Speaker 1: Welcome, they'll wait to pay.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 4: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Stauer and Caleb Bond. Coming
Speaker 4: up tonight. Every parent's nightmare. A mum discovers a venomous
Speaker 4: brown snake in her toddler's bedroom, and in.
Speaker 3: Perth there's snakes on the beach.
Speaker 4: We'll show you all of that a little later, plus
Speaker 4: when we get to the papers.
Speaker 3: Sydney to be brought.
Speaker 4: To a standstill as the rail union goes on strike
Speaker 4: over the weekend seeking a thirty two percent pay rise,
Speaker 4: and other things making news tomorrow. Anthony Albanezi very close
Speaker 4: to Jijingping as they cuddle up at the G twenty
Speaker 4: summit in Brazil. We'll get to all of that when
Speaker 4: we look at tomorrow's newspapers. But first, what could be
Speaker 4: more Australian than taking a Saturday afternoon to go down
Speaker 4: the Bunnings get some hardware things for the home, and
Speaker 4: maybe a sausage and a piece of bread. But what
Speaker 4: most Australians didn't realize, at least for three years between
Speaker 4: twenty eighteen and twenty twenty one, is that when they
Speaker 4: went to Bunnings in New South Wales and Victoria Bunnings
Speaker 4: were using facial recognition technology without their consent. After a
Speaker 4: two year investigation, the Privacy Commissioner ruled today that Bunnings
Speaker 4: had violated the rights of customers. Bunnings have been ordered
Speaker 4: to put an apology online, to destroy all the information
Speaker 4: they collected, and to promise never to do it again.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: Bunnings escaped a fine because the Privacy Commissioner accepted their
Speaker 4: explanation that they had done this with good intent. Bunnings
Speaker 4: claimed they never used the information for marketing or for
Speaker 4: tracking people's habits. Instead, they were doing facial recognition and
Speaker 4: then cross checking that data with a pre put together
Speaker 4: list of troublemakers so that they could identify people who
Speaker 4: were known to cause trouble at Bunnings.
Speaker 3: Early in order to keep staff safe.
Speaker 4: Now, while accepting the explanation, the Privacy Commissioner said that
Speaker 4: wasn't reason enough to violate people's human rights.
Speaker 3: Now. All of this came to light a.
Speaker 4: Couple of years ago after Choice magazine revealed it, and
Speaker 4: it wasn't just Bunnings, The Good Guys and Kmart were
Speaker 4: also accused of using facial recognition technology, and investigation into
Speaker 4: Good Guys has been dropped, but in an investigation into
Speaker 4: Kmart's use of the technology continues. Calibrin Liz, I think
Speaker 4: Bunnings were pretty lucky not to be fined here. I mean, effectively,
Speaker 4: they were putting customers into what amounts to a police lineup,
Speaker 4: without customers ever knowing. They were collecting highly personal information
Speaker 4: without consent, and we're expected to trust their explanation that
Speaker 4: they weren't going to use this information for anything else
Speaker 4: other than just trying to get ahead of trouble makers.
Speaker 3: But we're expected to believe.
Speaker 4: That when they weren't upfront with us in the first place.
Speaker 3: I think they were very.
Speaker 2: For and that was the reason that was used to
Speaker 2: not give them the fine, that they had supposedly done
Speaker 2: it with good intentions so that the fine was not needed.
Speaker 2: But regardless of whether or not they get a fine,
Speaker 2: this decision by the Commissioner is extremely important because it
Speaker 2: now sets the precedent that retailers cannot do this. The
Speaker 2: warning fire has been shot to say, whether it's Bunnings
Speaker 2: or anyone else, you cannot put up facial recognition without
Speaker 2: full consent of the customer. To that now, we still
Speaker 2: don't know exactly what full consent would look like I mean,
Speaker 2: would it be as simple as a sign saying if
Speaker 2: you enter this shop you know you will be under
Speaker 2: facial recognition.
Speaker 5: But then it was to say whether you see the
Speaker 5: sign exactly and.
Speaker 1: How much do they have to detail what they're going
Speaker 1: to do with that? Right, So this should in effect
Speaker 1: tell every retailer that.
Speaker 2: They cannot do this anymore, and for that we should
Speaker 2: be extremely grateful.
Speaker 1: Because we've talked about this in.
Speaker 2: Terms of it's been suggested you're doing it in public
Speaker 2: places as well well.
Speaker 1: I think we did a story.
Speaker 2: Some months ago about was it the Tube in London?
Speaker 2: Now they were doing facial recognition to monitor people's emotions
Speaker 2: so that they could potentially decide what sort of advertising
Speaker 2: to display in stations, et cetera.
Speaker 1: That's what this eventually leads to.
Speaker 2: Even if it begins purely as okay, where we're finding
Speaker 2: out who the troublemakers are, it's not a big leap
Speaker 2: to say, well, if you plug in a different bit
Speaker 2: of technology or software over here, we'll be able to
Speaker 2: track when you walk into the shop, when you walk
Speaker 2: out of the shop. Your receipt is linked to your face,
Speaker 2: so they know when you come in that you're more
Speaker 2: likely to buy plumbing products, so you're more likely to
Speaker 2: go to the garden section or whatever, and then they
Speaker 2: send down a staff member to try and upsell you
Speaker 2: on products. This is eventually where this stuff leads and
Speaker 2: who's keeping the data? Where is the data being kept.
Speaker 2: There's no rules around how the data has to be kept.
Speaker 2: It could just be sitting in some service somewhere. I
Speaker 2: mean Bunning said that they deleted it within milliseconds if
Speaker 2: you weren't one of the dodgy people on their list.
Speaker 2: But we don't know whose hole that data. We know
Speaker 2: everything gets hacked these days. Yes, imagine if someone's got
Speaker 2: all this biometric data on loads and loads of people
Speaker 2: and someone hacks that system, that is extremely valuable.
Speaker 4: Hacked, Liz, that data becomes an asset right that of
Speaker 4: course easily be sold for a lot of money to
Speaker 4: various organizations.
Speaker 5: And we know that plenty of companies do this. I mean,
Speaker 5: it wasn't long ago we were doing another story on
Speaker 5: insurance companies getting data from your ohso smart cars that
Speaker 5: are tracking when you break, how hard you break, all
Speaker 5: the rest of it, and people were finding their insurance
Speaker 5: policies we're costing a lot more money, asking why and
Speaker 5: finding out through their insurer they were in bed with
Speaker 5: the people gathering the data from the car's data base
Speaker 5: and they decided, well, you're actually not that safe a driver.
