Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Debase.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.
Speaker 4: I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and freyer Leitch coming
Speaker 4: up tonight. Our dope of the day A bloke tries
Speaker 4: to set fire to a restaurant in Melbourne and only
Speaker 4: succeeds in setting fire to himself.
Speaker 3: Will show you that later.
Speaker 4: Plus, when we look at what's making news tomorrow, the
Speaker 4: Coalition announce their shadow Cabinet and Victoria's machete Band results
Speaker 4: in skyrotting, skyrocketing sales of machetes.
Speaker 3: Who would have thought we'll get to all of that shortly.
Speaker 4: But first, we live in a time where there are
Speaker 4: wars and rumors of wars, and the latest rumor is
Speaker 4: that Israel will soon attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The Israelis
Speaker 4: believe that Iran, if they choose, could develop a nuclear
Speaker 4: warhead within about a week. The Israelis also believe that
Speaker 4: with Iran's air defense system currently in disrepair, there now
Speaker 4: exists a window of opportunity to attack those nuclear facilities successfully.
Speaker 4: But Donald Trump, who's involved in talks with Iran at
Speaker 4: the moment, has asked the Israelis to.
Speaker 3: If you will cool their jets.
Speaker 4: In the Israel Times newspaper, it's said that officials report
Speaker 4: Trump's message to Benjamin Netan Yahoo is that he doesn't
Speaker 4: want him to antagonize Iran at a time when Trump
Speaker 4: himself is trying to solve problems, and while he's keeping
Speaker 4: the other option, that is an attack open. Trump wants
Speaker 4: to give a chance to diplomatic talks before Benjamin Netan
Speaker 4: Yahoo embarks on a military campaign. So the question becomes
Speaker 4: talks or bombs Caleb, which one.
Speaker 2: Well, I think talks in the first instance would be
Speaker 2: the right thing to do. And of course Trump was
Speaker 2: talking about this in read a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 2: that he feels that the interventionist policy of previous administrations
Speaker 2: has not worked. And I don't think you can argue
Speaker 2: with that. I mean, I would defy anyone to tell
Speaker 2: a single instance of the US interfering in the Middle
Speaker 2: East that has actually worked. We can go through Libya,
Speaker 2: we can go through Iraq, we can go through Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: on and on you can go. It has never ever worked.
Speaker 2: So Trump said, look, on the basis of that, I'm
Speaker 2: going to give something else to go. I want to
Speaker 2: have talks with Iran to see if we can do anything.
Speaker 2: This is him talking about exactly this just a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks ago, and reate.
Speaker 3: I want to make a deal with Iran.
Speaker 5: If they can make a deal with Iran, I'll be
Speaker 5: very happy if we're going to make your region and
Speaker 5: the world a safer place. But if Iran's leadership rejects
Speaker 5: this alive branch and continues to attack their neighbors, then
Speaker 5: we will have no choice but to inflect massive maximum
Speaker 5: pressure drive Iranian oil exports to zero, like I did before.
Speaker 2: Now. Of course, the background to this is that there
Speaker 2: was a nuclear deal done with Iran in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: and Trump pulled out of that in twenty sixteen because
Speaker 2: he thought it was a bad deal, that it gave
Speaker 2: too much leeway to Iran. So he pulled out and
Speaker 2: put sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions were quite successful.
Speaker 2: It has to be said. Then along comes Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: He basically undoes all of it, gives hundreds of billions
Speaker 2: of dollars to Iran, which they then promptly go and
Speaker 2: give to their mates the hooties and etc. And we've
Speaker 2: seen what the result was of that. So Trump has said, look,
Speaker 2: I will try and negotiate my own deal, and if
Speaker 2: you don't come to the table, I'll go hell for
Speaker 2: leather against you. He wrote to the Iatola in March
Speaker 2: and said, you come and talk to me and we
Speaker 2: strike a deal, or I'll get my military onto you.
Speaker 2: So he's very clear about where he's going. He's not
Speaker 2: ruling out military intervention. He's simply saying, let's try a
Speaker 2: way of doing this first that doesn't involve guns and bombs.
Speaker 2: And I think he's right to do so.
Speaker 6: It's a nice idea to assume that we can negotiate
Speaker 6: with all countries and that we somehow share a set
Speaker 6: of values and common interests that mean can strike a deal.
Speaker 6: But I just don't think this is realistic at all.
Speaker 6: As you mentioned, there have been previous attempts and in fact,
Speaker 6: previous nuclear deals with Iran, and they have all failed
Speaker 6: because they benefit Iran lifting sanctions and then guess what,
Speaker 6: they just go ahead and keep enriching uranium.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 6: They're now enriching uranium at a sixty percent purity, which
Speaker 6: is almost weapons great, and there is genuine reason to
Speaker 6: believe that that's a possibility, and that would present an
Speaker 6: existential threat to Israel. And I think the other challenge
Speaker 6: here for Trump is he came in on this peace
Speaker 6: through strength doctrine, which is essentially deterrence, right, But deterrence
Speaker 6: relies on the enemy knowing that at some point you
Speaker 6: might actually take actions, military actions against them. Hence why
Speaker 6: they want to avoid conflict. So I guess the question
Speaker 6: for Trump is if Iran rejects this nuclear deal, which
Speaker 6: in all likelihood they will, what's he.
Speaker 2: Going to do?
Speaker 6: What is he going to do to shut down their
Speaker 6: nuclear weapons?
Speaker 4: He's fuck concerned with Trump and talks because remember Trump
Speaker 4: made a big deal of Hamas. When Trump comes in,
Speaker 4: the hostages will be released. Otherwise he'll unleash hell will
Speaker 4: Hamas are still in control of the Gaza Strip. The
Speaker 4: same accusation could be made of Trump's negotiations with Putin
Speaker 4: that Putin just doesn't seem to believe that Trump will
Speaker 4: wield the stick as he says he will. And when
Speaker 4: you're dealing with Iran, you said, can you negotiate with
Speaker 4: other nations? But of course Iran is a very different nation.
Speaker 4: It's basically a terrorist organization that run Iran and their
Speaker 4: commitment to destroying Israel is not an idle threat. It's
Speaker 4: a religious ideology, it's a worldview, and they've been making
Speaker 4: threats for a long time now. Nobody wants war. But
Speaker 4: you can't blame the Israelis for saying, how long will
Speaker 4: we sit here while the leaders of Iran talk about
Speaker 4: destroying us as they develop nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: At some point, enough talk. You've got to defend yourself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but if you don't give Trump a chance to
Speaker 2: at least try and achieve something. And Trump's ultimate goal
Speaker 2: is to achieve some level of stability in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: and you're not even giving it a go. He's made
Speaker 2: it clear, he told the Ayatoller, if you don't meet
Speaker 2: my demands, I will get involved militarily. So he's already
Speaker 2: put that on the table.
Speaker 6: He also told He also told her mass if all
Speaker 6: the hostages weren't released by the inauguration or hell would
Speaker 6: break loose, and it didn't, so at some point he
Speaker 6: has to back up these threats.
Speaker 2: But you have to be somewhat reasonable in these things.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you want full scale war in the
Speaker 2: Middle East and I don't, then you can go in
Speaker 2: and just start throwing bombs and stuff with it.
