Speaker 1: Welcome late base Loo.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond.
Speaker 2: Coming up tonight a new sport to be launched in
Speaker 2: Melbourne where people compete to see who's the best at
Speaker 2: doing nothing. I'm sure you could probably think of a
Speaker 2: politician in your area who might do very well in
Speaker 2: that competition.
Speaker 3: We finally found one that Caleb's grew it at.
Speaker 1: In this sport. Lose please what you think I do?
Speaker 2: Xactly?
Speaker 1: Oh mudy to the slander on this show already.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that a little later. Plus when we
Speaker 2: look at what's making news tomorrow. Revelations in Tomorrow's Career
Speaker 2: Mail that the man responsible for Queensland disaster recovery went
Speaker 2: on holiday just as Cyclone Elfred was approaching the coast,
Speaker 2: and The Australian's got a news story reporting that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump refused to take phone calls from Anthony Albanezi before
Speaker 2: imposing tariff's on Australian Steel and Alia Mignon. We'll get
Speaker 2: to all of that when we look at tomorrow's papers.
Speaker 2: But first, billionaire Clive Palmer has been taking out newspaper
Speaker 2: ads across the country. Let me show you one of
Speaker 2: the ads he's been taking out. It reads simply, there
Speaker 2: are only two genders, male and female. Uh huh, well no,
Speaker 2: not quite Q outrage. Apparently you're not allowed to say
Speaker 2: that in this country anymore, not even as a paid
Speaker 2: advertisement in a newspaper. Publishers of the Newcastle Herald have
Speaker 2: issued an apology for printing the ad and have promised
Speaker 2: to remove it from all of their digital platforms. The
Speaker 2: managing director of Australian Community Media, Tony Kendall, that's the
Speaker 2: organization that publishes the Newcastle Herald, said we support freedom
Speaker 2: of speech and the diversity of views. But there's the hint,
Speaker 2: Liz the but but on this occasion we let our
Speaker 2: readers and our staff down, which begs the question how
Speaker 2: exactly did you let your readers down by allowing a
Speaker 2: basic biological truth to be printed in your newspaper. It
Speaker 2: begs the question what should the advertisement have said? Should
Speaker 2: it have said there are three genders or seventy two genders?
Speaker 2: Maybe the Newcastle Herald would enlighten us as to how
Speaker 2: many genders it's permissible to postulate. He said further that
Speaker 2: the advertisement saying there are only two genders didn't meet
Speaker 2: the Newcastle Herald's values, which begs the question what are
Speaker 2: the Newcastle Herald's values? We already know they don't value
Speaker 2: freedom of speech and diversity of views, because the moment
Speaker 2: you trash those things, they are no longer values. By definition,
Speaker 2: values are things you stick with, but if you can
Speaker 2: ditch them for convenience, there's certainly something other than convictions
Speaker 2: or values. We also know they don't seem to value
Speaker 2: truth in reporting, because no matter how someone identifies or
Speaker 2: how they feel, the fact is there are only two genders,
Speaker 2: male and females. So for the Newcastle Herald to say, sh,
Speaker 2: we don't want our readers to know that there are
Speaker 2: only two genders makes you wonder what else are they
Speaker 2: hiding from you in their news reporting. But it wasn't
Speaker 2: just the Newcastle Herald. Journalists at the Age newspaper in
Speaker 2: Melbourne wrote a letter complaining to management about the newspaper
Speaker 2: running these advertisements, saying that it wasn't right now. Of course,
Speaker 2: they're obviously been pressured by a group and upsteps to
Speaker 2: the plate. The Transgender Victoria Organization, a lobbying group for transpeople,
Speaker 2: chief executive Son Vivian said trumpet of patriots. That's Clive
Speaker 2: Palmer's political organization should retract this campaign and apologize or
Speaker 2: acknowledge they will have our blood on their hands. That's
Speaker 2: a pretty serious thing to say, and with respect. It
Speaker 2: seems to be implying that transgendered people are so mentally
Speaker 2: fragile that even the suggestion that you know what, no
Speaker 2: matter how you identify, there really are only to genders
Speaker 2: is so shocking to them that they would be driven
Speaker 2: to potentially self harm. If that's true, then these are
Speaker 2: people who need serious help rather than simply having newspapers
Speaker 2: ban Clive Palmer advertisements.
Speaker 1: Kaleb well I thought the vast majority of transgender people
Speaker 1: were either men who wanted to be women or women
Speaker 1: who wanted to be men. So most transgender people are
Speaker 1: operating in the same barner as the rest of us anyway, right,
Speaker 1: And this is the typical thing they do to try
Speaker 1: and shut down debate, to say, well, if you talk
Speaker 1: about this issue, you will cause harm to us, and
Speaker 1: therefore it is not up for debate whatsoever. We had
Speaker 1: the same thing, of course, during the same sex marriage pleversite,
Speaker 1: where we were told that having a vote on whether
Speaker 1: the same sex marriage should happen in this country, would
Speaker 1: be deleterious to gay people and they would self harm,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, by which they mean, we can't
Speaker 1: talk about these issues. And once you say we can't
Speaker 1: talk about and well, I guess we can do whatever
Speaker 1: we want. That's ultimately what they're getting at. It is
Speaker 1: frankly pathetic to come out after you've published the ad.
Speaker 1: So you've taken Clive Palmer's money, so yep, yep, Well
Speaker 1: we'll take your dollars to put the ad on the
Speaker 1: front page of the paper. That's gone through the sales department.
Speaker 1: It's certainly gone through the editor of the Newcastle Herald
Speaker 1: and every other newspaper that has published this. I've worked
Speaker 1: in that side of newspapers as a chief of staff.
Speaker 1: The front page is looked at in its entirety by
Speaker 1: the chief of staff every day. It's looked at in
Speaker 1: its entirety by the editor every day. They know exactly
Speaker 1: what is going on the front page of the paper.
Speaker 1: And obviously, at no point was an issue raised internally
Speaker 1: about any of this. No one thought there was a problem.
Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden, the staff and a
Speaker 1: few other people crack it over this and say, oh, well, no, sorry, sorry,
Speaker 1: we believe in free speech. But I mean if you
Speaker 1: say I believe in free speech, but it generally means
Speaker 1: you don't believe in free speech. Here we are in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, where someone cannot spend their own money
Speaker 1: to print an obvious fans on the front of a
Speaker 1: newspaper without getting in trouble. Stop the bus, I want
Speaker 1: to get off. We have hit the point of no return,
Speaker 1: haven't we.