Speaker 5: I feel like the commissioner has very much taken Bunning's
Speaker 5: word for it with regard to this entire case. It'll
Speaker 5: be interesting to see if kmart gets a similar ruling.
Speaker 5: They two are under exactly the same investigation because, as
Speaker 5: you were just told, they two were busted back in
Speaker 5: June twenty twenty two by choice. The good guys don't
Speaker 5: have an investigation into them. But it will be interesting
Speaker 5: to see whether Kmart gets a different ruling because they
Speaker 5: can just as eagerly argue as I'm sure they will,
Speaker 5: the exact same thing bunningstead, which was our motives are
Speaker 5: in the right place. We're just trying to crack down
Speaker 5: hard on the baddies. But don't we know that is
Speaker 5: the case with all surveillance systems. It's the individual privacy
Speaker 5: of the masses in order to assure their safety from
Speaker 5: the handful of bad guys. I don't know about you,
Speaker 5: but I'm not willing to trade it in to Canada
Speaker 5: now where after nine years as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau's
Speaker 5: approval rating has plummeted from the sixty three percent way
Speaker 5: back in his heyday when he was first elected to
Speaker 5: just twenty three percent in June of this year. It's
Speaker 5: continued to tumble. So with an election breathing down his
Speaker 5: neck coming up just next year, he's decided to back
Speaker 5: off on the record immigration his government has seen poor
Speaker 5: into Canada. Here he is saying, look, we could have
Speaker 5: acted faster, but I'm making a move now, so vote
Speaker 5: for me next year. People.
Speaker 6: In the last two years, our population has grow really fast,
Speaker 6: like baby boom fast. Increasingly bad actors like fake collegists
Speaker 6: and big chain corporations have been exploiting our immigration system.
Speaker 5: For their own interests.
Speaker 6: So we're doing something major. We're reducing the numbers of
Speaker 6: immigrants that will come to Canada for the next three years.
Speaker 5: So he's decided all better crack down on this because
Speaker 5: all the polls in Canada are showing for the first
Speaker 5: time in a quarter century, the vast majority of Canadians
Speaker 5: are saying we've had enough with these record levels of immigration.
Speaker 5: In this guy just wants to get re elected here
Speaker 5: is the head of the opposition, which I certainly hope
Speaker 5: will be the PM at next year. Pierre Polivier. He's
Speaker 5: taking Trudeau to tasks saying, mate, you're the cause of
Speaker 5: the problem. Stop blaming these third party actors or it's
Speaker 5: just bad people exploiting the system. Listen to what Pierre
Speaker 5: has to say and ask yourself, doesn't this sound like
Speaker 5: he's describing our government, the labor government, the Albenesy government
Speaker 5: to a tee.
Speaker 7: Let's not distract turn our gaze away from the source
Speaker 7: of the problem, which is justin Trudeau, who increased our
Speaker 7: population growth by three hundred percent in a matter of
Speaker 7: a couple of years by his admissions, since me allowed
Speaker 7: massive fraud in international students, temporary foreign workers, and the
Speaker 7: refuge system. By his own admission, the liberal immigration policies
Speaker 7: have caused massive housing, job, and healthcare shortages. And now
Speaker 7: he's basically denouncing his entire immigration policy and expecting us
Speaker 7: to believe that he can fix the problems that he caused.
Speaker 5: Wow. Massive housing, job and healthcare. Wow, it just reminded
Speaker 5: me so much of here back at home. But the
Speaker 5: amount of damage Pierre's going to be able to do
Speaker 5: at the polling booth next year on this issue. And
Speaker 5: we've seen this across the West. It was the case
Speaker 5: in the UK, but not so much. They just voted
Speaker 5: for change and they're not gonna get it any time zone.
Speaker 5: It was certainly successful in the US. Trump used that
Speaker 5: as a battering ram, and rightly so. I think Pierre
Speaker 5: this is going to be another bastion of his campaign
Speaker 5: against Trudeau because it goes without saying all the polls
Speaker 5: are already showing this is what the people want and
Speaker 5: which Canadians are going to be dumb enough to believe
Speaker 5: that the guy who created the problem is going to
Speaker 5: be the guy to fix it.
Speaker 4: Do you think we can put this down to the
Speaker 4: Trump effect a little bit?
Speaker 5: Perhaps? I mean Pierre has already been called very much
Speaker 5: a Trumpian figure. He's very famous for chewing on apples, bary,
Speaker 5: talking to reporters, questioning on their questioning them on their questions,
Speaker 5: getting them to trip all over themselves. So he's very
Speaker 5: much already seen as a very Trumpian figure. But again,
Speaker 5: I think this is and we've talked about across the
Speaker 5: EU as well. This is played out beautifully in the Netherlands,
Speaker 5: in Hungary, in poland all the parties that say we
Speaker 5: are running on an anti immigration policy because we've been
Speaker 5: flooded and we're absolutely sick of it. Those are the
Speaker 5: guys getting voted in.
Speaker 4: I just love the gas lighting by Justin Trudeau. I
Speaker 4: mean the way he sort of sits down in the chair.
Speaker 4: He's the guy who's just set fire to every house
Speaker 4: in the street and then he calls everyone together for
Speaker 4: a chat about fire safety. You know, it's just incredible
Speaker 4: that the front that he has. And of course if
Speaker 4: you criticized his immigration policy, you would denounced as a racist.
Speaker 4: And this is another thing that has a commonality right
Speaker 4: across the Western world. Remember it wasn't that long ago
Speaker 4: that our own Laura Tingle accused Peter Dutton of us
Speaker 4: stirring up racism by daring to suggest that high immigration
Speaker 4: was putting pressure on housing. And Laura Tingle imagined that
Speaker 4: people are going to go down to you know, bid
Speaker 4: on a home or apply for a rental, and they're
Speaker 4: going to see someone of a different skin color and
Speaker 4: automatically blame them for the fact that you can't dwelling
Speaker 4: in Sydney or wherever. And so we've been denounced as
Speaker 4: racists for pointing out what Justin Trudeau is now saying,
Speaker 4: or actually, we do have an issue, but don't worry.
Speaker 4: Having caused the problem, now you can trust me to fix.
Speaker 2: It, which would be to say that the majority of
Speaker 2: Canadians are racist. Now I'm sure true, don't may will
Speaker 2: believe that, and so people on the left would believe that.
Speaker 2: But all the polling does now show that the majority
Speaker 2: of Canadians believed immigration is too high. I'm generally willing
Speaker 2: to give politicians credit when they admit they get things wrong,
Speaker 2: but on this coount, I have to say that, like,
Speaker 2: it's the most obvious economic principle, supply and demand. What
Speaker 2: do you think is going to happen when you increase
Speaker 2: demand significantly when you don't have the supply to keep
Speaker 2: up with it. You end up with housing crises, You
Speaker 2: end up with cost of living crises.