Speaker 3: And everywhere right.
Speaker 4: Now agree with that characterization. It's not that you want
Speaker 4: full scale war in the war.
Speaker 3: In the Middle East.
Speaker 4: It's you don't want a nuclear bomb going off in
Speaker 4: the Middle East, and that's why you would engage in
Speaker 4: a military action now to prevent the worst military action
Speaker 4: down the track.
Speaker 2: Of course, but that's also the point of achieving the deal,
Speaker 2: is to prevent the nuclear bomb from being created. If
Speaker 2: you are saying that there is no deal that can
Speaker 2: be struck that will prevent a nuclear bomb from being created,
Speaker 2: and that simply targeting their infrastructure at the moment will
Speaker 2: prevent it, I mean that goes straight back to the
Speaker 2: drawing board. They're not going to stop, so your only
Speaker 2: other solution is to wipe you around off the face
Speaker 2: of the planet. Do we want to do that?
Speaker 3: That's what Irana threatening for Israel. So you can understand
Speaker 3: why the Israelis but of course.
Speaker 2: I understand that. But then you go and do it,
Speaker 2: and then you end up with full scale war in
Speaker 2: the Middle East. This is the problem is that you
Speaker 2: don't actually genuinely solve anyim They'll go on for time
Speaker 2: immemorial until we actually wipe someone off the face of
Speaker 2: the planet, and no one really wants to have that
Speaker 2: discussion because of war.
Speaker 4: Until IRA walk away from their ideological stamps, which they
Speaker 4: never will. So at some point this blows up. Well
Speaker 4: it is literally, and who chooses the timing of it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, literally, it blows up. Let's move to some lighter
Speaker 2: international news. We'll get into the details of King Charles's
Speaker 2: visit to Canada very shortly, but I could not get
Speaker 2: over this. Justin Trudeau, of course, until five minutes ago,
Speaker 2: was the Prime Minister of Canada, so you would think
Speaker 2: he has some standards, he has some understanding that when
Speaker 2: you're meeting foreign diplomats and dignitaries, I mean, the king
Speaker 2: of your country, the head of state of your country,
Speaker 2: for heaven's sake, that you would dress up for the occasion.
Speaker 2: But apparently not, because take a look at this. This
Speaker 2: is what Justin Trudeau rocked up to Parliament wearing today.
Speaker 2: Look at his shoes. He's wearing sneakers, for goodness sake,
Speaker 2: green sneakers that I mean seriously, he's wearing a suit.
Speaker 2: So he's got to all that effort. He's put on
Speaker 2: the shirt, he's put on the tie, he's put on
Speaker 2: the suit, he's brushed his hair, and then he gets
Speaker 2: to the shoes and he's like, now, I'm just going
Speaker 2: to put my sneakers on today because I want to
Speaker 2: go for a run before I go and see the King.
Speaker 2: I mean, for goodness sake, there is no circumstance in
Speaker 2: which you should wear sneakers or runners or whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call them with a suit. If you're wearing
Speaker 2: a suit, you should be wearing leather shoes or boots.
Speaker 2: It's just the rules. If you go to all that effort,
Speaker 2: make the effort to actually look decent, and you certainly
Speaker 2: don't do it when you're going to work or parliament, or,
Speaker 2: for heaven's sake, to meet the king. Standards have slipped
Speaker 2: so much.
Speaker 4: I disagree with you, Kelly. There is an you wear them, well,
Speaker 4: I've got them on right now. But there is a
Speaker 4: reason why you would wear sneakers at an event where
Speaker 4: the king is speaking, and the reason is you want
Speaker 4: everyone to look at you. How else to have the
Speaker 4: attention on yourself when you've got the King of England there, Well,
Speaker 4: you commit a.
Speaker 3: Fashion faux pass such as he has done.
Speaker 4: And what are we talking about Before we even get
Speaker 4: to talking about what the King said. We're talking about
Speaker 4: justin Trudeau mission accomplished, frail.
Speaker 6: I don't even think the sneakers were the worst part
Speaker 6: of this. I can tolerate sneakers. I'm a sneaker advocate.
Speaker 6: But the main problem was the sneakers didn't even match
Speaker 6: the suit.
Speaker 2: He could have.
Speaker 6: Gone for a tasteful white and nice navy something to compliment.
Speaker 3: Hester and proved my point. They wanted to teach.
Speaker 6: This is a clearly obvious move. He wanted to stand out,
Speaker 6: he wanted to draw attention from the king, and he
Speaker 6: didn't even Yeah, see that's look at that that green
Speaker 6: in that blue they classed.
Speaker 2: But it's the fact that this sneak is at all.
Speaker 2: I don't care if the Navy or wife or whatever.
Speaker 2: This is a hill I'm willing to die on. We
Speaker 2: have to maintain some level of standards in this world
Speaker 2: or we will end up in a place where everyone
Speaker 2: goes to work in their pajamas. Before COVID, I didn't
Speaker 2: wear a tie to work. But then you know, obviously
Speaker 2: I was working from home for all that time, my
Speaker 2: pajamas all bloody day, and I got sick of it,
Speaker 2: so I started wearing a suit and tie to work
Speaker 2: every day to create a contrast. And I think there
Speaker 2: is something nice about that because it shows respect for
Speaker 2: the people around something.
Speaker 3: Were you wearing a suitain tie when you're working from home?
Speaker 2: No, no, no no. When I went back to what you
Speaker 2: were saying, you've got stuff at home, pajamas, the mood,
Speaker 2: and I was like, I can't do this anymore. So
Speaker 2: I wore a certain time of it. But it shows
Speaker 2: respect to the people around you that I have put
Speaker 2: in the effort to look good because I take my
Speaker 2: job seriously and I take my workplace seriously, and I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: going to work with your sneakers on makes it look
Speaker 2: like you don't take the job seriously. If you walked
Speaker 2: into an interview, I'm telling you, and you've got a
Speaker 2: sneakers on, they will mark you down against the bloke
Speaker 2: who has a suit and appear not.
Speaker 4: Walking into the studio tonight wearing a T shirt or hoodie.
Speaker 4: Did you sort of give me the side of it.
Speaker 2: You've been doing it for two and a half hears,
Speaker 2: so I'm kind of used to it now. But yes,
Speaker 2: I would never do.
Speaker 6: Fashion standards change over time. What people wear now, especially
Speaker 6: post COVID. Most people don't even wear suits to work anymore.
Speaker 4: I'm actually with Caleb that it was highly inappropriate, but
Speaker 4: I know why he did it.
Speaker 3: Do you think it was inappropriate or do you think
Speaker 3: it was okay.
Speaker 6: For this occasion. I think it's inappropriate, but I defend
Speaker 6: sneakers in suits. But let's move on and listen to
Speaker 6: what the King said in the Canadian Parliament. Obviously, in
Speaker 6: the lead up to the Canadian election, there was a
Speaker 6: lot of tension with Trump saying that he wanted Canada
Speaker 6: to become the fifty first state, and in fact, the
Speaker 6: Prime Minister Mark Conney essentially turned the tide of the
Speaker 6: election based on these threats from Trump. And so this
Speaker 6: whole visit from King Charles could kind of be seen
Speaker 6: as a way to reinforce Canada's position, and this is
Speaker 6: what the had to say.
