Speaker 1: Late Welcome to the Late Debate. Thanks for joining us
Speaker 1: on the Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond
Speaker 1: and freyer Leitch. Coming up tonight our dope of the
Speaker 1: day at Queensland tafe teacher who tried to sell college
Speaker 1: property on Facebook marketplace.
Speaker 2: No idea how he got court.
Speaker 1: Plus when we look at what's making news tomorrow, members
Speaker 1: of the public will be allowed to carry pepper spray
Speaker 1: in the Northern Territory for self defense and the Career
Speaker 1: Mail reveals the eyewatering amount Queensland motorists have been fined
Speaker 1: in traffic offenses.
Speaker 2: All of that coming up.
Speaker 1: Shortly, But first, the Federal Court has ruled that a
Speaker 1: non citizen sex offender should be allowed to stay in Australia.
Speaker 1: In other words, no, the government cannot deport this sex offender.
Speaker 1: And I'm reticent to say it, but I think I
Speaker 1: agree with the court on this one. There's no question
Speaker 1: the man should be deported. A Somali refugee who pled
Speaker 1: guilty to an indecent act in front of a child
Speaker 1: on public transport. But the issue is how long it
Speaker 1: took for the Albanese government to get around to try
Speaker 1: to deport him. The sex offender's visa was upheld by
Speaker 1: the administras of Tribunal in April twenty twenty one, but
Speaker 1: it wasn't until June twenty twenty four, and after media coverage,
Speaker 1: that the then Immigration Minister Andrew Jiles finally got around
Speaker 1: to trying to deport the guy, three years and two
Speaker 1: months after the event. The Federal Court Judge Christopher Horn
Speaker 1: said in his ruling, if the Minister is to exercise
Speaker 1: the power to set aside the original decision and cancel
Speaker 1: the visa, the Minister must do so within a reasonable time.
Speaker 1: Otherwise the connection with the original decision as the object
Speaker 1: of the power will be lost, and it can no
Speaker 1: longer be said that the Minister is addressing or responding
Speaker 1: to the state of affairs produced by or resulting from
Speaker 1: the original decision.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think.
Speaker 1: There's any question at all that former Immigration Minister Andrew
Speaker 1: Giles was responding to the original issue. He was responding
Speaker 1: to the media attention. In other words, he acted three
Speaker 1: years and two months later to try to deport the
Speaker 1: man not to protect Australian citizens, but to protect his
Speaker 1: own reputation and that of a labor government, who we
Speaker 1: all know is weak on borders and on immigration.
Speaker 2: Oftentimes, Caleb, we blame.
Speaker 1: The legal system for stuffing up these things and preventing
Speaker 1: the deportation of people who should be evicted from this country.
Speaker 1: But in this instance, I think the court's got it right.
Speaker 1: The fault lies with the political class, specifically the Albanese
Speaker 1: government and Andrew Giles.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: The cause is simply trying to uphold good governance and
Speaker 4: it's not often that the courts do these things. And
Speaker 4: of course I'd like to see this guy deported. I
Speaker 4: do believe in ministerial discretion he ought to have the
Speaker 4: power to deport people in these cases. But those decisions
Speaker 4: should be made as soon as someone is convicted of
Speaker 4: a crime. Once you've been convicted, you've been sent to jail.
Speaker 4: Once you walk out of the front gates of that jail,
Speaker 4: you should be on the next plane out of the country.
Speaker 4: If you are not a citizen and we have somewhere
Speaker 4: we can deport you to.
Speaker 5: These are decisions to be made three four years down
Speaker 5: the line.
Speaker 4: Because the Australian found it out before you did and
Speaker 4: wrote it up in the newspaper.
Speaker 5: Because in those intervening three years and again. You know,
Speaker 5: I hate to sound like I'm.
Speaker 4: Defending a sex offender, but you by not deporting him
Speaker 4: when he's walked out of jail or after the conviction,
Speaker 4: you've given him the opportunity to continue or to set
Speaker 4: up a life in Australia. And so three years down
Speaker 4: the line you then say to someone, oh, sorry, buddy,
Speaker 4: we got it wrong three years ago. Now it's time
Speaker 4: for you to buzz off. In the meantime, he's made
Speaker 4: his friends, he may well have started a family, so
Speaker 4: many things you can do in three years, bought a house,
Speaker 4: whatever it might be, and all of a sudden we go,
Speaker 4: oh gee, we made a mistake.