Speaker 1: On and on it goes. You end up with a
Speaker 1: lower standard of living.
Speaker 2: Justin Trudeau, even the person with the lowest IQ on
Speaker 2: the planet, could work out the most basic stuff.
Speaker 3: Which that's justin true.
Speaker 2: I'll give you a little more credit than that, because
Speaker 2: he is a communist. You do need to a couple
Speaker 2: of branches to understand communism to begin with. But he
Speaker 2: should have been able to see this coming. Any Western
Speaker 2: leaders should have been able to see this coming. Anthony
Speaker 2: Alberanze should have been able to see this coming. The
Speaker 2: reason that Trudeau, like Albansi, jacked immigrant so much was
Speaker 2: to fudge the economic numbers because they know that if
Speaker 2: they didn't have such massive population growth in the last
Speaker 2: few years, they likely would have gone into recession. We've
Speaker 2: been in effective recession for a long time, but the
Speaker 2: numbers don't show we're in recession because we keep propping
Speaker 2: it up with the population figures.
Speaker 1: Right, and then he goes to an election. Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not popular. I'd better walk it all back. Good luck.
Speaker 4: I agree with everything he just said, except, you know,
Speaker 4: give him a bit of grace because maybe he's a
Speaker 4: politician who genuinely is admitting, you know what, we got
Speaker 4: it wrong.
Speaker 3: But that was a seid.
Speaker 5: Rudo right, genuinely admitting he got it wrong.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying it's a settle minute, and within ten
Speaker 4: seconds he's saying unscrupulous colleges, businesses taking advantage. I don't
Speaker 4: think he was really admitting much fault.
Speaker 5: Rather funny though, because for the longest time he's called
Speaker 5: everyone who opposed this mass immigration to Canada racist, So
Speaker 5: you got to ask yourself, does this make you a racist?
Speaker 5: Now you're amongst the people that you have opposed for
Speaker 5: so long. So we've got a suggestion here on the
Speaker 5: late debate tonight, does he want to pop over to
Speaker 5: Ireland because their racisms are Her name is doctor Ebon.
Speaker 5: She's running racism courses, anti racism courses at eighty seven
Speaker 5: percent off at the moment, bargain basement prices, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 5: Maybe we can sponsor him to go. Maybe Canadians would
Speaker 5: like to take that idea on board. Just in case
Speaker 5: you've forgotten who doctor Ebon is here, she is back
Speaker 5: in July explaining how Irish people need to be trained
Speaker 5: not to be racist, and essentially that's the job that
Speaker 5: she's beginning. Are there are no laws to protect people.
Speaker 5: People are brought into offices institutions that are not davers.
Speaker 8: So we've not done that walk, We've not trained people,
Speaker 8: and we can't expect our nation to be non racist
Speaker 8: if we have not any put people who've not trained.
Speaker 6: Them you know, how to be non racist.
Speaker 9: So those are key things and they are no loss
Speaker 9: to protect people, there are no consequences.
Speaker 5: Well, maybe it's just a case of Ireland is experiencing
Speaker 5: its highest immigration since two thousand and seven and the
Speaker 5: Irish sig of it. Isn't it a wonder that these
Speaker 5: Western countries, every single one of us, who are being
Speaker 5: flooded with mass immigration, are always constantly lectured on how
Speaker 5: racist we are. I mean, can you even back it
Speaker 5: up with any stories? Remember when we were asking the
Speaker 5: ABC who love to constantly bereat Australia and what a
Speaker 5: racist country we are, It's like, can you provide any
Speaker 5: proof to that whatsoever?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: Dr Ebon Joseph is herself Nigerian born, right, So she's
Speaker 2: gone over to Ireland where she has been successful enough
Speaker 2: to have an academic career. She's now been made the
Speaker 2: Special Rapporteur on Anti racism etc.
Speaker 1: So she's risen up.
Speaker 2: Quite well in that country and now complains that she
Speaker 2: and other people feel uncomfortable in Ireland.
Speaker 1: It's a very strange situation.
Speaker 2: Has lived there twenty two years and there you go
Speaker 2: and has done so badly that she is now in
Speaker 2: a top job and has to complain about the fact
Speaker 2: she's in the top job.
Speaker 1: But I love the fact that she is struggling so
Speaker 1: much to.
Speaker 2: Get people to buy into her anti racism causes that
Speaker 2: she has to reduce the cost by eighty seven percent,
Speaker 2: which I think just proves that.
Speaker 1: People aren't buying this nonsense. They know that it is nonsense.
Speaker 2: I mean, and she would think, as I'm sure a
Speaker 2: lot of other people would. And I highly recommend you
Speaker 2: watch the documentary Am I Racist? On the Daily Wire
Speaker 2: because it's about exactly this, right, you would think that
Speaker 2: there would be people lining up just waiting to go
Speaker 2: into these courses because they've got all this internalized racism
Speaker 2: and they go, fay, oh, We've got to fix the country.
Speaker 2: And because I'm white, I must automatically be racist, which
Speaker 2: is what she's suggesting by saying that you need to
Speaker 2: be taught to not be racist, as though we are
Speaker 2: innately racist in some manner. But people just don't want
Speaker 2: a bar of it. And it feels like the culture
Speaker 2: is starting to turn, whether it be in the US
Speaker 2: with Donald Trump or in Ireland with her having to
Speaker 2: drop the prizes by eighty seven percent, people are actually
Speaker 2: willing to stand up now and say, actually, no, We're
Speaker 2: not a racist country. We're not innately racist. We don't
Speaker 2: have to be taught not to be racist. We're not
Speaker 2: going to literally buy into this crap anymore.
Speaker 4: Well, Leslie said, the suggestion that the Irish need to
Speaker 4: be trained not to be racist is itself a pretty
Speaker 4: racist suggestion. And not only is it racist, but it's
Speaker 4: highly offensive that they need to be trained like dogs,
Speaker 4: that somehow they need to be reprogrammed. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 4: do you reckon there's a white irishman in Abajar in
Speaker 4: Nigeria training Nigerians not to be racist.
Speaker 3: Somehow this only ever works one way.
Speaker 4: But of course, Caleb, as you pointed out, this woman
Speaker 4: has been very, very successful, and she's been successful talking
Speaker 4: about race, and so you know, for many people in
Speaker 4: this area, there's a certain conflict of interest where they
Speaker 4: are adamant that racism is a massive problem, we need training. Well,
Speaker 4: who should the government give millions of dollars to train
Speaker 4: people not to be racist? Well, it just so happens
Speaker 4: the people calling out racism also provide the training material.