Speaker 7: Canada Fairs is another critical moment. Democracy. Pluralism, the rule
Speaker 7: of law, self determination, and freedom are values which Canadians
Speaker 7: hold dear and ones which the government is determined to protect.
Speaker 6: So kind of uneventful, kind of what you would expect
Speaker 6: from a tour of its designed to reinforce Canada against America.
Speaker 3: Kind of ridiculous though, don't you think.
Speaker 4: I mean, the whole thing about Trump making Canada fifty
Speaker 4: first state of the United States was always a joke.
Speaker 4: He was ribbing them about their need to pay their
Speaker 4: fair share. I'm just surprised that Charles took that seriously
Speaker 4: and gave it sort of that kind of gravitus when
Speaker 4: most thinking people realized Trump was just being Trump.
Speaker 6: Well, the thing is, King Charles didn't actually write this speech.
Speaker 6: He was given the speech by the Prime Minister, and
Speaker 6: the prime minister's whole mandate for reelection was to be
Speaker 6: the anti Trump, pro Canada candidate. So he's now got
Speaker 6: to keep up this facade that Canada is under threat
Speaker 6: from the United States in order to maintain his political relevance.
Speaker 3: Really, it's the.
Speaker 2: Same as when the Governor General opens parliament here.
Speaker 3: I mean, but he still chooses to read it some respect.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, it is convention that he reads.
Speaker 4: It's like an invention that you speak the truth, you
Speaker 4: don't speak rubbish because you've been told to.
Speaker 2: No, you're making it sound like he's just there to
Speaker 2: be a part.
Speaker 3: Is essentially that like it is, it is.
Speaker 2: Convention that the king or the head of stage or
Speaker 2: the Governor General in whatever circumstances, reads the opening of
Speaker 2: the Parliament from the government. It's not the words of
Speaker 2: the king. It's not the words of the governor.
Speaker 3: Should have rolled his eyes as he read it.
Speaker 2: Look, look, you just we've learned that you have no
Speaker 2: regard for tradition. Tonight. You think it's okay to wear
Speaker 2: sneakers with your your suit and men. You think it's
Speaker 2: it's it's okay to throw away all this tradition about
Speaker 2: how we open our parlor.
Speaker 4: It gets even worse because have a look at this
Speaker 4: clip from King Cha. I was reading somebody else's speech
Speaker 4: the acknowledgment of the traditional owners have listened.
Speaker 7: I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on
Speaker 7: the unseeded territory of the Algonquin and the Shinabeg people.
Speaker 7: It is my great hope that in each of your communities,
Speaker 7: and collectively as a country, a path is found toward
Speaker 7: truth and reconciliation in both word and deed.
Speaker 3: Hang on, sower.
Speaker 4: The king just sat there and said, I'm the king
Speaker 4: of unseeded territory. So is that a dig or is
Speaker 4: it an admission that maybe he shouldn't be there?
Speaker 6: Well, what does that make him a conqueror? Like I'm
Speaker 6: not actually sure and what legitimacy does he have now?
Speaker 6: And the fact is Canada is even more clear than
Speaker 6: Australia because they've had treaties with the indigenous people as
Speaker 6: far back as the seventeen hundreds. It is well documented
Speaker 6: they've had an extensive history of land sales and treaties.
Speaker 6: So the whole thing honestly preposterous.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean it was a humiliation ritual really that
Speaker 2: they put the king through there, and the sad thing
Speaker 2: is that he actually has to rock up and do it,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: Well literally just made by point hit.
Speaker 2: But he's a figure hit. I mean, the monarch is
Speaker 2: always a figurehead. We know that that's not you, James,
Speaker 2: but it is. It's almost like, at the same time
Speaker 2: as they're trying to use the King to send a
Speaker 2: message to the United States, back off. You know, you're
Speaker 2: you're not going to be one of us, because we're
Speaker 2: not going to be one of you because we're part
Speaker 2: of the Commonwealth. While they're using the King to do that,
Speaker 2: they're at the same time humiliating him by making him
Speaker 2: say that he's on unseated land. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: have some respect for the guy if you want him
Speaker 2: to be useful for you when you want him to
Speaker 2: be useful.
Speaker 4: So all of a sudden, justin Trudeau sneakers were not
Speaker 4: the most disrespectful part of it.
Speaker 2: There were many disrespectful parts.
Speaker 6: And honestly, it was so funny looking at all the
Speaker 6: reactions to this on X because I've never seen so
Speaker 6: many leftists supporting the monarchy as they are now. It's
Speaker 6: crazy to see. But let's move on now to Victoria,
Speaker 6: where the chief executive of Santos has compared Victoria to
Speaker 6: North Korea. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 8: But if I think about Queensland, Northern Territory, South Australia,
Speaker 8: Western Australia, these are actually very supportive jurisdictions, They're.
Speaker 3: Very development friendly.
Speaker 8: Victoria, Victoria, North Korea, They're in a different categories altogether.
Speaker 6: I mean, is he wrong when you have blanket bans
Speaker 6: on gas connections in new homes and businesses, it is
Speaker 6: essentially uninvestible, extensive government control over almost every aspect of
Speaker 6: the gas industry.
Speaker 3: He might be right, No.
Speaker 4: I think it's very unfair on North Korea to say that.
Speaker 4: He went on to say if he had a dollar
Speaker 4: to invest in Australia or in Papua New Guinea in
Speaker 4: the same circumstance, the same business, he wouldn't hesitate to
Speaker 4: spend that in Parpa New Guinea because he was confident
Speaker 4: that he could get the project approved and finished. He
Speaker 4: had no such confidence regarding Victoria. I must say he
Speaker 4: copped a lot of stick for that comment. Victoria's Energy
Speaker 4: minister called him hysterical and said that the comment was unhinged,
Speaker 4: and he later joked he said, maybe I shouldn't have
Speaker 4: said that, Perhaps I need some more media training. But
Speaker 4: I think he's handled that very well. He's got a
Speaker 4: headline that's in all the major newspapers and made his
Speaker 4: point it's very difficult to do business in Victoria and
Speaker 4: increasingly companies such as his, which is one of the
Speaker 4: largest energy companies in the country just choosing not to.
Speaker 2: And Gallagher is a straight shooter and a very good
Speaker 2: operator and has been a very good boss at Santos,
Speaker 2: and you can hardly blame him. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: we've all seen Gcinta Amen or should it be Jinto
Speaker 2: jong Un recently. I think we've got a photograph of
Speaker 2: her here there we go and it's not real. I
Speaker 2: don't need to point that out, but that's sort of
Speaker 2: where Victoria is going. And you can't forget the Andrews
Speaker 2: government in twenty seventeen put a ban on gas exploration
Speaker 2: in Victoria and that went through to twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2: It's still banned. Fracking and Colson gas exploration is still
Speaker 2: banned in Victoria. And so of course even people who
Speaker 2: want to invest in Victoria are like, well, why would
Speaker 2: I bother? Because you know the government's already done at once,
Speaker 2: so they could always do it again and say no,
Speaker 2: gas exploration is off. And just from every perspective, it's
Speaker 2: so difficult to invest in Victoria. We talked last night.