Speaker 5: We've got to get rid of you.
Speaker 4: These decisions should be made immediately, The minister should be
Speaker 4: on top of them, and the court is simply saying
Speaker 4: that is how things should be run. And if it
Speaker 4: takes one guy who ought to be deported not being
Speaker 4: deported to.
Speaker 5: Get that message through to the government, I think it's
Speaker 5: worth it.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree with you, Caleb that obviously this was
Speaker 3: a failure of the Immigration minister to deport this serious
Speaker 3: repeat offender in the first place. However, I do disagree
Speaker 3: with the Federal Court's decision in this matter, because it's
Speaker 3: very clear in the Migration Act ministers have the discretion
Speaker 3: to intervene and cancel people's visas and that is at
Speaker 3: their discretion. There is no time constraint in the Act
Speaker 3: on when that discretion should be exercised. So while I
Speaker 3: agree with you that he waited three years too long,
Speaker 3: I think in this instance the judge has made up
Speaker 3: a time frame within which you should use that discretion.
Speaker 3: That is simple not in the law. The law's very
Speaker 3: clear the minister has the discretion, there is nothing about
Speaker 3: it being it has to be within a certain amount
Speaker 3: of time or reasonable time. And then once you invent that,
Speaker 3: well what is a reasonable time? Three weeks, three months,
Speaker 3: three years?
Speaker 1: Which is because those who wrote the law never anticipated
Speaker 1: in immigration minister like Andrew. I know, I know he
Speaker 1: would be asleep for three years and two months be
Speaker 1: more getting around and doing his job.
Speaker 3: That may be true, but why should serious offenders benefit
Speaker 3: from bureaucratic incompetence and why should Australians be put at
Speaker 3: risk and criminals not be deported just because we have
Speaker 3: an immigration minister that can't do his job on time.
Speaker 3: Even though he failed in his job to do it
Speaker 3: in a timely manner. That is not necessarily against the.
Speaker 4: Law, because everyone, including criminals, unfortunately, are entitled to procedural fairness.
Speaker 4: There was a problem clearly with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Speaker 4: through which this case originally went, where he was given
Speaker 4: the right to stay in the country. That was a
Speaker 4: serious issue that went on four years. It was only
Speaker 4: blown open by the Australian So the Federal government took
Speaker 4: no issue with the decisions of the Administrative Appeal Tribunal.
Speaker 4: Four years allowed that problem to festa where people were
Speaker 4: allowed illegal people who have committed crimes in this country
Speaker 4: while on visas were allowed to stay in the country
Speaker 4: on the flimsiest of reasons, and the federal government saw
Speaker 4: no problem with that. All they tried to do was
Speaker 4: save face. The court is simply saying that you are
Speaker 4: entitled to procedural fairness, and the minister failed to deliver
Speaker 4: the good news.
Speaker 1: The good news is the government can appeal this decision
Speaker 1: and I expected around seven to eight years from Yeah
Speaker 1: they probably.
Speaker 3: Yes, I know, and Caleb, that's a valid point. Everyone
Speaker 3: should be entitled to procedural fairness. But just because the
Speaker 3: decision to cancel his visa was delayed, does not mean
Speaker 3: that procedural fantas resigned because the criminal still got to
Speaker 3: appeal the cancelation of the visa, So even though it
Speaker 3: was delayed, fairness was not denied.
Speaker 1: That there's a perception issue here, though Freyer, it could
Speaker 1: well be argued that if the minister had no problem
Speaker 1: with this man staying in Australia for three years until
Speaker 1: it appeared in the Australia, that the issue is not
Speaker 1: in his sex offense.
Speaker 2: The issue is the publicity and that's.
Speaker 3: A big bob and that's where I agree with you.
Speaker 3: The problem with this government is that Giles only seemed
Speaker 3: to care once his own failures were blown up in
Speaker 3: the media. But that doesn't change the legal standing of
Speaker 3: the decision.
Speaker 4: How Typically, now, I'm going to start this story with
Speaker 4: a quote for you. Let me read this to you.