Speaker 4: This particular woman has argued that the entire Irish education
Speaker 4: system needs to be overhauled and the curriculum completely rewritten
Speaker 4: from year one right through to the end of school.
Speaker 3: And I suppose that you know, well, she runs a director.
Speaker 4: She's the director of the Institute of Anti Racism where
Speaker 4: they provide training for individuals, corporate institutions and NGOs to
Speaker 4: manage different so you can start train. If it's a bargain,
Speaker 4: we'll train everybody. And if you're training everybody, eighty seven
Speaker 4: percent off will still make you a lot of money. Now,
Speaker 4: I don't know if she's doing that, but I'm just saying,
Speaker 4: isn't it always interesting how the people pointing these things
Speaker 4: out also provide the training to make it better.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: And Ireland is clearly such a racist country that, as
Speaker 2: you can see here in this footage, large groups of
Speaker 2: Muslims can literally hold up the footpath to pray and
Speaker 2: no one tells them to stop doing it.
Speaker 1: What a terribly racist country it is. People need to
Speaker 1: be taught not to be racist.
Speaker 4: Well, that's evidence that the Irish have been successfully taught to.
Speaker 1: Just everything tolerance, everything's as well.
Speaker 2: We're around the doctor has been totally successful. While we're
Speaker 2: talking about big problems and the government telling you what
Speaker 2: you should or should not be able to do and
Speaker 2: should or should not be able to think. It seems
Speaker 2: with every passing day that the social media age restrictions
Speaker 2: that the government wants to.
Speaker 1: Push through by the end of the year.
Speaker 2: There's only one more sitting week left to go after
Speaker 2: this week in Parliament. They want to ram this thing
Speaker 2: through before Christmas because the Albanezi government is desperate for
Speaker 2: some piece of successful policy to take to the next
Speaker 2: federal election. I mean, they can literally point to nothing
Speaker 2: at the moment. The biggest thing they had with the
Speaker 2: Voice that was a failure. The only other thing they
Speaker 2: can really point to is that inflation has gone down.
Speaker 2: But have you seen that cause any change and your
Speaker 2: power bills or your wages or anything.
Speaker 1: Your grocery bills.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: They've got literally nothing to sell.
Speaker 2: So they're trying to get this done as quickly as possible,
Speaker 2: but the number of people and the groups mounting against
Speaker 2: this is growing. Even the Wiggles now say that they're
Speaker 2: concerned about age restrictions on social media because, of course
Speaker 2: we learned a week or two ago that one of
Speaker 2: the outlets that would be included in all of this
Speaker 2: is YouTube, and the Wiggles are saying, well, hang on
Speaker 2: a minute. If kids can't go on YouTube and you know,
Speaker 2: watch things like the Wiggles, then where are they going
Speaker 2: to be going to watch content? They'll be going off
Speaker 2: into the big, big, bad, unregulated world of the Internet, presumably.
Speaker 1: Now there's plenty of other questions as well about how
Speaker 1: age verification etc.
Speaker 3: Would work.
Speaker 2: Sarah Hanson young, and I mean I'm loath to give
Speaker 2: her any praise, but she was part of the committee
Speaker 2: that originally looked into the issues of young people and
Speaker 2: social media, the Parliamentary committee that is, and she said, look,
Speaker 2: we never actually recommended that there be age restrictions.
Speaker 10: I want to point out very clearly here that the
Speaker 10: most interesting thing about this final report is what is
Speaker 10: not in the recommendations, and what is not in the
Speaker 10: recommendations is a blunt ban age ban on social media.
Speaker 10: That's not what we recommended. But not one recommendation in
Speaker 10: this final report says a blunt ban on young people
Speaker 10: on social media is a good idea. We listened to
Speaker 10: the experts, and the experts view is it's not. The
Speaker 10: experts view is that this isn't how you do it.
Speaker 2: Now, as I've said before, I'm sympathetic to the idea
Speaker 2: of children not being able to use social media. We
Speaker 2: know the harms that social media caused to children, but
Speaker 2: we've known those harms for a long time, so there
Speaker 2: is no need to rush this legislation through as the
Speaker 2: Government wants to do. And because they are rushing it
Speaker 2: so fast and there are so many damn holes in
Speaker 2: this thing. We don't know how it's going to operate.
Speaker 2: We don't know whether YouTube will be included or not.
Speaker 2: We don't know, as Michelle Roll and the Communications Minister
Speaker 2: said last week, whether Snapchat would be included or not,
Speaker 2: and we don't know how the age verification.
Speaker 1: System would work.
Speaker 2: Senator Malcolm Roberts has pointed out well the Digital ID
Speaker 2: Bill was passed earlier this year. That is one of
Speaker 2: the potential ways that could be used to force people
Speaker 2: to say what their age is and that would mean
Speaker 2: not only children being subjected to age verification but all
Speaker 2: of us and perhaps at some point that could be
Speaker 2: linked to a government owned and digital ID that has
Speaker 2: literally everything attached to it.
Speaker 11: Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians the Digital ID was
Speaker 11: not compulsory, yet without it life will be impossible. The
Speaker 11: Digital ID started life under the Morrison Liberal government. As
Speaker 11: recently as April, Opposition Leader Peter Dudden championed the Misinformation
Speaker 11: and Disinformation Bill and the Liberals support social media age verification.
Speaker 3: Age verification means.
Speaker 11: The government forcing digital ID on everyone paired with frequent
Speaker 11: facial scans from the camera on your device. Mandating digital
Speaker 11: IDA is an unacceptable infringement on personal sovereignty. The government
Speaker 11: running the scheme and having all your data in real
Speaker 11: time is absolutely terrifying.
Speaker 1: And echoing the concerns of the Wiggles.
Speaker 2: Senator Alexandrik from the Great State of South Australia, I
Speaker 2: must mention that points out if the government says okay,
Speaker 2: well kids can't use YouTube, does that eventually mean that
Speaker 2: there are approved sources of information the children are given
Speaker 2: to use online?
Speaker 1: Could they be government controlled?
Speaker 12: Immediately, we've gone from talking about a law protecting children
Speaker 12: under sixteen from online harm to proposals potentially requiring all
Speaker 12: Australians to submit personal identification as a condition of using
Speaker 12: social media. This is how concerns over safety, in this
Speaker 12: case children's safety, convince people to hand over their freedom
Speaker 12: to hand over their personal information. And of course this
Speaker 12: has nothing to do with the fact that a generation
Speaker 12: of young people are starting to unpick the lies of
Speaker 12: the corporate media. What a great way to ensure that
Speaker 12: young people only get a left wing government message approved
Speaker 12: to them via their devices.