Speaker 2: I think it was about the treasure of Jacqueline Sim's
Speaker 2: asking a property council breakfast what their favorite tax was,
Speaker 2: which was a great window into exactly how they are thinking.
Speaker 2: But you know, you want to talk about tax land
Speaker 2: tax in Victoria. For instance, my accountant, good Evening, mister Morgan,
Speaker 2: has a client who had a property in Melbourne, not
Speaker 2: a principal place of residence, but an investment property on
Speaker 2: a sizeable piece of land, and the land tax on
Speaker 2: that property used to be five thousand dollars. Of course,
Speaker 2: Daniel Andrew's changed the rules around land tax and changed
Speaker 2: it from the threshold was three hundred k down to
Speaker 2: fifty k for a value of property, et cetera. The
Speaker 2: land tex on that property is now forty two thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: So a few years ago it's five thousand, now it's
Speaker 2: forty two thousand. So why would you invest in property
Speaker 2: in Victoria? Why would you invest in gas exploration when
Speaker 2: until five minutes ago it was banned to do so
Speaker 2: It's like they don't want people to invest in Victoria,
Speaker 2: which is so dumb, because it's the only way they'll
Speaker 2: ever get themselves out of the great debtthole in which
Speaker 2: they find themselves is to get real business and investment
Speaker 2: generating in the state so they can make some genuine income.
Speaker 2: They just keep driving it away.
Speaker 3: Melbourne will become known as a Phenong Peng of the South.
Speaker 4: I want to talk about a story from the UK
Speaker 4: that really got my attention today. Here's a question, how
Speaker 4: old is too old to have a baby? And I
Speaker 4: don't mean to naturally conceive a baby. I suppose biology
Speaker 4: and nature determine the answer to that question.
Speaker 3: But have a look at this headline.
Speaker 4: A couple in their seventies in the UK have won
Speaker 4: the right to parent a surrogate baby. Now, this couple,
Speaker 4: man and a woman of seventy two years of age.
Speaker 4: They used the man's sperm and a donut egg to
Speaker 4: have a child, which was then impregnate or to conceive.
Speaker 4: It was impregnated in a surrogate in the US who
Speaker 4: gave birth to the baby, and now the couple have
Speaker 4: been legally approved to parent this surrogate.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 4: The reason they did this, they said, was because they
Speaker 4: had a son who died in twenty twenty at the
Speaker 4: age of twenty seven. He died of cancer, and they
Speaker 4: said they've always missed him, and so as a way
Speaker 4: of helping to deal with their own grief, they really
Speaker 4: wanted another child, and so this is what they've done.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: Having a baby at age seventy two means this child
Speaker 4: will start primary school when they are seventy six, high
Speaker 4: school when they're eighty two. And this child on his
Speaker 4: eighteenth birthday, Mom and dad will be eighty nine years
Speaker 4: of age.
Speaker 3: Freyer their healthy, they're wealthy. Anything wrong with this?
Speaker 6: Yes, I mean now we're at the point where with
Speaker 6: commercial surrogacy, they're not only ripping this baby away from
Speaker 6: the woman who gave birth to the child, which is
Speaker 6: morally questionable in and of itself, they are also depriving
Speaker 6: the child of having proper parents because they're not the
Speaker 6: age of parents, they're the age of grandparents or even
Speaker 6: in some instance's great grandparents.
Speaker 3: This child will be their care yes.
Speaker 6: Correct, and I don't see how that is fair if
Speaker 6: they are trying to deal with their own grief. That's
Speaker 6: very sad that they lost their son. But here's an idea,
Speaker 6: go to counseling, adopt or look after friend's children people
Speaker 6: in the community. You don't need to bring a life
Speaker 6: into this world that you are not ready or prepared
Speaker 6: to care for. It's unfair to the child and this
Speaker 6: is part of the problem with commercial surrogacy. There are
Speaker 6: so few safeguards around it, and it's leading to a
Speaker 6: range of issues from you know, who can qualify to
Speaker 6: become parents, but also human trafficking and the exploitation of
Speaker 6: women is also a massive issue with sarrogacy. So this
Speaker 6: is a can of worms that only the twenty first
Speaker 6: century Western world could open. But it's pretty scary.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's supremely selfish of these two people to
Speaker 2: decide that, at the age of seventy two they want
Speaker 2: to have a child, And of course they can't have
Speaker 2: a child by natural means, because of course, you know,
Speaker 2: seventy two, you've well and truly been through a menopause, right,
Speaker 2: And so it's not unusual to have older fathers. But
Speaker 2: generally you have an older father with a younger mother
Speaker 2: because she's still of an age where she can conced
Speaker 2: So even if dad drops off the twig, mom is
Speaker 2: still around to look after them. Of course, there are
Speaker 2: circumstances where, completely out of their control, young children lose
Speaker 2: both parents, say they die in a car accident or whatever. Right,
Speaker 2: so these situations do happen in other completely different ways.
Speaker 2: I can't see how the court could get around giving
Speaker 2: them the child, because because the child has already been born,
Speaker 2: So what's the court going to say, Ah, yes, this
Speaker 2: child was created with your sperm, and now it has
Speaker 2: to disappear into the ether into someone else's arms. That
Speaker 2: probably wouldn't have been right either, But what goes through
Speaker 2: your head to think that, Yeah, at the age of
Speaker 2: seventy two, both of us being seventy two, we're going
Speaker 2: to pay someone on the other side of the world
Speaker 2: to have a child for us, like go and get
Speaker 2: a dog. I get that it's sad that you lost
Speaker 2: your son, but you have to think about other people
Speaker 2: in these circumstances. A commercial surrogacy is wrong. That's why
Speaker 2: it's banned in Australia, and situations like this really shouldn't
Speaker 2: exist in it.
Speaker 4: So just point out one little hypocrisy, at least I
Speaker 4: think it is. As I was reading comments on this
Speaker 4: story today online, a lot of people really outraged about this,
Speaker 4: and it's not fair on the child. You're bringing a
Speaker 4: child into the world who's never going to have both
Speaker 4: parents there. And yet many of those people in left
Speaker 4: leaning journals and magazines would support same sex couples acquiring
Speaker 4: a child in the same way, not unhappy at all
Speaker 4: that the child won't have a mum or perhaps won't
Speaker 4: have a dad, depending on the sex of the couple.
Speaker 4: I just think that's a slight double standard in this argument.
Speaker 2: It's a very fair point. Now, of course, last night
Speaker 2: we talked about the fact that the proposal to sell
Speaker 2: rose Hill Racecourse for five billion dollars to the state
Speaker 2: government fell through because the members of the Australian Turf
Speaker 2: Club said they would prefer to keep it as a racecourse.
Speaker 2: Chris means, as you can imagine, the Premier of New
Speaker 2: South Wales is none too pleased about this because he
Speaker 2: was so looking forward to turning the racecourse into twenty
Speaker 2: five thousand host Here he was responding this morning.