Speaker 3: And here at Sky we play an ad of suwellin
Speaker 3: saying there's only two genders. So we'd like to say
Speaker 3: to everyone, we're not sorry whatsoever. Can you imagine just
Speaker 3: ten years ago telling people that in ten years time
Speaker 3: you will have major media outlets like The Age apologizing
Speaker 3: for publishing what is known as a biological fact, just
Speaker 3: a pure biological fact, And here we have them pandering
Speaker 3: too a tiny minority. I'm sure many in the LGBTQ
Speaker 3: community actually couldn't care less, but it's always the tiny
Speaker 3: minority amongst them that says, no, this gives us hurty feelings.
Speaker 3: And these guys capitulate, like I always say, every capitulation
Speaker 3: to the left embolden z it, which is why you
Speaker 3: must never apologize.
Speaker 2: When you're not in the wrong.
Speaker 3: And neither the Newcastle Herald nor the Age is in
Speaker 3: the wrong. They were supporting diversity of views, they were
Speaker 3: supporting freedom of speech. The only apology that's owed now,
Speaker 3: since we're doing apologies, let's start stacking them, is to
Speaker 3: Clive Palmer and the trumpets of patriots, because you have
Speaker 3: quashed their views and their freedom of speech. But tell
Speaker 3: you what, this just gives more media attention to Clive's
Speaker 3: new party. Well it's a rebrand really, which can only
Speaker 3: be a good thing because all publicity is good publicity
Speaker 3: in this game.
Speaker 1: Indeed, I think Justin Timberlake probably said it best when
Speaker 1: it comes to these matters. Yes, Timberland, Sorry, I mean
Speaker 1: you can kind of tell, can't you, that my vein
Speaker 1: of music is not along these lines. You know. I
Speaker 1: sort of drive home to the strains of Classic FM
Speaker 1: that they don't call it Classic FM, or they call
Speaker 1: it ABC Classic. And I'm sure if you listen to
Speaker 1: Classic FM anytime, you'll know they're constantly going on about
Speaker 1: the Aboriginal land that this was all done on. I
Speaker 1: know they don't run ads on the ABC, but they'd
Speaker 1: be apologizing too if they'd run such a thing. While
Speaker 1: we're talking about matters of workness, let's talk about Disney now.
Speaker 1: We told you last month about how they were the
Speaker 1: latest big business to say that we're going to undo
Speaker 1: most of their DEI policies. It's amazing what Trump has
Speaker 1: been able to do since he became president. But there
Speaker 1: are some things that you can't undo, like multimillion dollar
Speaker 1: movies that you have already commissioned. But they've sniffed the
Speaker 1: wind and realize there is a problem here. Now next
Speaker 1: week there is a new version of snow White coming out,
Speaker 1: and unlike most Disney films, it won't be an animated one.
Speaker 1: It's actually got actors and actresses in it. Can I
Speaker 1: say actors and actresses anymore? That would be to deny
Speaker 1: there are many other genders. I suppose let's just call
Speaker 1: them people who act. Maybe. Anyway, They've got this new
Speaker 1: snow White film coming out and there are a few
Speaker 1: problems with it. Let's start with the fact that originally
Speaker 1: in Snow White, there is a reason that snow White
Speaker 1: is called snow White. It's because her mother, the Queen,
Speaker 1: says that she wishes that she had a daughter whose
Speaker 1: skin was white as snow, lips as red as blood,
Speaker 1: and her hair as black as ebonine. Of course, later
Speaker 1: in the story, her wicked stepmother, the New Queen, says,
Speaker 1: you know, miror Mirror on the wall, who is the
Speaker 1: fairest one of all? At age seven, snow White becomes
Speaker 1: the fairest of all. She is white as white as white.
Speaker 1: So this is where we ran into our first problem,
Speaker 1: because this is the girl playing Snow White.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, the original cartoon came out in
Speaker 4: nineteen thirty seven and very evidently, so there is a
Speaker 4: big focus on her love story with a guy who
Speaker 4: literally stalks her.
Speaker 5: Weird.
Speaker 1: Weird Rachel Zegler clearly is not the fairest of them all.
Speaker 1: She is Hispanic, she has Colombian heritage. They've also decided
Speaker 1: that we can't have the seven Dwarves anymore. Instead they
Speaker 1: have seven people of varying heights and ethnicities and god
Speaker 1: knows what else sexualities, et cetera, because you know, we've
Speaker 1: got to be all inclusive now. So knowing that there's
Speaker 1: a bit of trouble here and it's not really the
Speaker 1: snow White that anyone remembers, Disney has now decided that
Speaker 1: instead of the full court press red carpet premiere that
Speaker 1: they would give to a film, they're going to have
Speaker 1: a watered down version. It's going to be very quiet event.
Speaker 1: Only select media will be able to attend. Instead of
Speaker 1: the stars of the film walking down the red carpet
Speaker 1: to the premiere, talking to all the members of the
Speaker 1: press and having their photo taken, there's only going to
Speaker 1: be about four reporters there because they know no one
Speaker 1: wants it. Isn't it rather unfortunate that all this money
Speaker 1: they've spent, you know, all the diverse boxes have been ticked.
Speaker 1: They've realized that people don't actually want to watch a
Speaker 1: Disney film to see snow White, who's actually a Hispanic
Speaker 1: woman who basically, you know, cans the idea of snow
Speaker 1: White in the first place. Oh, you know, Prince Charming,
Speaker 1: how dare he be involved it? The whole thing is
Speaker 1: a joke. And the best bit is that they know it.
Speaker 1: They actually know it. That is why they're not having
Speaker 1: a full on red carpet. Finally they've realized what's going on.
Speaker 2: Disney are about to run full speed into the New America.
Speaker 2: This will be the first time that a movie studio
Speaker 2: has launched a movie hoping nobody notices if only they
Speaker 2: could lock snow White in the castle. This, I mean
Speaker 2: not be the fairest premiere of them all. The first
Speaker 2: trailer to be released on YouTube clocked up one point
Speaker 2: four million dislikes and the second trailer that was released
Speaker 2: clocked up nine hundred thousand dislikes. That's before the movie
Speaker 2: hits the cinemas. And it wasn't just the fact that
Speaker 2: the movie itself, as you said, Caleb has got all
Speaker 2: these woke elements, but Rachel's Zeggler, who plays snow White,
Speaker 2: she decided to insult most of the audience who would
Speaker 2: go and see this. Speaking of Trump supporters, she described
Speaker 2: them as a deep sickness that has infected the country.