Speaker 2: Now I could have also claimed Sarah Hanson Young as
Speaker 2: a South Australian, but I just try.
Speaker 5: To notice that I noticed that.
Speaker 2: I don't normally talk about exactly how I vote, but
Speaker 2: I will proudly say that in the twenty nineteen federal election,
Speaker 2: when I still lived in Adelaide, below the line on
Speaker 2: the Senate paper, I've very happily put Sarah Hanson Young last.
Speaker 2: But they have rushed this piece of this bill, which
Speaker 2: will eventually presumably become legislation because it has the support
Speaker 2: of the opposition.
Speaker 1: So fast.
Speaker 2: We don't know how any of it is actually going
Speaker 2: to work. There are holes in this thing that you
Speaker 2: could drive a truck through.
Speaker 4: You've got to give the government some credit here. I mean,
Speaker 4: they have done something I never imagined possible. They have
Speaker 4: managed to unite the Wiggles, the Greens, One Nation and
Speaker 4: alex Antika Liberal senator all singing from the same hymn
Speaker 4: book that this is a terrible piece of legislation, and
Speaker 4: it's so bad that I mean, my understanding is under
Speaker 4: sixteens won't be able to have social media accounts.
Speaker 3: But YouTube is not social media.
Speaker 4: YouTube is essentially a video platform, a streaming platform, which
Speaker 4: is the Wiggles point. It just shows how badly thought
Speaker 4: through this legislation is. Whichever way you look at it,
Speaker 4: whether it's from how it will be implemented, what it
Speaker 4: will and won't include, what it means for children's education,
Speaker 4: from every angle, it's just bad.
Speaker 5: And we don't know, which is why we've got this
Speaker 5: meta questions. We don't know that it is just the
Speaker 5: social media accounts. If you're saying these kids should not have, say,
Speaker 5: Internet access at all from this age, that's where the
Speaker 5: ID comes in and that's where we're David Shubridge the
Speaker 5: other day got out of the committee in outright admittance. Yes,
Speaker 5: by virtue of testing whether you're under the age of sixteen,
Speaker 5: we're also checking that you are over the age of sixteen,
Speaker 5: because everyone, whatever this loophole is, whatever this hurdle is
Speaker 5: that you have to cross in order to access different
Speaker 5: parts of the Internet or the Internet at large, you
Speaker 5: can be assured if it starts just different parts of
Speaker 5: the Internet that would spend you'd need to use this
Speaker 5: digitally I D to age verification, and then what data
Speaker 5: are they collecting on you? Which is why I took
Speaker 5: great umbrage to Peter Dutton today trying to explain to people, oh, no,
Speaker 5: Combating Misinformation and Disinformation bill, and this all about protecting children,
Speaker 5: which it is not about that at all, as Senator
Speaker 5: Antik and the others just explained to you. Sarah Hanson
Speaker 5: Young literally just told you this wasn't even recommended in
Speaker 5: the big review report that they did. But here's Peter
Speaker 5: Dutton saying people are confusing these two things and they're
Speaker 5: totally unrelated and nothing to worry about here.
Speaker 13: The Coalition strongly supports age limits for social media and verification,
Speaker 13: which also protects privacy. The legislation regarding age limits for
Speaker 13: social media is completely separate to the legislation on misinformation
Speaker 13: and disinformation and it's important not to conflate entirely different
Speaker 13: issues of keeping our kids safe online and freedom of speech.
Speaker 5: But it's not entirely different, is it. Because if we
Speaker 5: have to use some sort of ID to access our
Speaker 5: social networks, then what are you doing when misinformation Disinformation
Speaker 5: Bill comes into play. You know exactly where I live,
Speaker 5: you know exactly who I am. No one can use
Speaker 5: these anonymous acronyms and different weird names that a lot
Speaker 5: of conservatives have taken to using because after the last
Speaker 5: few years, certainly before Elon mustokover X, they were being
Speaker 5: toss left, right and center off platforms, so they started
Speaker 5: to use just anonymous names, anonymous identities so that they
Speaker 5: could push out conservative content. They would still be thrown off,
Speaker 5: And many of those accounts are on like number thirteen,
Speaker 5: number fourteen, and just kept creating another account as the
Speaker 5: last one was gotten rid of. But to say that, oh,
Speaker 5: there's no connection between these two, there's no crossover, is
Speaker 5: completely disingenuous and completely untrue, because if you've got to
Speaker 5: verify that you are over sixteen to log into your Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 5: whatever the platform may be, they then have everything you've
Speaker 5: ever written for years and years and years, anything you've
Speaker 5: ever hit, like on any private messages that you've ever said,
Speaker 5: and they know sent and they know exactly who you are,
Speaker 5: where you are, where you work, etc. And so on,
Speaker 5: because it will all be connected to your digital idea.
Speaker 4: It's a strange kind of night on the Late Debate
Speaker 4: because we're giving shout outs to Sarah Hanson Young, We're
Speaker 4: giving shout.
Speaker 3: Outs to David Shubridge.
Speaker 4: So I reckon, let's just keep going and give a
Speaker 4: shout out to who should we do next?
Speaker 3: Lydia Thorpe. Yeah, go on, well Thorpe.
Speaker 4: She announced today on Twitter that she will not be
Speaker 4: supporting the government's Misinformation Bill. She tweeted, after speaking with
Speaker 4: a range of stakeholders and hearing from many community members,
Speaker 4: I've decided to oppose the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. More
Speaker 4: needs to be done to tackle these problems, but this
Speaker 4: bill is not the answer. Here is Lydia Thorpe in
Speaker 4: all her glory speaking on this topic.
Speaker 9: The Misinformation Bill, for example, I won't be supporting that.
Speaker 9: I've been talking to community members and stakeholders. Black and
Speaker 9: brown people could be demonized as part of that process
Speaker 9: or the devil in the detail in these pieces of
Speaker 9: legislation that I'm digging into and negotiating with the government
Speaker 9: to either fix it or I won't support it.
Speaker 5: So there you go.
Speaker 4: I think it's the first time on the Late Debate
Speaker 4: A special shout out to Liday is unbelievable.
Speaker 5: Hell has frozen over.