Speaker 1: The truth of the matter is it feels like the
Speaker 1: closeness of the result makes it more difficult to take,
Speaker 1: not easier. And I think it's an opportunity that Sydney's
Speaker 1: missed out on a few It was like a goal
Speaker 1: and opportunity that slipped through our fingers. Very disappointed by that,
Speaker 1: but I accept the decision.
Speaker 2: So with the proposition of trashing the great sport of
Speaker 2: racing off the agenda, he says, well, I've got a
Speaker 2: few other ideas.
Speaker 1: We've got proposals that we're getting ready to roll out
Speaker 1: for more housing closer to Sydney CBD. They're not ready
Speaker 1: for me to announce today and not everyone will love them,
Speaker 1: but they're absolutely necessary for Sydney now.
Speaker 2: One of these ideas is to apparently develop the Glebe
Speaker 2: Island Port in Sydney, which is basically right next to
Speaker 2: the city. It's in the Rosehill Balmain area right, So
Speaker 2: it's the only working port left in Sydney, and much
Speaker 2: like the rose Hill idea, he says, here's a bit
Speaker 2: of useful operating infrastructure that we currently have that is
Speaker 2: doing things and we should turn it into housing instead.
Speaker 2: I've no issue with the idea that. I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: we need more housing and we'll come to the regional
Speaker 2: aspect of this in just a moment. But what is
Speaker 2: with this tunnel vision idea that we must take things
Speaker 2: that work and are operating and are delivering something for
Speaker 2: a city and turn them into houses. It's shortsighted. A
Speaker 2: city is more than just houses. If you want a
Speaker 2: city that consists of just houses, I don't know, go
Speaker 2: and live in North Korea where there's not much else
Speaker 2: to do. But unfortunately we do have to do other
Speaker 2: things in a city. And having a working port the
Speaker 2: only working port left in Sydney like, nah, let's just
Speaker 2: ribble all apart to the houses, there are other bits
Speaker 2: of land.
Speaker 3: Seems like this is chris Min's only plan.
Speaker 4: First in one of the race course turned into housing
Speaker 4: that didn't work. Now it's a port turning into housing.
Speaker 4: If that doesn't work, he says he's got other ideas.
Speaker 4: I just can't say them yet, but here on the
Speaker 4: late debate we can let you know. His other ideas
Speaker 4: are the botanic gardens.
Speaker 3: And if that doesn't work.
Speaker 4: The Sydney Cricket Ground we have turned into housing, and
Speaker 4: why not those after that?
Speaker 2: Why not knock over the art gallery?
Speaker 6: I know right, No, he does seem to be a
Speaker 6: little bit obsessed with this. But look, as someone who
Speaker 6: very recently lived in Rosel, I can tell you that
Speaker 6: that whole precinct you've also got the White Bay power
Speaker 6: station and a cruise terminal. It is rather ugly. It
Speaker 6: is ripe for development, and there is going to be
Speaker 6: a metro station being put in there. But I do
Speaker 6: agree when you look at the sums around how much
Speaker 6: it would cost to relocate the deep water port and
Speaker 6: the extra costs associated with that, it doesn't really make
Speaker 6: sense to develop that as housing. The real solution would
Speaker 6: just be to release more land, ditch this socialist planning
Speaker 6: system where you have everyone shoved into a small space
Speaker 6: surrounded by a ring of green that you can't touch,
Speaker 6: and put everyone in crappy two bedroom apartments, like, why
Speaker 6: don't we just release more land build family homes? And
Speaker 6: by the way, family homes are the things people actually want.
Speaker 6: My generation, we want to be able to have a
Speaker 6: family in a free standing house with a backyard, but
Speaker 6: we are not being allowed to do that, and instead
Speaker 6: there's a subsession with building two bedroom skyscrape which doesn't
Speaker 6: meet the needs of real people.
Speaker 4: Well, if you want your traditional Aussie home, the solution
Speaker 4: is to get out of the capital cities and move
Speaker 4: to a regional city, and increasingly Australians are doing that.
Speaker 4: Twenty five percent more people are moving from capital cities
Speaker 4: to regional centers than the other way around. Geelong is
Speaker 4: now the most popular regional center for people to move
Speaker 4: to internal migration in Australia nine point three percent of
Speaker 4: people moving within the country and moving to Geelong. Sunshine
Speaker 4: Coast comes in second and Lake Macquarie is third. I
Speaker 4: don't blame people at all. As someone who lived in
Speaker 4: Townsall for ten years and I got a bit when
Speaker 4: I moved to Townsville. I thought I'm moving to the
Speaker 4: ends of the earth. My life is over. But I'll
Speaker 4: tell you what I loved it. It was ten minutes
Speaker 4: to anywhere. If you have to drive fifteen minutes, you're like, oh,
Speaker 4: this is forever. These days, fifteen minutes gets you one kilometer.
Speaker 4: In Sydney, you knew half the community, your kids felt
Speaker 4: safe out on the streets. It was a wonderful life.
Speaker 4: And increasingly people are finding if you want the sort
Speaker 4: of Australia that we all knew, that you've got to
Speaker 4: get out of these condensed cities and into regional centers.
Speaker 3: And more and more people are saying that's the way to.
Speaker 2: Go, and it is the solution. And I don't know
Speaker 2: why we don't talk about this more. What is with
Speaker 2: this obsession with putting everyone in the capital cities. You
Speaker 2: look at the United States, and I will preface this
Speaker 2: by saying that the United States has some of the
Speaker 2: most densely populated cities in the world. But you look
Speaker 2: across the expanse of the United States and it is
Speaker 2: fundamentally a country of small towns. They have dotted all
Speaker 2: over the country, Whereas here, you know, Sydney, you've got
Speaker 2: Woollongong and the Newcastle, Adelaide's got murray Bridge, Melbourne's got Geelong,
Speaker 2: and Brisbane's got the Sunshine Coast and the Gold.
Speaker 3: Coast, and the Gold Coast is a rat race.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah, But largely we just stay in the cities.
Speaker 2: We haven't created these small centers. That is the solution.
Speaker 2: There's land, cheap land available. We keep all these margarets
Speaker 2: coming in, and we shouldn't have coming in, by the way.
Speaker 2: But just you can't go to the city, You've got
Speaker 2: to go to a region. Bugger off.
Speaker 6: Well, part of the problem is that the government hasn't
Speaker 6: been willing to build the infrastructure to connect the regions
Speaker 6: to the cities, and that's what's really holding it back.
Speaker 6: Plus they are unwilling to release more land in a
Speaker 6: lot of cases. But let's move on now to another
Speaker 6: story taking place in Melbourne. Two transgender netball players have
Speaker 6: been banned from a local netballing league after it was
Speaker 6: determined that their biological maleness meant that their size and
Speaker 6: stamina was a danger and an unfair advantage over other
Speaker 6: female players. Now you might think, ah, maybe you're just exaggerating,
Speaker 6: how bad can it really be? But check this out.
Speaker 2: Out.