Speaker 2: So when you've got an actress who's insulting the audience
Speaker 2: combined with a woke movie, you can almost be guaranteed
Speaker 2: that this is going to disappear at the box office.
Speaker 2: And Disney having such a low key premiere just rinks
Speaker 2: of embarrassment. They're embarrassed to be putting this movie out
Speaker 2: in the current environment.
Speaker 3: And it's the shareholders who have been pushing for them
Speaker 3: to ditch this DEI nonsense. So we did report last
Speaker 3: month that they'd ditch two of their DEI programs because
Speaker 3: gues what DEI does nothing for the bottom line. In
Speaker 3: the last quarter of last year alone, Disney's streaming platform
Speaker 3: lost over seven hundred thousand subscribers. That's just in three months.
Speaker 3: That's how badly these guys have been noseediving. As of
Speaker 3: March last year, over the previous two years, Didney Disney
Speaker 3: had lost over one hundred billion in market caps. So
Speaker 3: these guys have been in free fall for years now.
Speaker 3: They know DEI doesn't pay. The shareholders have been screaming
Speaker 3: about it for quite some time, and they're finally getting
Speaker 3: some traction. But just to remind you of how deeply
Speaker 3: embedded and accepted this kind of pushing LGBTIQ agenda, pushing
Speaker 3: DEI agenda to your kids through the screen, how acceptable
Speaker 3: that was at Disney. Check out this clip from twenty
Speaker 3: twenty two of executive producer LaToya Revenue, executive producer at
Speaker 3: one of the Disney shows, telling you how hard she
Speaker 3: was going pushing queerness and other gender theories onto your kids.
Speaker 5: The showrunners were super welcoming Meredith Roberts, and like our
Speaker 5: leadership over there has been so welcoming to like my
Speaker 5: like not at all secret gay agenda, and so like
Speaker 5: I feel like I felt like it was I mean,
Speaker 5: like maybe it was that way in the past, but
Speaker 5: I guess like something must have happened in the last
Speaker 5: like like they're turning and around, they're going hard and
Speaker 5: then all that like momentum that I felt like that
Speaker 5: sense of I don't have to be afraid to like,
Speaker 5: let's have these two characters kiss.
Speaker 1: Let's in the background.
Speaker 5: Like I was just wherever I could, just basically adding
Speaker 5: queerness to like the if you see anything clear in
Speaker 5: the show around them. But like I just was like
Speaker 5: no one would stop me.
Speaker 3: And they're loud and proud about it. You'll notice that
Speaker 3: reimagined tomorrow, little insignia in the corner there. That's one
Speaker 3: of the DEI programs that as of last month, Disney
Speaker 3: announced that they'd be ditching because they can't muzzle their
Speaker 3: stakeholders any longer. The shareholders are saying, we're not getting
Speaker 3: return on investment right now. You guys have to turn
Speaker 3: the ship around.
Speaker 1: And who's watching, you know, the basic and generally wholesome
Speaker 1: entertainment of Disney to get that kind of message. It's
Speaker 1: not what the consumer wants, which goes to the point
Speaker 1: that's why they've been hemorrhaging money. Rachel Zegler says that
Speaker 1: the reason snow White is called snow white in this
Speaker 1: version of the film because of course she is not
Speaker 1: white as snow is because she and her family go
Speaker 1: through a snow storm and survive the snow storm, and
Speaker 1: so it's a mark of her resilience. That's why she's
Speaker 1: called snow white. I mean, they're just completely rewriting the
Speaker 1: whole point of why snow White is snow white to
Speaker 1: make it somehow PC in twenty twenty five. There's nothing
Speaker 1: wrong with the basis of snow White.
Speaker 2: I got to say, my kids have got Disney Channel,
Speaker 2: and when you see what Disney have done the Star Wars,
Speaker 2: is any surprise what they're doing the Snow White. I mean,
Speaker 2: the writing was always on the walls. They have destroyed
Speaker 2: the Star Wars Frederick.
Speaker 3: Indeed, and as little wonder, critics of this film that
Speaker 3: they haven't even seen yet are calling it off white
Speaker 3: and the seven pronounds to the UK now where this
Speaker 3: government is not letting up on its relentless campaign to
Speaker 3: censor speech. It's just unbelievable. Every week we bring you
Speaker 3: some absolutely unhinden story from the UK of the latest
Speaker 3: person who's been arrested on some trumped up charge. Well,
Speaker 3: now the Parliament's decided that what they need is a
Speaker 3: review of the definition of Islamophobia.
Speaker 1: They've already been told.
Speaker 3: That their current definition is far too broad. But Angela Rayner,
Speaker 3: the Deputy PM, has put together a working group to
Speaker 3: one hopes not broaden it even further, although that's exactly
Speaker 3: what Brits are bracing for.
Speaker 1: She says.
Speaker 3: This group will advise the government on how to best
Speaker 3: understand and quantify and define prejudice, discrimination and hate crimes
Speaker 3: against Muslims. Alongside drawing on their own expertise, members will
Speaker 3: engage widely to ensure the definition accounts for the variety
Speaker 3: of backgrounds and experiences of Muslim communities across the United Kingdom. Now,
Speaker 3: in two thousand and eight, the common law offenses of
Speaker 3: blasphemy and libel were abandoned in the UK, so a
Speaker 3: lot of people paying attention right now are saying, excuse me,
Speaker 3: are you bringing that back? These essentially a warm up
Speaker 3: to some sort of blasphemy laws, particularly with regard to
Speaker 3: the religion of Islam. But they say, no, we've had
Speaker 3: unprecedented levels of Islamophobic this and that, and this is
Speaker 3: how we're addressing it. And to the British MPs and
Speaker 3: those across the bord with a lot of sway in
Speaker 3: the UK, I say to you, do you think maybe
Speaker 3: rubbing it in people's faces is not helping your cause?
Speaker 3: Just weeks ago we saw the first if Ta dinner
Speaker 3: hosted at not only Westminster Hall by the Prime Minister
Speaker 3: but also for the first time in Windsor Castle, with
Speaker 3: a lot of Britons then saying, excuse me, our King
Speaker 3: is supposed to be the defender of the faith, the
Speaker 3: Supreme Governor of the Church of England. What are you
Speaker 3: doing inviting three hundred and sixty Muslims into Windsor Castle
Speaker 3: to host them for their ifta dinner? And of course
Speaker 3: both these dinners also saw the heralding of a call
Speaker 3: to prayer for the Islamic faith. Ankhm, you know, imagine
Speaker 3: being a brit seeing the Islamic call to prayer echo
Speaker 3: through these bastions of British history, centuries of British culture.