Speaker 4: It says we stand at a pivotal moment in our
Speaker 4: community's history. This this sounds like a rousing sort of speech,
Speaker 4: doesn't it. The acquisition of thirty plus acres in Mikolam
Speaker 4: isn't just about land. It's about securing our children's future
Speaker 4: and establishing a legacy that will serve generations to come.
Speaker 4: And it might sound like I'm reading to you from
Speaker 4: the manifesto of the boy Scouts or something like that.
Speaker 4: I'm actually talking about a big Islamic compound that some
Speaker 4: people want to build in Victoria. Of course, they said
Speaker 4: Michelm before is the suburb in Melbourne where they want
Speaker 4: to do this. There's a boke by the name of
Speaker 4: Sheik Abu Hamza. He also goes by Samir Motardi. He
Speaker 4: runs a charity called Iis in a World Aid and
Speaker 4: he's trying to raise three and a half million dollars
Speaker 4: to build an Islamic compound in Melbourne that well, it
Speaker 4: has everything except a supermarket. Basically, it would have two
Speaker 4: high schools boys and girls. It'd have a primary school,
Speaker 4: a special needs school, a retirement village, a nursing home,
Speaker 4: a hall, a sports field, multiple sports fields, and a mosque.
Speaker 5: It is the one stop shop in his vision for
Speaker 5: Muslims in.
Speaker 4: Victoria, which raises the question if you're able to do this.
Speaker 4: And he's asking but he's got half the money so far.
Speaker 4: He says, he's asking for one thousand people to donate
Speaker 4: three and a half grand each so he can go
Speaker 4: and buy this land for three and a half million
Speaker 4: dollars to build his massive Muslim compound, and of course
Speaker 4: that would then have to go through planning permission, et cetera,
Speaker 4: at which point I expect there may be a lot
Speaker 4: of opposition voice to the Council of the State Government
Speaker 4: whoever has to deal with that application, based on the
Speaker 4: value of the apple.
Speaker 2: But it surely it.
Speaker 4: Raises the question that if you are able to create
Speaker 4: these compounds, and of course you come from a religion
Speaker 4: that is not the majority religion in this country.
Speaker 5: We're talking here.
Speaker 4: About Islam, you're trying to segregate yourself from the rest
Speaker 4: of society. If you belong to another religion or another
Speaker 4: race or whatever, and you come to Australia, surely you
Speaker 4: come here because you want to be part of the country.
Speaker 5: Well, this is the exact opposite of that.
Speaker 4: And time and again this is the issue we see
Speaker 4: with social cohesion, particularly it would seem when it comes
Speaker 4: to Islam, people trying to remove themselves from the rest
Speaker 4: of society on that basis alone. Should this ever get
Speaker 4: to planning permission, I think it needs to be knocked back.
Speaker 1: Well, the irony here is the Australian government has just
Speaker 1: vetoed the visa of an Israeli American speaker because he
Speaker 1: said that radical Islam was like a global plague. So
Speaker 1: he's been denied entry to this country. And yet in
Speaker 1: Victoria you've got a Muslim leader building a thirty acre
Speaker 1: compound who said things like if the then opposition leader
Speaker 1: visited his mosque, Peter Dutton, the man he was talking about,
Speaker 1: would be thrown out. He's called for the eradication of Israel,
Speaker 1: and he's described Zionists, those who believe in the state
Speaker 1: of Israel, as blood sucking humans.
Speaker 2: Here's some of what he had to say.
Speaker 1: This is the man who proposes to build this Islamic compound.
Speaker 1: I've always said that, I've always believed that these Zionists
Speaker 1: are not normal.
Speaker 5: They're blood sucking human beings.
Speaker 2: They're scavengers, they're not humans.
Speaker 5: I swear by a lot in Shawa they all go.
Speaker 6: Back to Ukraine and Russia and America and Britain, and
Speaker 6: that Palestine is pure from these filthy terra Zionists.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's got the right to build a compound,
Speaker 1: for sure, but is this the kind of person we
Speaker 1: want gathering like minded people together so that he can
Speaker 1: influence them and propagate his view of the world.
Speaker 3: It's extremely shocking and to use that language like we
Speaker 3: hope Palestine is pure from these people, these blood sucking people.