Speaker 4: She won on to talk about the fact that you know,
Speaker 4: she wants to be able to talk about Gaza and
Speaker 4: colonization and Indigenous rights without being shut down. And we
Speaker 4: would all agree there are issues that we disagree with
Speaker 4: her passionately on, but we would absolutely advocate for her
Speaker 4: right to speak what she believes about those issues. The
Speaker 4: only problem with Lydia Thorpe's stance against the Misinformation Bill.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you heard her explanation, but she
Speaker 4: said the bill's reliance on white dominated institutions to regulate
Speaker 4: what constitutes truth will be a problem, which leaves open
Speaker 4: the possibility that if there were perhaps First Nations people regulating,
Speaker 4: that would be okay. She also said the problem with AKMA,
Speaker 4: which will be the organization making these adjudications lacks First
Speaker 4: Nations advisors and that's.
Speaker 3: Why it's not fit to regulate contents.
Speaker 4: And now, Caleb, I'm thinking, should we take back the
Speaker 4: shout out or should we just exist?
Speaker 5: No, for once, I don't care about her reasons. This
Speaker 5: is really significant, right because without Lydia Thorpe saying yes,
Speaker 5: I'm going to oppose this bill, we did have thirty
Speaker 5: eight in the Senate who had committed to voting it down.
Speaker 5: But that's only enough to block the bill. Now, with
Speaker 5: Lydia Thorpe, we have thirty nine and that is enough
Speaker 5: as long as they all stay true to their word
Speaker 5: to vote this thing down. What remains Jane's harrowing is
Speaker 5: it only by one vote. We're going to be saved
Speaker 5: by a Lydia Thorpe, and we're going to be saved
Speaker 5: by this Dystovian future where nobody really has freedom of
Speaker 5: speech online, or we're looking at a future like the
Speaker 5: UK has where people are being arrested for these nonviolent
Speaker 5: hate crimes for writing a comment on their Facebook, some
Speaker 5: being sent to jail for said of fends. We've dodged
Speaker 5: that by one vote. Like I always say, in these circumstances,
Speaker 5: the government. Even if you've dodged the bullet, the government
Speaker 5: has shown its hand. It's told you what it wants
Speaker 5: in its own ideal world, and we'd be stupid. Yes,
Speaker 5: Bree the sigh of relief if we actually pull this off,
Speaker 5: but never forget what they tried to pull off.
Speaker 2: Thank God for Lydia thought pay. But you see, she's
Speaker 2: got concerns about Akma. She'd rather Blackmer was deciding what.
Speaker 1: You can day online.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: In the US, the Pentagon, as you would know, is
Speaker 2: the department that basically runs defense.
Speaker 1: It has a.
Speaker 2: Massive budget, almost a trillion US dollars to be precise,
Speaker 2: it's eight hundred and twenty.
Speaker 1: Four billion US dollars is in their budget.
Speaker 2: And for these seventh times straight, they have failed an
Speaker 2: audit of their finances because would you believe it, they
Speaker 2: don't actually know where all of this money has gone.
Speaker 2: Is it any wonder that Donald Trump has set up
Speaker 2: the DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, to clean all
Speaker 2: this nonsense up. I mean, for heaven's sake, you would
Speaker 2: think the most basic job of a government department would
Speaker 2: be to know where it's spending the money that it
Speaker 2: compulsorily takes from you in taxes to do things with.
Speaker 1: No, they don't know that.
Speaker 2: John Stewart, who of course is a late night host
Speaker 2: over in the US, sat down with Kathleen Hinks, who's
Speaker 2: the tippity Secretary of Defense and has to very calmly
Speaker 2: and methodically, well, if you don't know where the money
Speaker 2: is going, isn't that a problem, And she bizarrely said
Speaker 2: not at.
Speaker 14: All when audit is exactly what you just described, which is,
Speaker 14: do I know what was delivered to which place? The
Speaker 14: ability to pass an audit or in the fact that
Speaker 14: the DD has not passing on it is not suggestive
Speaker 14: of waste fraud abuse. Now is a question of it's
Speaker 14: suggestive that we can't we don't have an accurate inventory
Speaker 14: that we can pull up of what we have where.
Speaker 5: My world, Yeah, that's waste. How is that waste? If
Speaker 5: I give you a billion dollars and you can't tell
Speaker 5: me what happened to it, that to me is wasteful.
Speaker 5: That that means you are not necessary responsible. But if
Speaker 5: you can't tell me where it went, then what am
Speaker 5: I supposed to think?
Speaker 1: I mean, look at hinks there.
Speaker 5: He says.
Speaker 2: If I give you a billion dollars and I don't
Speaker 2: know how you've spent it, that's what And she got, oh,
Speaker 2: what a stupid suggestion. This is how they operate in
Speaker 2: GAV No wonder. Trump has sent in Elon Musk and
Speaker 2: vivig Ramaswami to clean this stuff up.
Speaker 15: The Pentagon has just failed it's seventh consecutive audit, nearly
Speaker 15: a trillion dollars of budget they can't even tell you
Speaker 15: where it goes.
Speaker 1: So I think part of this is exposing for.
Speaker 15: The public the extent of that right and waste, but
Speaker 15: then to take steps first through executive action and then
Speaker 15: laying the groundwork for broader chains through legislation as well,
Speaker 15: to rein in that deficit, to reign in that budget,
Speaker 15: and more crucially, Marie, I know we're talking about this
Speaker 15: in terms of efficiency, but there's something deeper going on here.
Speaker 15: This is about restoring self governance and accountability in America
Speaker 15: as well.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just so emblematic of the deep disdain
Speaker 2: that government has for tax payers and the deeply entrenched
Speaker 2: arrogance within bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: That they fail the seventh Audit straight.
Speaker 2: They literally don't know where all of that trillion old dollars.
Speaker 1: Has been spent. They can't account for it.
Speaker 2: The auditors actually couldn't form an opinion of the numbers
Speaker 2: they were looking at because they weren't given the full numbers.
Speaker 2: And they go, oh, well, that's no problem. Do you
Speaker 2: think there is any business anywhere in the world that
Speaker 2: would operate like that and the CEO wouldn't get the
Speaker 2: sack tomorrow.
Speaker 4: This is making me feel so much better about myself
Speaker 4: because I get really down on myself because I can't
Speaker 4: find my socks. US Defense Department are rangingly relevant. A
Speaker 4: trillion dollars they can't find, No, is.
Speaker 5: It not a trillion? To be clear, this is the
Speaker 5: seventh that they failed brillions. It's well over six trillion
Speaker 5: because this eight hundred and twenty four billion dollar that's
Speaker 5: just for the year to date. But this is the
Speaker 5: seventh that they've failed. So we're talking well over six
Speaker 5: trillion now that they're just saying, I can't really tell
Speaker 5: you what the.