Speaker 3: It is just unbelievable to me that they then want
Speaker 3: to claim, oh, we've got to do all this work
Speaker 3: to combat supposed Islamophobia in the UK when you've got
Speaker 3: leaders who aren't helping, you don't force people to accept
Speaker 3: something or like something by as leaders of the country
Speaker 3: seemingly just saying oh, well, well, I'm accepting it, so
Speaker 3: you have to accept it.
Speaker 1: We have to celebrate it, we have.
Speaker 3: To This is exactly what actually gets people's backs up backfires.
Speaker 2: The problem is they want to outlaw Islamophobia, but they
Speaker 2: don't know what Islamophobia is, so they want to outlaw
Speaker 2: something that they are still trying to define. The previous
Speaker 2: definition that they're now refining was back in twenty eighteen
Speaker 2: the Labor government defined Islamophobia as thus, get out of
Speaker 2: this Islamophobia is rooted in racism. I'd stop there for
Speaker 2: a second and say, Islamophobia has got nothing to do
Speaker 2: with racism. Islam is a religion. It's not an ethnicity.
Speaker 2: You've got followers of Islam in Australia, Indonesia, in Africa,
Speaker 2: in the Middle East. It's not a race. And that's
Speaker 2: one of the big problems in trying to deal with
Speaker 2: conversations about Islam. You get accused of racism when talking
Speaker 2: about a religion. It goes on to say, Islamophobia is
Speaker 2: rooted in racism, and this is a type of racism
Speaker 2: that targets expressions of Muslimness. So now you've got to
Speaker 2: define what is muslimness. So the whole thing is fuzzy.
Speaker 2: Here's the You shouldn't be able to discriminate or be
Speaker 2: untoward towards Muslims because Muslims are people, right, So you
Speaker 2: can't discriminate against people. But Islam is not people. Islam
Speaker 2: is an idea. It's a religion. It's a set of
Speaker 2: ideas about the meaning of life, and you must be
Speaker 2: free to critique, criticize, and if you want ridicule ideas,
Speaker 2: particularly ideas that try to prescribe the meaning and purpose
Speaker 2: of life. It doesn't matter whether it's the Christian religion,
Speaker 2: whether it's the Hindu religion, whether it's the Islamic faith.
Speaker 2: All of those ideas should be up for debate, and
Speaker 2: the debate should be vigorous and as willing as you wish.
Speaker 2: The other problem here, of course, is that Islamists want
Speaker 2: to islamize society, and therefore you've got to be able
Speaker 2: to talk about which parts of Islam you are happy with,
Speaker 2: which parts of Islam you don't like, which parts of Islam.
Speaker 2: If you say that you're afraid of those things, you
Speaker 2: ought to be able to say it, because if a
Speaker 2: group of people are trying to islamize society but you
Speaker 2: are banned from saying anything about it, well, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's not fair on anybody, and the same would apply
Speaker 2: to every other faith, charity for people. But clarity around
Speaker 2: ideas well, how much.
Speaker 1: Of the doctrine of Islam is inherent to muslimness, how
Speaker 1: much of what is written in the Qur'an is inherent
Speaker 1: to muslimness, if that's the definition that they're using at
Speaker 1: the moment. And this is the absurdity of the way
Speaker 1: in which people talk about Islamophobia, because often, and this
Speaker 1: is what we've heard, of course, since October the seventh,
Speaker 1: you talk about anti Semitism and in the same breath
Speaker 1: people talk about Islamophobia. But they're very different things because
Speaker 1: of because anti Semitism refers to an ethno religious problem,
Speaker 1: not just the religion itself, whereas, of course there is
Speaker 1: no one who is ethnically Muslim, you are just an
Speaker 1: adherent to the religion or not. But it's so obvious
Speaker 1: what is happening here. There is no need to fine
Speaker 1: Islamophobia because Reina herself said, define prejudice, discrimination and hate
Speaker 1: crimes against Muslims. Well, they're the definitions already. There were
Speaker 1: readily available definitions for prejudice, discrimination and hate crimes. They
Speaker 1: can apply to anyone, not just Muslims, not just Christians,
Speaker 1: not just Jews, everyone. We have definitions for those acts already.
Speaker 1: There doesn't have to be a specific term for Muslims,
Speaker 1: which is of course Islamophobia. But the UK six point
Speaker 1: five percent of their population is Muslim now as a
Speaker 1: proportion of their population, that is more than double what
Speaker 1: we have in Australia. It is the second largest religion
Speaker 1: in the UK, as it is the second largest religion
Speaker 1: in Australia. But it exists in far larger proportions twice
Speaker 1: as much in the UK as it does here. And
Speaker 1: in London fifteen percent of the population is Muslim. It's
Speaker 1: the same as was it last week or the week
Speaker 1: before when we were talking about at the start of Ramadan,
Speaker 1: where King Charles and Queen Camilla were packing up dates
Speaker 1: to send them off to break the fast, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It is a show to what is a large Muslim
Speaker 1: population in the UK that we want your vote. It's
Speaker 1: as simple as that. They are pandering to a population
Speaker 1: that has moved into their country and now they're like, well,
Speaker 1: we've got to do something about it now. And their
Speaker 1: answer is not to go, okay, well we should all
Speaker 1: be equal under the law. It's to say you should
Speaker 1: be special under the law.
Speaker 2: And we see the same dynamics starting to play out
Speaker 2: here in Australia. It's the Labor Party in the UK
Speaker 2: that are pushing to define Islamophobia so we can protect
Speaker 2: Muslims from discrimination, et cetera, et cetera. And that's not
Speaker 2: out of a generosity of heart, it's out of a
Speaker 2: pragmatic understanding that there are now Muslim parties appealing to
Speaker 2: Muslim constituents and if the Labor Party aren't seen to
Speaker 2: be doing something, they'll lose all those voters. We see
Speaker 2: the same kind of dynamics playing out here in Australia
Speaker 2: with our Labor Party and seats in Western Sydney. So
Speaker 2: it's a big thing. And of course the big worry
Speaker 2: is that laws to stop Islamophobia will become de facto
Speaker 2: blasphemy laws, which are prevalent across Islamic countries, where you're
Speaker 2: not allowed to criticize the Islamic faith at all on
Speaker 2: threat of severe punishment. And the fear, of course, is
Speaker 2: that we'll end up with the same thing and you're
Speaker 2: just unable to have a rational conversation about religion in
Speaker 2: any form. Let's come back home and talk about transport
Speaker 2: in Sydney. If you're a Sydney cider, I'll tell you
Speaker 2: what the last couple of months were. Hell. If you're
Speaker 2: trying to get to work via the train. Industrial action
Speaker 2: meant that there were non stop rolling strikes only ended
Speaker 2: when the Fair Work Commission said that the train drivers
Speaker 2: had to go back to work and the rest of
Speaker 2: us got to get back to work as well. But
Speaker 2: it's going to come up again, this time not with
Speaker 2: heavy rail, but with Sydney's Metro because Metro workers at
Speaker 2: the end of August will start to negotiate for a
Speaker 2: new and prize bargaining agreement, and already the union is
Speaker 2: threatening that if they don't get pay rises, there'll be strikes.