Speaker 3: That language of disgust is reminiscent of the kinds of
Speaker 3: language people use when they want to dehumanize others and
Speaker 3: then justify, you know, horrible things against them, and so
Speaker 3: I think it's really concerning. It's also concerning that if
Speaker 3: this compound gets built, how much oversight is there going
Speaker 3: to be of what happens on the compound. I imagine
Speaker 3: not very much, and that's part of why they want
Speaker 3: to build it.
Speaker 1: It raises some questions, and one is around and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure where this man was born, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So I'm not talking about him specifically, but we do
Speaker 1: need to have a talk about immigration and the values
Speaker 1: that we bring to our country. I do note that
Speaker 1: that Sheikh said that there was nothing wrong with what
Speaker 1: he said because he was simply exercising his freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: He's quite right in that. But we really want to
Speaker 1: make or people who come to Australia I'm speaking generally,
Speaker 1: that they view the values in this country as a
Speaker 1: privilege to be cherished, not as a right to be
Speaker 1: leveraged and to be exploited. The other thing this highlights
Speaker 1: is the danger we have, particularly on the left, of
Speaker 1: continually dividing the community up into groups who have grievances
Speaker 1: against one another. Because when you've got that happening, there's
Speaker 1: no overriding Australian values or glue that everyone can join together.
Speaker 1: And so what you're going to end up with is
Speaker 1: not just an Islamic compound in Melbourne.
Speaker 2: You're going to end up with what do you want
Speaker 2: to call them?
Speaker 1: Compounds, ghettos, isolated groups of all kinds, and the country
Speaker 1: just fractures along those lines. And too often we see
Speaker 1: politicians exploiting grievances so they can play to different groups,
Speaker 1: promising to solve their grievances in return for power, and
Speaker 1: we wonder why the country is so fractured. What we're
Speaker 1: seeing there is just a symptom or an example of
Speaker 1: a broader problem we have in this country where politicians
Speaker 1: are increasingly dividing Australians in order to win power rather
Speaker 1: than trying to genuinely unite us.
Speaker 5: Yes, and they are dividing themselves.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, if you want to build a
Speaker 4: religious compound where you have basically everything, that the only
Speaker 4: reason that you would need to leave that compound is
Speaker 4: to go and do your shopping. You are essentially saying
Speaker 4: I don't want to participate in broader Australian society. It
Speaker 4: is a one stop shop. It is religious separatism, and
Speaker 4: we particularly see that as a problem with certain elements
Speaker 4: of Islam. The guy leading it, we just told you
Speaker 4: and showed you what he says, so you'd certainly have
Speaker 4: issues with the elements of Islam that he may will
Speaker 4: be preaching within this compound. And you have a situation,
Speaker 4: of course, where demography is everything. Demography dictates destiny. And
Speaker 4: so if you say it's all good and well if
Speaker 4: they have one of these compounds, well someone will see
Speaker 4: that and it'll turn into compound after compound after compound
Speaker 4: after compound, and people go, well, Australians the country where
Speaker 4: we can go and do whatever the hell we want,
Speaker 4: and no one's going.
Speaker 5: To stop us.
Speaker 4: We took the other night about the United Kingdom, and
Speaker 4: I'll preface this by saying that we are restricted by
Speaker 4: broadcast rules about what we can and cannot say so
Speaker 4: I'm being careful here, But we took the other night
Speaker 4: about a story out of the United Kingdom where they're
Speaker 4: saying that the population that the Islamic population, what was it,
Speaker 4: by twenty fifty or the end of the century, will
Speaker 4: be twenty five percent Muslim. So you start moving towards that,
Speaker 4: and you're talking about a very different country you're looking at.
Speaker 4: I know the numbers aren't to start in Australia right now,
Speaker 4: but you start allowing this sort of thing, and you
Speaker 4: set up a world in which, yes, Australia could be
Speaker 4: twenty five percent Muslim.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing. Multiculturalism or multi ethnic societies only
Speaker 3: work if we have shared culture, shared values, and shared
Speaker 3: experiences as well going through the common school system, integrating
Speaker 3: with people of different backgrounds. That's all really important to
Speaker 3: have a cohesive society. But a new study has just
Speaker 3: come out which says apparently the majority of Australians, in fact,
Speaker 3: seven in ten ouzsies admit to faking sick days, costing
Speaker 3: the economy seven point three billion dollars a year. Some
Speaker 3: of the reasons they might fake six days is lack
Speaker 3: of sleep. Others say it's for they want to relax
Speaker 3: and recharge, like a well being day, and others take
Speaker 3: a mental health day. And women apparently are more likely
Speaker 3: to take mental health days than men. And apparently eighty
Speaker 3: five percent of gen Z my own generation admit to
Speaker 3: doing it, which is a little bit depressing.