Speaker 6: As you can see there she is clearly a well
Speaker 6: the biological or male player in the blue is clearly
Speaker 6: significantly larger than the female opponents, literally knocking one player
Speaker 6: onto the ground. Now, I must say it's refreshing to
Speaker 6: see a sporting league actually come out and defend women's
Speaker 6: rights to safety in sport. But meanwhile, while this competition
Speaker 6: has banned transgender players, Netball Victoria is still conducting a
Speaker 6: review into whether it is actually safe for transgender people
Speaker 6: to play against women. I don't get what's so controversial
Speaker 6: about this. All you have to do is watch that
Speaker 6: video to go this is not.
Speaker 3: Fair that local league really had to ban that.
Speaker 4: There's two transgender players who have now been banned for
Speaker 4: the rest of the year because other teams were threatened
Speaker 4: to boycott. So it's going to destroy the competition. But
Speaker 4: you're right, Victorian Netbull, who oversee the whole sport where
Speaker 4: they're conducting an investigation which they say must be thorough
Speaker 4: and considered.
Speaker 3: I don't know how thorough it needs to be.
Speaker 4: We just saw video of the blatant obvious biological males
Speaker 4: have an advantage.
Speaker 3: They put out a.
Speaker 4: Statement, Victorian Netball saying we continue to support our lgbtt
Speaker 4: LGBTQ plus.
Speaker 2: Community forgive you that way.
Speaker 4: Thank you, and we're committed to providing a safe and
Speaker 4: inclusive netball environment for all our participants. The thing I
Speaker 4: can't understand is why their emphasis still even after video
Speaker 4: footage like that. Their instinctive response is all but we're
Speaker 4: very inclusive and we're very much concerned about the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 3: What about the girls playing.
Speaker 2: The sport fairness? I suppose it's just not a virtue
Speaker 2: these days. I mean that chap is built like a brick,
Speaker 2: you know what, house like. Do we really need to
Speaker 2: investigate whether or not it is unsafe to put biological
Speaker 2: males on the court with women? It just seems very strange.
Speaker 2: And speaking of these matters, props to this young fella
Speaker 2: in the United States, Liam Morrison. He's taken case all
Speaker 2: the way to the Supreme Court where it's being chucked out.
Speaker 2: But he was fighting a free speech case on the
Speaker 2: basis that he went to school wearing a shirt that
Speaker 2: had a factual statement on it. And this is how
Speaker 2: you come to this position where you have to investigate
Speaker 2: whether or not it's too dangerous to have men on
Speaker 2: the netball court. There's the shirt there, whether it's too
Speaker 2: dangerous to have men on the netball court with women?
Speaker 2: Because we can't actually talk about facts anymore. Here he
Speaker 2: is describing exactly what happened.
Speaker 9: What did my shirts say? Fathooble words? There are only
Speaker 9: two genders, nothing harmful, nothing threatening, just to steam, and
Speaker 9: I believe to be a fact. I have been told
Speaker 9: that my shirt was targeting a protected class? Who is
Speaker 9: this protected class? Are their feelings more important than my rates?
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. They upheld
Speaker 2: the decision of the first Circuit court, which said the
Speaker 2: school was right to tell him to take it off
Speaker 2: because it could be harmful to others students. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know we're in a position now. Were it harmful
Speaker 2: to say the truth?
Speaker 3: Please? Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean it's a biological fact, isn't it. It's not
Speaker 4: a political statement. So next he'll be banned from wearing
Speaker 4: a shirt that says the sky is blue because someone
Speaker 4: takes exception to it. And the other question I've got is,
Speaker 4: if you can't wear a T shirt saying there are
Speaker 4: only two genders? Could you wear a T shirt saying
Speaker 4: there are only three genders or only ten genders? Or
Speaker 4: could you wear a T shirt saying there are infinite
Speaker 4: an indefinite number of genders. There are at least at
Speaker 4: least two genders. At what point are they going to
Speaker 4: give permission? In this same school, of course, pushes the
Speaker 4: whole pride concept. All the gay activists sort of days
Speaker 4: are celebrated in this school. But when a kid turns
Speaker 4: up with a biological fact on his T shirt, kids
Speaker 4: get upset and so he's sent home.
Speaker 6: And it's interesting to see how in these cases, time
Speaker 6: and time again, they only care about the concerns of
Speaker 6: a select minority group. When they're running Pride day, I
Speaker 6: doubt they're worrying about how offensive that might be for
Speaker 6: Christian or Muslim students. But when someone rocks up with
Speaker 6: a statement of fact on their T shirt, oh no,
Speaker 6: that's too far.
Speaker 4: Speaking of going too far in the consideration of other
Speaker 4: people's feelings, just before we go to the break, a
Speaker 4: professor from London University. He's an expert on food policy.
Speaker 4: His name is Professor Tim Lang. He's been talking about
Speaker 4: the need for countries to stockpile food in case of
Speaker 4: the apocalypse or nuclear explosion or some sort of natural disaster.
Speaker 4: And that makes sense, but because of you won't believe
Speaker 4: what he said. He actually said that the UK need
Speaker 4: to not just stock food, but particularly they need to
Speaker 4: stop food to make sure that vegans and Muslims with
Speaker 4: their halal food are taken care of.
Speaker 3: Because he said, if you go through.
Speaker 4: A psychological shock like an earthquake or a nuclear war,
Speaker 4: and then you've gone through all of that and then
Speaker 4: the food that the government gives you is well not
Speaker 4: vegan friendly or not hallal compliant, I mean that would
Speaker 4: just add shocked to shock and you would not cope.
Speaker 3: Is this the most.
Speaker 4: Fragile or slash entitled generation in history? Imagine getting it
Speaker 4: to the apocalypse. You survive, but you're pissed off because
Speaker 4: they haven't got your favorite food.
Speaker 2: Well, I just imagine all the GFD if people feel
Speaker 2: really left out too, because you know, their problems are
Speaker 2: just as legitimate as the others are they seriously, you
Speaker 2: just be glad to get anything exactly.
Speaker 3: We're to go to a break.
Speaker 4: When we come back, we look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 4: including victorious Maschetti band results in greater sales of machetes.
Speaker 3: That's at a moment.
Speaker 4: Welcome back to the program. Let's take a look at
Speaker 4: what's making news tomorrow. Will start with the Daily Telegraph,
Speaker 4: here in New South Wales, and I got to say
Speaker 4: I'm not that excited about reading this headline. I'll try
Speaker 4: to read it with enthusiasm, but as a former Queenslander.
Speaker 3: It's not easy.
Speaker 4: Just good to Oh is Brian to Oh, the New
Speaker 4: South Wales player who scored an important try in tonight's game,
Speaker 4: which of course was won by New South Wales eighteen
Speaker 4: to six. Blues draw first blood in sun Corp epic.
Speaker 4: So there you go, three game series. New South Wales
Speaker 4: lead one nil. Haven't seen the Career Males front page
Speaker 4: for tomorrow, but I suspect it won't be quite as
Speaker 4: triumphant as that of the Daily Telegram.