Speaker 2: Now you say, well, what's new about that. Here's what's
Speaker 2: interesting about it. The Metro, which the government spent billions
Speaker 2: of dollars on, is amazing. I catch it regularly and
Speaker 2: there's no driver on these trains. They are driverless trains,
Speaker 2: and our state government spent billions on them. But last September,
Speaker 2: the Men's government, in a sop to the unions, agreed
Speaker 2: that these driverless trains should have at least one driver
Speaker 2: on the train. Now, of course, driverless means you don't
Speaker 2: need a drive them, but the unions wanted someone on
Speaker 2: the train anyway. So the Men's government said, Okay, we'll
Speaker 2: have a driver on the driverless train, but we won't
Speaker 2: call them drivers. Will call them customer journey coordinators. Now
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what a customer journey coordinator who's meant
Speaker 2: to be driving a driverless train does, but I have
Speaker 2: seen them on the Metro and they basically just stand there.
Speaker 2: The Men's government agreed that the Metro would not operate
Speaker 2: on most lines without a customer journey coordinator. So now
Speaker 2: here's the situation. Driverless trains that after an agreement with
Speaker 2: the union must have a driver. And so now the
Speaker 2: union is saying, if we don't get our pay rise. Well,
Speaker 2: we will remove our drivers from the driverlest trains, without
Speaker 2: which you can't drive the driverless trains. The Sydney public
Speaker 2: are being taken for absolute mugs and have been sold
Speaker 2: out by the Labor government.
Speaker 1: How sorry, I just failed to understand how you can't
Speaker 1: drive a driverless train without a driver on board. I mean,
Speaker 1: supposedly these What did you say to our customer.
Speaker 2: Customer journey coordinator?
Speaker 1: I mean, what the hell sort of job is that?
Speaker 1: I'll be a customer journey coordinator when I leave sky
Speaker 1: at night. Sounds like a pretty good gig to me.
Speaker 1: But the idea that you can't drive a driverless train
Speaker 1: without a driver is nonsense. They're supposedly there so that
Speaker 1: in the case of an emergency, you know, I don't know,
Speaker 1: the thing stops working. They could manually operated, but they
Speaker 1: don't need to be there, so how are they going
Speaker 1: to stop the network? Presumably what they are suggesting is
Speaker 1: that the people who remotely operate the trains, I don't know,
Speaker 1: we'll all walk off the job so that they can't
Speaker 1: run the trains. If you can't run a driverless train
Speaker 1: without a driver on it, you've got a problem. It's
Speaker 1: as simple as that, we build something that should be
Speaker 1: efficient and usable, and it.
Speaker 2: Is bloody efficient.
Speaker 1: The Metro, I have to say, it's brilli. In peak time,
Speaker 1: it runs every four minutes in both directions. Don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about when one's going to be there. You
Speaker 1: just rock up to the station, you get on. It's
Speaker 1: always on time because of course it's not reliant on
Speaker 1: a person or anything. The doors open for a set
Speaker 1: period of time and then they close and then the
Speaker 1: train takes off. It is the best thing in the world,
Speaker 1: except when, of course, you interfere with an automated system
Speaker 1: by putting people in the middle of it. They just
Speaker 1: shouldn't be there. Why did the government ever accede to
Speaker 1: the idea that you should have drivers driving driverless trains?
Speaker 1: I just I can't make logical.
Speaker 3: Unions had them by the grulies, like this is nothing new.
Speaker 3: We see this. It doesn't matter which sector it is.
Speaker 1: The unions get head up. And it's so.
Speaker 3: Funny when it's unions versus a labor government. It's like,
Speaker 3: you guys are the same entity, basicly, and yet they
Speaker 3: take them to task. And what are the labor governments?
Speaker 3: Do they fold because they work in tandem with each other,
Speaker 3: even when it looks like they're fighting, and no, they're
Speaker 3: not going to get their way this time. Guess who
Speaker 3: ends up getting their way because the city grinds to
Speaker 3: a hold without the transport, Without the public transport system,
Speaker 3: it's simply a musk. So they know they're going to fold.
Speaker 3: And even though.
Speaker 2: You are right, it makes absolutely.
Speaker 3: No sense to anybody talking about the fact that drivers.
Speaker 1: Trains can't drive without drivers. It was inevitable, and here
Speaker 1: we are this is what unions do. I just can't
Speaker 1: get it. It reminds me what if happened to you know,
Speaker 1: bellboys in the lift right, because of course they used
Speaker 1: to operate the lift for you. Why didn't they do
Speaker 1: a similar union deal. We've got automated lifts that don't
Speaker 1: require someone in there to press the button for you.
Speaker 1: Why didn't all the blokes working in the end girls
Speaker 1: working in the department stores get the union on board
Speaker 1: and say we must have someone in the lift to
Speaker 1: operate the lift in the case of an emergency.
Speaker 2: Once we get driverless taxis, I'm sure there'll still be
Speaker 2: a driver.
Speaker 1: Exactly, we'll need a driver in case goodness, I can't
Speaker 1: believe that this is real. But here we are. While
Speaker 1: we're talking about transport. I'm sure you've noticed, as I have,
Speaker 1: that airline travel has gone to the dogs, particularly after COVID.
Speaker 1: It just felt like the service provision went through the
Speaker 1: floor and the prices went through the roof. It's really
Speaker 1: hard to justify, but of course that's what happens when
Speaker 1: you have a heavily regulated airline sector, regulated by the
Speaker 1: federal government that favors the players that already exist in it.