Speaker 1: So as a woman, and as gen Z on the desk, pray,
Speaker 1: you need to explain yourself.
Speaker 3: I do not take fake sick days, but I know
Speaker 3: this is a common thing, and people look at these
Speaker 3: six days of their crew and they think, well, isn't
Speaker 3: this unfair? I know my fellow colleague is not sick.
Speaker 3: They're getting all these extra days of leave. Because I'm healthy,
Speaker 3: I have to show up to work more than other people.
Speaker 3: Isn't that unfair? But I do think this is a
Speaker 3: little dodgy. It undermines trust in the workplace and it's
Speaker 3: just not the kind of culture we want to be setting.
Speaker 2: It's totally dodgy.
Speaker 1: Talk to many Aussies and I said, ah, THESSI it's
Speaker 1: a great tradition. But if you talk to employers who
Speaker 1: have to pick up the tab, who have to deal
Speaker 1: with co workers who now have to do extra work
Speaker 1: because others are away. I don't think they believe it's
Speaker 1: just a great Aussie tradition.
Speaker 2: It's it erodes trust.
Speaker 1: As you said, then it undermines productivity, and kind of
Speaker 1: the way you're looking at me, I reckon you're going
Speaker 1: to defend Sicki's.
Speaker 4: I am as someone who doesn't take them.
Speaker 5: I mean I've been.
Speaker 2: Sermitting on behalf of a friend.
Speaker 4: No, no, seriously, I've been renowned in many workplaces for
Speaker 4: never taking sick leave, and I've probably taken the most
Speaker 4: sick leave I've ever taken in the time i've worked here,
Speaker 4: purely because you don't want to go on air sounding
Speaker 4: really hoarse and like it's much more difficult to do
Speaker 4: your job while sick.
Speaker 5: But when I worked in newspapers, I mean hell or.
Speaker 4: High water, I generally went to where whether I was
Speaker 4: hangover or sick as a dog or whatever it might be,
Speaker 4: I always showed up for the job because I thought
Speaker 4: that was the right thing to do. But you get
Speaker 4: your ten days of personal leave a year if you
Speaker 4: don't lose it. You know, if you don't use it,
Speaker 4: eventually it'll disappear one day.
Speaker 5: If you leave your job, you do a crew, but
Speaker 5: you can keep it I checked.
Speaker 4: I've got more than four hundred hours of personal leave
Speaker 4: sitting this. I think I can take about eight weeks
Speaker 4: of sick leave, so I'll see you by the time
Speaker 4: summer comes around.
Speaker 5: But you know what, Look, seriously.
Speaker 4: If you take one day off here and there, who
Speaker 4: really cares?
Speaker 5: I've your wages cares?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Well you can go and take it up with
Speaker 4: the government and say, mister government man, why are you
Speaker 4: giving them ten days a week. Well, honestly, if you're
Speaker 4: taking a day off here and there, does it really matter.
Speaker 5: It's your leave for you to do with what you want.
Speaker 4: If you're taking a day off saying is sick, seriously,
Speaker 4: get over it.
Speaker 5: But you are a bunch of narks.
Speaker 1: It's sick leaves, it's not I want to sleep in leave.
Speaker 1: So it's not yours to take willy nilly as you feel.
Speaker 1: It's there in case you're sick.
Speaker 5: Okay, all right, well I'm you prove I'm not sick.
Speaker 5: I'm sick. I'm sick in the head. I don't know.
Speaker 5: You can be sick with a hundred different things.
Speaker 1: That's the other right, So then when people are genuinely sick,
Speaker 1: if you've got too many staff known for taking sickies.
Speaker 1: Then you call in the question the legitimate claims.
Speaker 5: What you're going to start saying they're going to be
Speaker 5: knocking back sickly.
Speaker 4: But I don't think that's good. I mean they can
Speaker 4: they can force you to go and get a medical certificate.
Speaker 4: If you, as an employer, are not making the employer
Speaker 4: get the medical certificate, you're.