Speaker 2: Well they could just do a quite similar headline, just
Speaker 2: go to oh, you know, that's how you'd be feeling
Speaker 2: if you were in Quex right now, wouldn't you. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the front of the OS tomorrow where it
Speaker 2: says Lee's target not a lot of net zero. Susan
Speaker 2: Lee has declared she will not pursue a net zero
Speaker 2: missions target at any cost as she faces a backbench
Speaker 2: push to go to the next election with about a
Speaker 2: pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The new opposition
Speaker 2: leader on Tuesday unveiled a shadow cabinet that promoted factional
Speaker 2: supporters and dumped prominent women who opposed to leadership, hours
Speaker 2: after signing a new coalition agreement with the National that
Speaker 2: ended almost a week of internal warfare. Can I just
Speaker 2: say something, Well, no, no, you you're going to shut up.
Speaker 3: Go on.
Speaker 4: She will not pursue that zero. She won't pursue NET
Speaker 4: zero at any cost. Or she won't pursue zero at
Speaker 4: any cost. It's a little bit confused.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, she's what she's saying.
Speaker 3: First I got excited when I.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, no, Well, what she was saying today essentially
Speaker 2: was that she agrees with the idea that we need
Speaker 2: to combat climate change, et cetera, but we can't do
Speaker 2: it at any cost, right, we do actually need to
Speaker 2: take account of what it means to the people. So
Speaker 2: she is kind of opening the doors potentially getting rid
Speaker 2: of NED zero. But that's a decision that the party
Speaker 2: room will have to make, and obviously they will do
Speaker 2: in conjunction. We've got Nationals. But the shadow cabinet and
Speaker 2: shadow ministry that she unveiled today few curious decisions in there.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, people like Claire Chandler good operators
Speaker 2: who were dumped.
Speaker 3: Hum.
Speaker 2: Well, you can kind of understand why Jane Hume got
Speaker 2: the punt after she came up with the working from
Speaker 2: home policy that was so distractive during the campaign.
Speaker 3: Or was it the backflip that was destructive?
Speaker 2: Well, no, I mean they backflipped on the basis of
Speaker 2: the polling, and the polling I don't think was wrong,
Speaker 2: but it made them look either they went went out
Speaker 2: and they went out with a piece of policyat that
Speaker 2: wasn't popular, and then they looked even weaker by walking back.
Speaker 6: Jamimes is also one of their best media performers. So
Speaker 6: that's the other challenge that I think they're going to face.
Speaker 6: They've lost some good media performance, Jane's Hume, just enter
Speaker 6: Price as well.
Speaker 4: And there's less women in their shadow cabin now than
Speaker 4: there were. So all this talk about we're going to
Speaker 4: connect with women, what happened to that? And she's got
Speaker 4: rid of as you said, just in the NAPA. Gymber
Speaker 4: Prices is out well, Gizelle, but she's not in the
Speaker 4: shadow ministry.
Speaker 6: I mean, Gizelle Captarian hasn't even won the seat of
Speaker 6: Bradfield yet and she's in the outer shadow ministry. So
Speaker 6: it is interesting. I mean, this is definitely a shadow
Speaker 6: ministry about rewarding one's friends and dampening one's foes. So
Speaker 6: it'll be interesting to.
Speaker 2: See how there were a few decent apployments. So I
Speaker 2: think I think Tim Wilson to small business makes sense.
Speaker 2: I think Dan Teene will do well.
Speaker 3: In Andrew Hasty is out of defense.
Speaker 2: But he's into home affairs though, and that is a
Speaker 2: serious portfolio.
Speaker 3: I know Aison he was great in that portfolio.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he'll do great. I mean, look, they're all
Speaker 2: good operators and they will all do great things. But
Speaker 2: you know, Barnaby Joyce not being part of it, you know,
Speaker 2: and Barnaby Joyce is a good effective well Canavan wouldn't
Speaker 2: want it, I don't think. But Barnaby Joyce I think
Speaker 2: is better inside the tent than out of it. Another
Speaker 2: story on the front. While we're talking about defense of
Speaker 2: the old Tomorrow, Labour's defense disconnect leaves nation guarded by
Speaker 2: a paper ADF is Aspy's warning. Labour's focus on future
Speaker 2: military capabilities and it's business as usual defense budget will
Speaker 2: leave Australia with a paper ADF that is ill prepared
Speaker 2: for near term conflict and new report warns The Australian
Speaker 2: Strategic Policy Institute says the pre are prioritization sorry of
Speaker 2: long term defense programs such as ORCUS has come at
Speaker 2: the expense of present day readiness, leaving a hollow out
Speaker 2: force with limited munition stockpiles and a shortage of critical
Speaker 2: capabilities including missile defense systems and long range weapons. And
Speaker 2: you know it is marked as an exclusive story on
Speaker 2: the front of the Odds tomorrow, and it's a good
Speaker 2: report by Asby. But you've got to say, we already
Speaker 2: knew this, didn't we.
Speaker 4: There's one line in this article that I really like.
Speaker 4: He says, when the Labor Party talked about excuse me,
Speaker 4: talk about making a you're gonna have to take I've
Speaker 4: just lost my voice.
Speaker 6: You go, well, I think this is definitely something we've
Speaker 6: all known, and under the last government there have been
Speaker 6: I think it was over forty billion dollars of cuts
Speaker 6: and reprioritization of capabilities in the Defense Force to try
Speaker 6: and pay for ORCUS. But this is the problem. You
Speaker 6: can't bring on a massive new project like ORCUS without
Speaker 6: increasing your overall spend because what that means is you're
Speaker 6: just going to have to suck money out of other things.
Speaker 6: So our defense spending of two percent is woefully low.
Speaker 6: And this report just confirms.
Speaker 3: That I got my voice back. I've got to tell
Speaker 3: you this line. He said.
Speaker 4: When you see the Labor Party talking about how they're
Speaker 4: making a generational investment, what they mean is the next
Speaker 4: generation will have to do it because we're not doing
Speaker 4: it right now.
Speaker 2: And it has been thus for quite some time. Another
Speaker 2: story on the front of the oars miners and critical
Speaker 2: minerals producers will be hit by Labour's unrealized capital gains
Speaker 2: tax as self managed super funds will pull millions of
Speaker 2: dollars out of high risk businesses such as exploration companies,
Speaker 2: warm the chief executives of resources companies and their investors,
Speaker 2: and again I get it's a cash grab, but I
Speaker 2: just don't see how it's going to work. I was
Speaker 2: talking to a mate of mind tonight who will be
Speaker 2: hit by all of this, and he's saying, look, I'm
Speaker 2: just going to have to start ripping stuff out of
Speaker 2: my super fund and I'll put it elsewhere. You know,
Speaker 2: he's got a business in his super fund, so I'll
Speaker 2: just pull that out and it'll just exist under my
Speaker 2: name and instead of paying thirty percent or pay the
Speaker 2: twenty five percent corporate.
Speaker 6: Well, another area where this is super confusing is startups.