Speaker 1: You'll remember, of course, the story last year of Qatar,
Speaker 1: which wanted extra into national flights into Australia. Federal government
Speaker 1: said no. Of course, Quantus lobbied heavily for that, because
Speaker 1: if you don't have other players in the market, it
Speaker 1: means existing players like Quantus get to have more flights,
Speaker 1: and then they can dictate the price of those flights
Speaker 1: and they make more money. It's a pretty simple concept.
Speaker 1: It's the same reason that Rex fell over on the
Speaker 1: domestic level because they tried to break into the capital
Speaker 1: city market. But of course the federal government decides when
Speaker 1: they can fly and who they can fly, etc. So
Speaker 1: they give them slots that no one really wants. To
Speaker 1: fly in and all of a sudden they fall over,
Speaker 1: and then the price of your tickets go up on
Speaker 1: Quantus and Virgin and Jetstar, et cetera. Well, Quantus is
Speaker 1: going to do you dirty again. They have decided that
Speaker 1: the value of your Quantus Frequent Flyer points is going down.
Speaker 1: For what reason, we don't really know, except that they
Speaker 1: just want to squeeze more money out of you. It
Speaker 1: would seem this is reporting in the Osterday from Robin
Speaker 1: Ironside from August fifth, a business class reward seat from
Speaker 1: Perth to London will require one hundred and fifty one
Speaker 1: eight hundred points, which is up from one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty six thousand, five hundred, while a first class seat
Speaker 1: will cost two hundred and twenty seven eight hundred points
Speaker 1: instead of one hundred and eighty nine eight hundred plus
Speaker 1: taxes and carrier charges. That is quite a significant increase
Speaker 1: of twenty percent increase in the points you need to spend.
Speaker 1: It's the same at the domestic level. It'll be five
Speaker 1: percent more on points for a premium seat or fifteen
Speaker 1: point percent more sorry for points on an economy seat.
Speaker 1: Why I mean inflation hasn't gone up by fifteen percent
Speaker 1: in the last year. Last I checked, inflation has been
Speaker 1: going down, and yet we are told that we must
Speaker 1: pay more points, which you can collect by flying with
Speaker 1: an airline or spending with your credit card, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just another way in which the service
Speaker 1: provision of the major airlines is going to the dogs.
Speaker 1: It used to be about service. You know, you'd be
Speaker 1: proud to fly Quantus because it was the national carrier.
Speaker 1: And you know, I feel good as an Australian flying
Speaker 1: on an Australian airline because it's got the best service ever. Well,
Speaker 1: most people I think playing internationally now disagree with that.
Speaker 1: They get better service for least money elsewhere.
Speaker 2: The problem with Quantus is they make you feel like
Speaker 2: they're doing you a favor by allowing you to grace
Speaker 2: their airline. I caught a Quantus flight the other night
Speaker 2: from Brisbane and it was boarding at seven twenty five. So,
Speaker 2: being the efficient traveler that I am, I arrived at
Speaker 2: the gate right on seven twenty five. When boarding starts,
Speaker 2: there's no one at the gate and there's a sign
Speaker 2: that says final call. I said to the lady at
Speaker 2: the gate, I said, how can it be final call.
Speaker 2: It says boarding seven twenty five. I'm here at seven
Speaker 2: twenty five. How can it's a final call? She said,
Speaker 2: you look like a regular traveler. You should know better.
Speaker 2: I said, good, Evan, sorry, she said, it looks like
Speaker 2: you travel regularly. You should know better than to turn
Speaker 2: up at this point.
Speaker 1: How dare you turn up at the time it says
Speaker 1: on the timetable.
Speaker 2: Though, that's called Quantus service. But the good news is
Speaker 2: they've just announced, despite this mass of jacking up of
Speaker 2: points required to get a flight, that they're introducing a
Speaker 2: side sell it as part of your meal on international.
Speaker 2: So serious, serious, it was a creezing other week.
Speaker 1: I don't want side gallan the other way.
Speaker 3: Everyone who can afford to fly Quantas anymore. Anyway, I
Speaker 3: cannot remember the last time I flew Pontus, and that
Speaker 3: hasn't been because they've been scrowing over the Australian people
Speaker 3: for ages.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: We've been talking about all the COVID nonsense and that
Speaker 3: these guys haven't been my carrier for ages and they're
Speaker 3: not going to become it. I'm a I'm a virgin
Speaker 3: girl all the way now, and gosh, it's still very
Speaker 3: hard to rack up points. The amount of points that
Speaker 3: this was talking about. It's like who flies that much
Speaker 3: that they get half that many need the credit card.
Speaker 1: Get on the credit No.
Speaker 3: Thanks, before we go to a break tonight to the
Speaker 3: US really quickly where Doge has done a number on
Speaker 3: USAID as we've been talking about, but really freaky reports
Speaker 3: coming out of America today saying that they've been shredding papers.
Speaker 3: They had an entire staff get together to shred papers
Speaker 3: for an entire day. If you take the word of
Speaker 3: Mike Ben's, former Trumps State Department official. He tweeted, this
Speaker 3: is a five alarm fire right now as we speak today,
Speaker 3: USAID is shredding and burning the contents of the agency's
Speaker 3: classified safes, the key information needed to reconstruct the history
Speaker 3: of USAID's weaponization both at home and abroad. This must
Speaker 3: be stopped now. The White House Secretary came out and said, oh,
Speaker 3: nothing to see here. This is just normal, you know,
Speaker 3: when we shut things down. State Secretary Marco Rubio announced
Speaker 3: yesterday that they were shutting down on eighty three percent
Speaker 3: of the US AID program. So she's a saying, oh,
Speaker 3: nothing to see here, this is just what happens. But
Speaker 3: as I've told you countless times us AID is a
Speaker 3: front for the CIA. This would be so many dirty
Speaker 3: secrets being.
Speaker 2: Shredded by right now.
Speaker 3: And while some people found that announcement by the White
Speaker 3: House reassuring, I'm just like, no, not at all. What
Speaker 3: do you want to hide because it's clearly too dirty
Speaker 3: to air in the public light of day.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm on the fence with this one.
Speaker 2: Maybe or maybe when you shut down an apartment, you
Speaker 2: do have a lot of files that have got personal
Speaker 2: and private information.
Speaker 6: Okay, your knowledge of CIA history is obviously pretty genuinely,
Speaker 6: I have read so many books about ciaos throughout the.
Speaker 3: Worst of the worst, Operation mocking Bird, paper Clip, mk Ultra,
Speaker 3: the fact that this thing was functioning as a stronghold
Speaker 3: of ciaops throughout the world. I'm telling you now the
Speaker 3: papers that are being shredded so that things that would
Speaker 3: forever ruin the public's trust in such departments will be
Speaker 3: lost to history forever.