Speaker 4: Good news is though that they believe that by twenty
Speaker 4: twenty eight, they're auditing processes will be good.
Speaker 3: And they'll know where all this money is.
Speaker 4: So I've only got to wait one of the other
Speaker 4: three four years and it'll all be suite.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 4: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 4: including Sydney Side is about to be massively disrupted by
Speaker 4: a train strike as the union seeks a thirty two
Speaker 4: percent pay rise.
Speaker 3: That's coming up in this moment.
Speaker 4: Okay, let's take a look at what's making news in
Speaker 4: tomorrow's papers. Will start with the Daily Telegraph and I
Speaker 4: reckon there'll be a lot of Sydney siders waking up
Speaker 4: to read this headline tomorrow, very very unhappy Union dictators
Speaker 4: to cause shock three day shutdown. The headline reads train wreck.
Speaker 4: Rail union dictators are set to bring Sydney to a
Speaker 4: devastating halt over three days this weekend as they try
Speaker 4: to force the men's government into a thirty two percent
Speaker 4: pay rise now they want that over four years, as
Speaker 4: well as reduced weekly working hours for those operating trains.
Speaker 4: They will start this strike Thursday night and continue it
Speaker 4: through until Sunday morning, with warnings there could be more
Speaker 4: industrial action midweek after Sunday. This is going to shut
Speaker 4: down the entire train system.
Speaker 3: There's a massive concert.
Speaker 4: I forget who's playing this weekend, but there's a big
Speaker 4: concert in Sydney this weekend as well that people would
Speaker 4: have been relying upon trains to get to not to
Speaker 4: mention people who just want to get to work. So
Speaker 4: this is going to be hugely disruptive and not good
Speaker 4: for the labor government.
Speaker 5: Well, it's certainly not going to get any Sydney siders
Speaker 5: on board with the union's plans, but it is always
Speaker 5: remarkable when this happens. We've seen nurses walk off the
Speaker 5: jobs and you're thinking of everyone sitting at home waiting
Speaker 5: for their surgeries or people in hospital beds. Are they
Speaker 5: being fed? When the unions really get the governments by
Speaker 5: the scruff of the neck and show us all, remind
Speaker 5: us all who's actually running transit in New South Wales,
Speaker 5: it actually ain't the government and these guys when they
Speaker 5: walk off, there's no boots left on the ground, no
Speaker 5: one's running the trains, which means hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 5: Sydney Siders aren't going anywhere for days. There is no
Speaker 5: quantifying the upheaval this is going to cause, and whether
Speaker 5: it brings the government to heal or not, only time
Speaker 5: can tell. But they knew that this threat was on
Speaker 5: the table when they're refused to take the deal.
Speaker 2: So and this is like the union obviously deserves criticism
Speaker 2: for what they are doing here, but the state government
Speaker 2: deserves criticism as well because the state government is ultimately
Speaker 2: responsible for those trains running. They knew this was coming.
Speaker 2: They have failed in these negotiations and.
Speaker 1: Now they are the one.
Speaker 2: It's actually the state government that will shut down the
Speaker 2: train services over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Because this what are they supposed to do?
Speaker 5: Then just capitulate, photomage what they have to do.
Speaker 1: They should do something something.
Speaker 2: I mean, these negotiations sure are protracted because of disagreements
Speaker 2: between the state government and the union, but the government
Speaker 2: drags the heels on this stuff too.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're blameless in this situa.
Speaker 4: They can't give an effectively, what's an eight percent per
Speaker 4: year for the next four years thirty two percent pay rise?
Speaker 4: Otherwise you know, first thing after that, we'll be sitting
Speaker 4: here criticizing them In's government saying how could they do that?
Speaker 4: They're just keeping inflation high, et cetera, et cetera, so
Speaker 4: they can't capitulate. The problem is they've given such high
Speaker 4: pay rises to other areas nurses, et cetera, that they've
Speaker 4: got themselves stuck.
Speaker 2: Of course, but I don't know, find another way, go
Speaker 2: off to court to stop it. I mean, there are
Speaker 2: rules around industrial action and what isn't isn't allowed. I mean,
Speaker 2: surely if you are disrupting public services so thoroughly, there
Speaker 2: must be some way to stop this kind of thing.
Speaker 2: It's the same with the nurses. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: nurses walking off the job. Yeah, even though you may
Speaker 2: have a dispute with the state government, there is also
Speaker 2: a level of responsibility to provide a service.
Speaker 1: Within all of that.
Speaker 2: Surely there is something that can be done about this
Speaker 2: on the state government.
Speaker 5: See think so they're all still on the payroll.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Tread to sack them.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't care what they do. Just
Speaker 2: get the trains bloody round.
Speaker 3: You know who's going to be most upset about this.
Speaker 4: That's climate protesters because they're going to be like, stop
Speaker 4: the trains, authority stopped.
Speaker 5: Really, I thought they'd be thrilled. Less emissions for three days.
Speaker 5: Stick that feather in your cap.
Speaker 1: The more those are in the cars.
Speaker 5: Potentially potentially a lot of people live too far out
Speaker 5: and certainly wouldn't drive into the CBD, say if they're
Speaker 5: trying to get to work or whatever, because there's nowhere
Speaker 5: to park, unless you're willing to debate a million bucks
Speaker 5: an hour in Sydney CBD to the front splash of
Speaker 5: the Australia now Bowen's new clear cop out love the
Speaker 5: play on words there. The Albanezy government has been forced
Speaker 5: to defend quote outlawing end quote nuclear Energy and faced
Speaker 5: accusations of being in quote international embarrassment end quote after
Speaker 5: rejecting an invitation from its orchist security packed partners to
Speaker 5: join a global move to speed up the spread of
Speaker 5: civilian nuclear energy at the COP twenty nine climate change
Speaker 5: talks in Baku, Energy minist Chris Bowen rebuffed an appeal
Speaker 5: from the uick K and the US to sign the
Speaker 5: nuclear agreement aimed at decarbonizing industry from March next year.
Speaker 5: This is just getting more and more embarrassing. This is
Speaker 5: the most important military alliance we have right now. Our
Speaker 5: too much bigger, much more military might partners the UK
Speaker 5: and the US are like, please please just sign up
Speaker 5: to this, and our Energy Minister Chris bow And embarrassing
Speaker 5: us once again on the world stage. Because the point
Speaker 5: of the matter is he can't backtrack now. Kenny has
Speaker 5: been insulting Dutton for as long as I can remember
Speaker 5: on the New Clear Plan, saying we don't need that.