Speaker 6: If you're super annuation company invests in a startup that
Speaker 6: suddenly goes up massively in value, you're all going to
Speaker 6: be landed with a huge tax bill and then what
Speaker 6: if the next year it goes bust, then you don't
Speaker 6: get that money back. So it's pretty nuts. But let's
Speaker 6: move on now to the Herald Sun, where the headline
Speaker 6: is blunt force. Brazen retailers are flouting the Allen government's
Speaker 6: machete sale ban as the Premier faces mounting pressure over
Speaker 6: her decision this week to not fast track making it
Speaker 6: illegal to possess the deadly weapon. Despite the retail ban
Speaker 6: coming into effect at noon on Wednesday, the Herald Sun
Speaker 6: was able to buy long bladed items across Melbourne for
Speaker 6: as little as four dollars. Seven stores from Richmond to
Speaker 6: spring Vale still have the lethal items on offer, with
Speaker 6: one selling three long blades for just seventeen dollars and
Speaker 6: seventy cents. I mean, we kind of knew this was coming.
Speaker 6: How do you enforce a ban? That's the whole problem,
Speaker 6: and won't all these kids just rushed to buy machetes.
Speaker 3: And winja center.
Speaker 4: Ellen was asked on Monday, why wouldn't you apply the
Speaker 4: ban immediately other than wait until noon on Wednesday. She
Speaker 4: said we wanted to give retailers time. She didn't say
Speaker 4: the next part to discount their blades so they could
Speaker 4: get rid of them. And so if you're a gang
Speaker 4: member in Melbourne, happy days, four bucks for a blade.
Speaker 3: It's really good going. So there you go.
Speaker 2: What did they think would happen? Really? Oh? Oh god?
Speaker 4: So it's a story Victorian labor party though unintended consequences
Speaker 4: in pretty much every area.
Speaker 2: Now, now you know what else you can't sell in
Speaker 2: Victoria illegal cigarettes, and yet you can buy them in
Speaker 2: every convenience store in the state.
Speaker 4: Let's go to Tasmani. The front page of the Hobart
Speaker 4: Mercury headline reads troubled waters fairies face more delays.
Speaker 3: I can't believe this story.
Speaker 4: Tasmania's replacement bas straight fairies will remain on the other
Speaker 4: side of the world for an indefinite period while repairs
Speaker 4: are made to fixate problem uncovered during sea trials. Now,
Speaker 4: these fairies were supposed to be completed in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 4: where now what twenty twenty five, and they're hoping to
Speaker 4: have them now by well, we don't know when we'll
Speaker 4: get them. The problem originally was that the port in
Speaker 4: Tasmania was not sufficient to take these new fairies. The
Speaker 4: port was meant to be ninety million dollars to renovate.
Speaker 4: It's now blown out to four hundred and ninety three
Speaker 4: million dollars. Won't be ready until October twenty twenty six.
Speaker 4: So take all of that and Tasmanians are paying five
Speaker 4: hundred million dollars a year to have these fairies sit
Speaker 4: ones in Scotland. I think the other ones in Ireland
Speaker 4: or wherever it is idle waiting for the port to
Speaker 4: be built.
Speaker 2: And I think the Irish wanted to float it and
Speaker 2: turn it into a refugee camp today while they waited.
Speaker 2: You send it the Anians.
Speaker 4: We're going to lease it out as a refugee camp
Speaker 4: and then finally get it.
Speaker 6: Back to probably the infrastructure.
Speaker 3: All right, we're going to go to a break. When
Speaker 3: we come back, we're going to show you dope of
Speaker 3: the day.
Speaker 4: You won't believe what this Melbourne criminal did to himself
Speaker 4: that's coming up in a moment. We don't talk about
Speaker 4: Russian TV too often, but Fray, they've got a new
Speaker 4: cartoon that is of interest in the.
Speaker 3: Country of Russia. They do well.
Speaker 6: I think everyone's concerned about how we instill patriotism into
Speaker 6: our children. The Russians have really taken this on and
Speaker 6: one of their most infamous propagandists have produced a new
Speaker 6: cartoon for children to teach them about geopolitics and the world.
Speaker 6: Some of the characters featured include Donald Trump, Elon Musk,
Speaker 6: and Kim Jong Un.
Speaker 2: Check it out.
Speaker 3: Must the Muscape bullets.
Speaker 6: So those are all the world leaders in a like
Speaker 6: a babyface filter meeting on a zoom call to discuss geopolitics,
Speaker 6: which is pretty hilarious. But as I was watching that,
Speaker 6: I got a bit upset and I thought, well, where
Speaker 6: were Albanese's invite if he World leader propaganda Zoom summit.
Speaker 6: And so you know, we did a bit of mocking
Speaker 6: up on Ai behind the scenes, and this is what
Speaker 6: we reckon. He would look like he'd probably get on
Speaker 6: there and lecture them on how they could also instill
Speaker 6: Marxist identity politics into their constitutions as well.
Speaker 2: The poor bag has already gone gray as a baby,
Speaker 2: and he does versifully have a little more here than you, James,
Speaker 2: though I think actually that is giving him a bit
Speaker 2: of a free ride because he's here, isn't all that
Speaker 2: much different to yours, James, if you look at him from.
Speaker 3: Behind, just get on with the show.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just an occupational hazard. You've got to
Speaker 2: deal with it, James. HR will deal with me later.
Speaker 2: No they won't. I have a perfect record of course.
Speaker 2: Actually actually become a big thing as well. Now people
Speaker 2: are doing this with like other clips, they get AI
Speaker 2: to generate baby versions. I've seen it of like Clarkson's
Speaker 2: farm and top gear and stuff. It's quite amusing really.
Speaker 2: Speaking of amusing, we're going to bring you a new
Speaker 2: segment that we call Dope of the Day Dog and
Speaker 2: there will be plenty of entries I'm sure over the
Speaker 2: coming months and days. But the one I have for
Speaker 2: you today is a particular fellow down in Melbourne. Now
Speaker 2: he carried out this attack last year in May that
Speaker 2: the coppers are still looking for him. So he rocks
Speaker 2: up to a restaurant in Campbellfilld the Almjean Restaurant, which,
Speaker 2: for some reason or another. He decided it would be
Speaker 2: a good idea to set on fire. So he breaks
Speaker 2: through the front door and palls around the petrol or
Speaker 2: whatever xellerant he has and gets out the match and
Speaker 2: lights it up and boom goes the restaurant and he decides,
Speaker 2: oh god, I've got to get myself out of this
Speaker 2: position now. So he walks out of the restaurant on
Speaker 2: fire and he's trying to get in the car and
Speaker 2: you can see he's on fire trying to get in
Speaker 2: the car. The head he goes, no, I got to
Speaker 2: get down and do the stop, drop and roll. And
Speaker 2: it's not the first time we've seen an example of this.
Speaker 2: We showed one ages ago again in Melbourne, I think
Speaker 2: where they'd gone after a tobacconist and you can see
Speaker 2: the blow. I mean, look at him there, pouring it
Speaker 2: all over himself as he's trying to get away, sits
Speaker 2: himself on fire. They don't send their brightest minds in
Speaker 2: to do these jobs.
Speaker 3: I think it's called karma. I think.
Speaker 2: I don't think he would have filled any karma after
Speaker 2: he left the restaurant.
Speaker 3: Put it that way, Well, that's all we've got time for.
Speaker 3: But stick around Coming up is the readA Pennety Show,
Speaker 3: good Night