Speaker 2: If that were true, would it not be in the
Speaker 2: interests of the Trump administration to keep those and expose them?
Speaker 2: Isn't that the whole modus operandi in the boast of
Speaker 2: the Trump.
Speaker 3: Administer five not at all because they were in power
Speaker 3: just four years ago, So how many of these things
Speaker 3: were they aware of then and did Actually, they.
Speaker 2: Weren't aware of any of these things then, which is
Speaker 2: why they've taken such strong action.
Speaker 3: Now, these projects would have been long running, they would
Speaker 3: have been.
Speaker 1: Well aware of them.
Speaker 3: And then there's the whole This continuing resolution that's just
Speaker 3: past the House is very, very interesting because the Trump
Speaker 3: administration has basically just voted to continue the spending levels
Speaker 3: until September, continue the exact same spending levels of the
Speaker 3: Biden administration. So a lot of people have a lot
Speaker 3: of questions right now when you've got USAID papers being
Speaker 3: shredded and the White House is telling you are nothing
Speaker 3: to see here.
Speaker 2: That's fine.
Speaker 1: The place was so corrupt.
Speaker 3: We've shut down eighty three percent of the programs, but
Speaker 3: all the shredding that's happening, nothing to see here. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: this massive continuing resolution has been passed by the House
Speaker 3: and it will pass Congress because obviously the Republicans have
Speaker 3: the majority in both houses. People are saying, hang on
Speaker 3: a minute, and also, where are the JFK files, Where
Speaker 3: are the Epstein files? It is early days, so I'm
Speaker 3: not putting a stop gap, yere, But I am saying
Speaker 3: a lot of people are already getting a little bit
Speaker 3: antsy about especially this continue resolution, saying, well, all this
Speaker 3: stuff that you've been saying about Doge and all this
Speaker 3: money that we're getting back because we've shut down all
Speaker 3: this stuff, is that just smoking mirrors now, because you've
Speaker 3: just admitted that until September of this year, you're going
Speaker 3: to be keeping up the same spending levels. So there's
Speaker 3: a lot of interesting questions to ask right now.
Speaker 2: We'll be watching that space. We can go to a
Speaker 2: break when we come back. Great story in the front
Speaker 2: page of tomorrow's Career Mail, the man responsible for disaster
Speaker 2: recovery went on holidays right as Cyclone Alfred was hitting
Speaker 2: the Queensland coast. All of that more in just a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. Well, Queenslanders are pretty much over the disaster
Speaker 2: of the cyclone. But there's another disaster brewing, Liz, this
Speaker 2: time for the guy who was in charge of the recovery.
Speaker 3: This guy cannot keep his job after this.
Speaker 1: Surely.
Speaker 3: The front page of the Korea Mail reads recovery boss
Speaker 3: flew out as Alfred hit. Holiday is a disaster. The
Speaker 3: man overseeing Queensland's disaster response and recovery headed off on
Speaker 3: a holiday as tropical Cyclone Alfred smashed southeast Queensland. The
Speaker 3: Inspector General of Emergency Management Alistair Dawson received approval from
Speaker 3: Police and Emergency Services Minister Dan Perty to take leave
Speaker 3: from last Sunday as one hundred kilometer per hour winds
Speaker 3: felled trees and flash flouting worsened across the region. The
Speaker 3: article goes on to say mister Dawson was appointed to
Speaker 3: the three hundred and fifty six thousand dollars a year
Speaker 3: roll by Palichet back in twenty twenty. Sources told The
Speaker 3: Courier now mister Dawson had left the country, but his
Speaker 3: office refused to reveal his whereabouts and said he was
Speaker 3: on approved leave so wasn't even elsewhere in Australia. This
Speaker 3: guy is in some go go for cabana, like I
Speaker 3: don't know, bringing a feed up on a beach, smoking
Speaker 3: Turbans cigars in the baha.
Speaker 1: Maybe he went to Hawaii, but like you've got one job,
Speaker 1: you are employed really on three hundred and fifty six
Speaker 1: k to be the bloke who oversees natural disaster fund relief, recovery,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And you know, natural disasters don't happen that often.
Speaker 1: You know, every now and again they come through, and
Speaker 1: then when what happens, you're not there.
Speaker 2: Wait, cut him some slack, right, If his job is
Speaker 2: disaster recovery, he doesn't have to be back until it's
Speaker 2: over because it's oh, oh, I see, you can miss
Speaker 2: the actual event.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And on a second point, if mister Dawson is going
Speaker 2: to lose his job over this, surely mister Purdy should
Speaker 2: lose his job because Perdy is the one who approved
Speaker 2: the leave. It's one.
Speaker 3: When did he approve it? He may not have known
Speaker 3: about the cyclone at all. This could have been three
Speaker 3: months in advance.
Speaker 2: Well, then you remove approval, You say, dude, have you
Speaker 2: seen the weather?
Speaker 1: Maybe so, but if you're on three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: six K, you'd think you'd have the foresight to go, hmm,
Speaker 1: maybe not a good look while people are having their
Speaker 1: houses flooded and rooted, that I bugger off overseas when
Speaker 1: it is my job to be dealing with all of this.
Speaker 2: It's not a good look. Clearly they were hoping no
Speaker 2: one would find out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well they did read the room, buddy. This is
Speaker 1: what goes on with public servants because they think they
Speaker 1: are above you, as do many politicians. Let's go to
Speaker 1: the front of the US tomorrow, where it says misleader
Speaker 1: of the free world. Australia is bracing for a second
Speaker 1: round of Donald Trump's punishing tariffs, as Anthony Alberizi and
Speaker 1: his minister's slammed the unjustified duties on steel and aluminum
Speaker 1: and accused the US President of misleading the government. Mister
Speaker 1: Trump swept aside the nation's free trade agreement in seventy
Speaker 1: four year alliance to impose the twenty five percent tariffs,
Speaker 1: paving the way to further hits to key industrial sectors
Speaker 1: in the next phase of his global trade war. He
Speaker 1: stopped taking the Prime Minister's calls. It would seem as well, look,
Speaker 1: you know, I understand why from our perspective, we would
Speaker 1: be upset about this. But you also have to consider
Speaker 1: that Trump was elected on an America First model, and
Speaker 1: so he wants to put his country first, and so
Speaker 1: he slapped tariffs on everyone. So you know, it's not
Speaker 1: like he's just coming after us. He has done it
Speaker 1: to everyone because his aim is to build up industry
Speaker 1: in the United States. I do wonder, though, if we
Speaker 1: acceded to his request that we increased military funding to
Speaker 1: three percent of GDP, would this tariff maybe go away.