Speaker 5: We're all good with our green dream. We have a road,
Speaker 5: we have a plan. This is the way of the future.
Speaker 5: So now he's just got to keep stringing that banjo, doesn't.
Speaker 2: He And his excuse for this is well a nuclear
Speaker 2: energy is banned in Australia, so therefore it is of
Speaker 2: no interest or relevance to us. I hate to tell you,
Speaker 2: blackout Bowen, you could change that, but you you could
Speaker 2: change that is banned because it is banned at the
Speaker 2: federal level.
Speaker 1: Your government could reverse that too, but he won't do.
Speaker 2: That because he's scared that nuclear energy might actually work.
Speaker 2: And imagine if nuclear energy worked in this country, it
Speaker 2: would put to bit all the nonsense that we've gone
Speaker 2: through with renewable energy, which you learned about at eight
Speaker 2: pm tonight thanks to Chris Ulman's excellent documentary which you
Speaker 2: can watch on liin skarn News dot com dot au.
Speaker 2: It would put all of that to bed. And we
Speaker 2: know what a sham it's all been. They don't want
Speaker 2: to admit that they could have got things wrong.
Speaker 4: The other bit of rankocracy here is do you remember
Speaker 4: when Australia changed its vote regarding Palestine just the other
Speaker 4: day and Penny Wong explained it thus she said, well,
Speaker 4: all these other countries are going that way, so we
Speaker 4: are just joining with the rest of the world. When
Speaker 4: we had the vote on the voice, we were told
Speaker 4: we must vote yes, otherwise the rest of the world
Speaker 4: will be laughing at us. But here we come to
Speaker 4: pretty simple commitments to nuclear power, where there's I think
Speaker 4: thirty one major nations are all committing to triple the
Speaker 4: amount of power they generate from nuclear and suddenly the
Speaker 4: government isn't concerned about being on the outer no, no,
Speaker 4: being in the minority. Suddenly, okay, well you can't have
Speaker 4: it both ways. You can't argue we've made this decision
Speaker 4: because we want to be part of the international community,
Speaker 4: and then on another issue say, oh no, no, we
Speaker 4: don't need to be part of the community.
Speaker 3: It's just hypocrisy.
Speaker 5: To the second splash on the front of the oars,
Speaker 5: coupled with this beautiful photo of Albo grinning from it
Speaker 5: to air between kir Starmer of the UK and Jijingping
Speaker 5: of China, the head reads z PM taut best relations
Speaker 5: in decade. Jijinping is pushing Anthony Albanesi to fight against
Speaker 5: protectionism in the wake of Donald Trump's pledge to impose
Speaker 5: sixty percent tariffs on Chinese imports. What a boss. As
Speaker 5: the leaders declared, China Australia relations had returned to levels
Speaker 5: not observed since the twenty fourteen Free Trade agreement. So
Speaker 5: here they are playing besties, both thumbing their noses at
Speaker 5: Trump saying, well, not go your way. We're going to
Speaker 5: be Romaine besties. There's no sixty percent tariffs here. I mean,
Speaker 5: it's it's totally expected, isn't it. But at the same time,
Speaker 5: who wouldn't rather a terrombian figure being like, we're not
Speaker 5: taking your crap anymore. We're not going to be as
Speaker 5: reliant on China as we have been, and we're going
Speaker 5: to push back a little.
Speaker 2: But Gen needs, you know, in a tech dog to
Speaker 2: go and take up the fight to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So he tapped Anthony Albert easy on the shoulder.
Speaker 6: Is very young of all the people, Oh yeah, handsome boy.
Speaker 4: The amazing thing about the front page of Tomorrow's Australian
Speaker 4: is could you imagine a photograph where the leader of
Speaker 4: the UK and Australia are so happy beside Donald Trump?
Speaker 4: You can't, but there's a photo of them beside the
Speaker 4: leader of the major commonest nation in the world or
Speaker 4: looking very chummy. What a time to be alive. We're
Speaker 4: going to go to a break when we come back.
Speaker 4: Every parent's nightmare a brown snake in her toddler's bedroom,
Speaker 4: and then worse on the beach in Western Australia.
Speaker 3: That's coming up in a moment.
Speaker 4: I reckon all those Democrat voters in the US saying
Speaker 4: they're going to leave America and move to Australia. Now
Speaker 4: Trump is president, will be thinking again after they see
Speaker 4: some of these clips, because no.
Speaker 3: One likes snakes.
Speaker 4: Renee Pallister from Old June Out near Woggle Wogger went
Speaker 4: into her four year old daughter's bedroom the other day
Speaker 4: and found this right beside her daughter's bed.
Speaker 3: Have a look at the vision.
Speaker 8: Not exactly what you.
Speaker 2: Want to find in your baby's room when you come home.
Speaker 8: It's quite a long snake.
Speaker 2: We're going to try and get a capture to come
Speaker 2: and relocate it because yeah, okay great.
Speaker 4: Fortunately she found the snake before her daughter went into
Speaker 4: the bedroom. But this next clip gives me the shivers.
Speaker 4: This is on a beach in Cougie in Perth. Have
Speaker 4: a look at this snake just crawling casually along the sand.
Speaker 3: Beach goer is completely unaware.
Speaker 16: Straysuls of water all the water that's around oursand.
Speaker 4: I just can't get over. People are just casually lying
Speaker 4: on the beach. They've got their beach gear set up,
Speaker 4: not knowing that this snake is coming straight towards them. Like,
Speaker 4: I don't get the cool music to that, because that
Speaker 4: does not cause me any relaxation.
Speaker 1: See me to tramps over.
Speaker 5: Favorite moment from cop to date if you can have
Speaker 5: a favorite moment for such a shin dig. All the
Speaker 5: world leaders grabbed together for their monumental the group we
Speaker 5: are Running the World photo, and it wasn't until they
Speaker 5: disbanded that someone realized, where's Biden your where are they.
Speaker 14: Tell Biden on the week for Biden guys, Oh my god.
Speaker 5: Trudelon the Grandpa's already an.
Speaker 2: Afterthought indeed, And speaking of US politics, I'm normally more
Speaker 2: of a classic FM man, but have had this guy.
Speaker 2: Andre and Tunes has put the best of the reactions
Speaker 2: to Trump's election to heavy Metal with.
Speaker 8: You, with You and your Sister.
Speaker 2: That may well be the only time in my life
Speaker 2: I say heavy metal is a work of art.
Speaker 3: I gotta say I quite liked that. That's it. From
Speaker 3: Us to the Ground.
Speaker 4: Coming up is the readA Pennety show, Good Night