Speaker 5: The idiot, aren't you.
Speaker 4: I mean, really, if the rules are there that they
Speaker 4: have to prove that they get the medical certificate, you.
Speaker 1: Want to be able to lie to your boss, just
Speaker 1: sleep in or go to the foot, go to the
Speaker 1: races or whatever.
Speaker 2: But it's everyone else's fault and responsibility.
Speaker 5: What do you mean it's everyone else's fault and response.
Speaker 3: We have to pick up the slack if you don't
Speaker 3: pick up the slack.
Speaker 4: This is a three person panel. They've put another person
Speaker 4: in this seat. They have to pick up any slack
Speaker 4: at all. I don't know why you ken.
Speaker 1: Can I just remind you our very first episode of
Speaker 1: the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: I was six as a dog. You were yeah, And
Speaker 2: I didn't take a sicky I showed it, yeah, And.
Speaker 4: You had COVID mate, and you could have come. No,
Speaker 4: you ate COVID and we started this program, and you
Speaker 4: could have come in and got the rest of us sick,
Speaker 4: and that would have been the end of the late
Speaker 4: debate in it his first.
Speaker 5: Week, that was irresponsible. You should have taken you sickly.
Speaker 2: I was committed, I was here. We're going to move
Speaker 2: on from that. Thanks for telling everybody I had COVID.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, it's just the truth that you believe
Speaker 5: in that about credit.
Speaker 1: Tunnberg who had been kidnapped, and I got to admit
Speaker 1: it was the most strange kidnapping you've ever seen in
Speaker 1: your life. The IDF intercepted her boat as it headed
Speaker 1: towards Gaza, and having kidnapped her, they plied her with
Speaker 1: water and sandwiches. Then they took her to safety, where
Speaker 1: they requested she watch a video the horrific atrocities committed
Speaker 1: by her muss on October seven. Tunberg, when she realized
Speaker 1: what that video was, refused to watch. And so next minute,
Speaker 1: these evil kidnappers put her on a plane back to
Speaker 1: Europe from whence she had come. Here's Donald Trump talking
Speaker 1: about Greta Tunberg and his view of this very special woman.
Speaker 6: Well, she's a strange person. She's a young, angry person.
Speaker 6: I don't know if it's real anger. It's hard to believe, actually,
Speaker 6: but I saw what happened. She's certainly different anger management.
Speaker 6: I think she has to go to an anger management last,
Speaker 6: that's my primary recommendation for her.
Speaker 1: If we can just show the images of Greta Tunberg
Speaker 1: again on the plane as she was sent back to Europe,
Speaker 1: she doesn't look that happy. She went to Gaza to
Speaker 1: win a Nobel Priest prize and instead she only got sandwiches.
Speaker 1: She wanted free Palestine, she got free sandwiches.
Speaker 3: And to add insult to injury, this is apparently the
Speaker 3: first time she's flown on a plane since twenty fifteen,
Speaker 3: so she was probably sitting on the plane stressed about
Speaker 3: all the carbon emissions that she was emitting. And I
Speaker 3: also love that the Israelis put her right next to
Speaker 3: a toilet, exactly where she belongs. But to be honest,
Speaker 3: the fact, on a very serious note, the fact that
Speaker 3: she refused to watch the footage of October seven. She
Speaker 3: went to Gaza under the pretense of caring about civilian suffering,
Speaker 3: but when given the opportunity to actually witness firsthand the
Speaker 3: worst massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust. She refused,
Speaker 3: so that shows us it's not really the civilian suffering
Speaker 3: she cares about. She doesn't care about Israeli suffering. She
Speaker 3: is anti Israel. None of this is about being pro Palestine,
Speaker 3: because if she was pro Palestine, she'd be condemning her mask.
Speaker 3: She'd be calling for the hostages to be released, she'd
Speaker 3: be supporting the Gazan Humanitarian Fund, which is actually delivering
Speaker 3: aid two garzens versus letting it be looted by her mask.
Speaker 3: But she's doing none of that. So this is just
Speaker 3: an outrageous stunt designed to keep more international pressure on Israel.
Speaker 3: But I think Israel handled it as best they could.
Speaker 3: But it really does show her true colors.
