: Something I have cracked is the dire Wolf's DNA. It's
Speaker 7: a ten thousand year old giant man eating beast, and
Speaker 7: so scientists have decided they're going to bring one back
Speaker 7: to life.
Speaker 2: What could possibly go wrong? What right idea?
Speaker 7: Have these people not seen Jurassic Park nor Land? So
Speaker 7: ten millennie of pass as I mentioned since the dire
Speaker 7: Wolf's howl was last heard across the tundra of North America.
Speaker 7: Notes the incredibly purple prose of this article that I'm
Speaker 7: reading from now, in a laboratory and a secret location,
Speaker 7: they have brought two six month old pups back to
Speaker 7: a life. Now, let's listen to one of the people
Speaker 7: behind this. His name is Ben Lamb from Colossal Biosciences.
Speaker 7: I mean, does that not rise a few alarm bells?
Speaker 7: And he is talking about accusations that they are playing God.
Speaker 2: Have a listen.
Speaker 16: What right do you have to invade the natural process
Speaker 16: of nature and to inject your curiosity and your ability
Speaker 16: to create new life.
Speaker 15: I think that we've become the apex part around this planet,
Speaker 15: and we inject our curiosity and choices every day that
Speaker 15: we overpitch the ocean, we overhunt something. In the case
Speaker 15: of the thylacine, the Australian government put a bounty on
Speaker 15: its head and killed it off right. And every time
Speaker 15: we cut down the rainforest, every every time we drink
Speaker 15: hydrogenated water, we are you know, playing god on some level.
Speaker 7: And of course he says all this about contamination violasy
Speaker 7: to highlight Joe Rogan's marijuana stock, but just probably a vape.
Speaker 7: I think safety first. But anyway, but I know he
Speaker 7: does like that. But this is like, I just don't
Speaker 7: get it. So it's okay to bring back a prehistoric
Speaker 7: monster from the dead because like human beings, a bad
Speaker 7: climate change, ecodiversity.
Speaker 2: It's just absolutely terrifying.
Speaker 7: This, by the way, is what a direwolf's how sounds like?
Speaker 3: Well, the puppy anyway.
Speaker 7: As I said, these are terrifying, cold blooded killers.
Speaker 2: They have even called.
Speaker 7: The two brothers Romulus and Remus, who, of course, if
Speaker 7: you're playing at home with the co founders of Rome,
Speaker 7: the twin the boys of Brothers who were suckled by
Speaker 7: they were abandoned on the hilltop. They were suckled by
Speaker 7: a direwolf, and they survived only for Romulus to then
Speaker 7: kill Remus and found the city of Rome, which is
Speaker 7: why it's called home and not ream.
Speaker 3: And so that would do that would foretell that great
Speaker 3: things are now going to happen.
Speaker 2: With these two pups.
Speaker 3: I mean, they took it from the DNA of thirteen
Speaker 3: thousand year old tooth and a seventy two thousand year
Speaker 3: old skull. What will science come up with next? That's
Speaker 3: it from us today. Up next to Red a panic
Speaker 3: shirt with