Speaker 2: The story here for me is not the tariffs, though
Speaker 2: no doubt the tariffs will hurt people here in Australia.
Speaker 2: But the story really is the relationship between the Albanezy
Speaker 2: government and the Trump administration. And by relationship, it seems
Speaker 2: there is no relationship. Kevin Rudd clearly is not on
Speaker 2: the nose with Trump. Albaneze he can't get Trump to
Speaker 2: take a phone call. The Trade Minister Don Farrell, despite
Speaker 2: saying he would go to America with his contemporary there,
Speaker 2: ended up not going to the United States. There doesn't
Speaker 2: seem to be any relationship at all, which is unbelievable
Speaker 2: when you consider the US as our major ally, particularly
Speaker 2: in defense.
Speaker 1: Indeed, another story on the front of yours tomorrow ALP's
Speaker 1: sixteen billion dollar study in winning votes. If anyone knows
Speaker 1: how to do it will.
Speaker 2: Be the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: Two thirds of the sixteen billion dollars in student debt
Speaker 1: cuts promised by the Albanezi government will likely go to
Speaker 1: people in seats held by Labor, the Greens and Teel Independence,
Speaker 1: leading to accusations the promised twenty percent reduction is obviously
Speaker 1: designed to win votes. Well, that does seem pretty obvious,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. I mean, is there anything a government does
Speaker 1: that isn't designed to win votes? Of course, and to
Speaker 1: vote grab as if we need it to be told that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm absolutely shocked by this revelation. Who knew? Of
Speaker 2: course the Labor government knew exactly what they were doing
Speaker 2: when they announced this policy. And of course students desperately
Speaker 2: need this relief so desperately that Labor will introduce it,
Speaker 2: but only if they win the election.
Speaker 1: Of course, let's take a good policy like Marbo, says
Speaker 1: another story on the front of the Odds landmark high
Speaker 1: Court decision finds native title is property. The Albanezi government
Speaker 1: is bracing for a nationwide wave of compensation battles with
Speaker 1: Aboriginal groups after the High Court rule native title is
Speaker 1: property are finding predicted to be as significant as the
Speaker 1: Marbo and with judgments that led to the modern era
Speaker 1: of land use agreements with traditional owners. Basically, the case
Speaker 1: has found that where the government interfered with land in
Speaker 1: the form of mining, etc. Where freehold is that or
Speaker 1: native title is then extinguished because that the land has
Speaker 1: been used, that they now owe compensation to land that
Speaker 1: has been now called native title. It would open the
Speaker 1: gates surely to billions and billions and billions and billions.
Speaker 2: Of dollars worth of claims.
Speaker 3: Endless, utterly endless. When you look at this map of
Speaker 3: native title across Australia, if that it's now property depending
Speaker 3: on certain boxes must be ticked to qualify. I mean
Speaker 3: this article is talking about as far back as nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty eight regarding a box site mine. I mean, this
Speaker 3: would open up an endless, endless amount of court cases
Speaker 3: tying up the courts, and you'd think with this precedent
Speaker 3: they'd just be laughing all the way to the bank.
Speaker 3: Whoever wants to mount the rest of the claims.
Speaker 2: Yep, absolutely, we're going to go to a break when
Speaker 2: we come back, and you spot to be introduced in
Speaker 2: Melbourne where competitors compete to see who's the best at
Speaker 2: doing absolutely nothing that's coming up in this tonight. If
Speaker 2: you're holding a conference on AI and needed a guest speaker,
Speaker 2: is who do you reckon? You would definitely not have
Speaker 2: as a guest speaker.
Speaker 3: Somebody thought it was a very good idea to get
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris to attend and address the crowd of what
Speaker 3: you can only imagine is sweet brainiacs, the tech guys,
Speaker 3: the geeks, the nerds that run everything behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: And he's just a little snippet of her address to
Speaker 3: these incredibly smart people.
Speaker 7: So we did door Dash because I wanted Doritos, and
Speaker 7: it was they were about the red carpet.
Speaker 1: Part was a bombster and.
Speaker 7: Nobody wanted to leave to go to the grocery store.
Speaker 1: So it was door.
Speaker 7: Dash And I'm thinking about this about so I was
Speaker 7: willing to give up whatever might be the trackings of
Speaker 7: Kamala Harris's particular fondness for nacho cheese Doritos for the
Speaker 7: sake of getting a big bag of Dorito's. As I
Speaker 7: watched the Oscars.
Speaker 3: The self immolation with this one is just astounding.
Speaker 1: It never stops. She's talking about innovation. Supposedly door dash
Speaker 1: was created twelve years and that's her example of innovation
Speaker 1: is that she ordered Dorito's on door Dash. I think
Speaker 1: she ordered something other than Dorito's, and it may be
Speaker 1: in liquid.
Speaker 2: For well, I certainly think that America dodged a bullet.
Speaker 2: That's the takeaway from that. Hey, not me, not Caleb.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure about you, Liz, but I'm sure there
Speaker 2: would be viewers watching who find test cricket incredibly boring.
Speaker 2: But compared to test cricket, I'll tell you what, there's
Speaker 2: something in much more boring. If you want boring sport,
Speaker 2: it's called space out and it's being introduced at a
Speaker 2: festival in Melbourne in June. The idea is ninety minutes
Speaker 2: and contestants have to challenge one another to see who
Speaker 2: can do the most nothing the best and so contestants
Speaker 2: sit for an hour and a half. They're not allowed
Speaker 2: to smile, laugh, speak, check their phones, or fall asleep,
Speaker 2: and they're judged on who has the most stable heart
Speaker 2: rate and crowd favorite. This sport is being introduced to
Speaker 2: Melbourne in June. Who can do the best nothing for
Speaker 2: the longest? I reckon there'd be some city cow exsellers
Speaker 2: who might do very very well in that competition.
Speaker 1: Politicians. Isn't it just called meditation? Like when did it becomings?
Speaker 1: And they just want meditation?
Speaker 2: So nice?
Speaker 1: What do you get?
Speaker 2: I've got no idea, what do you get more done
Speaker 2: in your record for doing nothing. That's it from us
Speaker 2: stick Around. Coming up is The Reader Penny Show. Good Night,