Speaker 4: You're right, it was a stunt and it's turned into
Speaker 4: a side show. I mean, really, all Greater cares about
Speaker 4: is publicity for herself and the money she gets from
Speaker 4: her funders to do these stupid things, right, I mean,
Speaker 4: I honestly don't think she actually cares about anything. I
Speaker 4: think she was a young woman who was exploited by
Speaker 4: adults in her life and pointed in the right direction
Speaker 4: and wound up like a doll, and she did the
Speaker 4: job brilliantly. Now she finds herself as an adult struggling
Speaker 4: for relevance, and so she's jumped onto what is the
Speaker 4: nearest issue, which is currently the war between Israel and Gaza.
Speaker 5: But I'll go back to what I said last night.
Speaker 5: I think they've given her.
Speaker 4: Israel's given her what she wanted, which was the headline
Speaker 4: to say they won't get into Gaza.
Speaker 5: And you know, I'm not saying.
Speaker 4: That these are the people that I follow continually on
Speaker 4: social media, but if you go on social media and
Speaker 4: look at you know, lefty people who have a passing
Speaker 4: interest in this issue, they all.
Speaker 5: Think Greatera is a hero.
Speaker 4: And principally they think Greatera is a hero because she
Speaker 4: stood up to the IDF. So again, I feel like
Speaker 4: they've handed her a free kick that they didn't have
Speaker 4: to know.
Speaker 3: No, I disagree with you, Caleb. I think the IDF
Speaker 3: handled this as well as they could because she's trying
Speaker 3: to paint herself as this kidnapped victim when there are
Speaker 3: photos that clearly show the difference between her kidnapping and
Speaker 3: real kidnapping of Israeli's On October seven, like the ones
Speaker 3: you can see on your screen. Did have Mass offer
Speaker 3: their Jewish victims nice pastrami hla sandwich is in a
Speaker 3: bottle of water and a safe escort to safety. Absolutely not.
Speaker 3: She looks like the absolute jo that is exploiting the
Speaker 3: suffering of innocent people for her own financial and publicity gain.
Speaker 1: I should refer to this tweet from Heidi Backham, which
Speaker 1: I thought summed it up really well. She tweeted, my
Speaker 1: husband's cousin was kidnapped from his home in Israel by
Speaker 1: her muss He was dragged to Gaza barefoot, covering in
Speaker 1: his daughter's blood.
Speaker 2: He never came back alive.
Speaker 1: How dare you use that word referring to the claim
Speaker 1: of those on the Freedom flotilla that they had been
Speaker 1: kidnapped by Israel.
Speaker 2: Facts don't matter for Greta Tunberg.
Speaker 1: I mean, aside from her views with on her mass
Speaker 1: and the environment, she's all about women's rights too. Will
Speaker 1: her uncovered legs and her pensiant for speaking her mind
Speaker 1: would never be tolerated in Gaza, where she was going.
Speaker 1: But the facts don't matter to her. What matters is
Speaker 1: the photo opportunity.
Speaker 2: She got. Her photo opportunity but I'm with you, Frayer.
Speaker 1: I think the frown on her face as she sits
Speaker 1: by the toilet in the aircraft with no ability to
Speaker 1: recline her seat says.
Speaker 2: It all all credibility gone.
Speaker 1: And as for those lefties, Caleb that you're following on
Speaker 1: so social media, if they believe Greta is a hero
Speaker 1: for standing up to the IDF, they will believe anything whatever.
Speaker 5: They may well.
Speaker 4: But I guess that's the point I've been making, is
Speaker 4: that you know, people who like Greta will think she's
Speaker 4: a hero for this, just as they would have thought
Speaker 4: she was a hero if she made land in Gaza,
Speaker 4: And people who don't like Greta think she's an idiot,
Speaker 4: and they would have thought she was an idiot regardless
Speaker 4: of whether the IDEF intercepted her boat. So you've not
Speaker 4: really ended up any better off. They've given her the
Speaker 4: tools she wants to use to say Ah Israel. You
Speaker 4: know you've ended up in the same position.
Speaker 1: Idea should be thanked for saving her life because she
Speaker 1: probably would have been in my day.
Speaker 4: No, I'm not thinking I'm not going to thank the
Speaker 4: IDEA for saving her life. They could have all done
Speaker 4: us a favor and let us sail on into Gaza
Speaker 4: as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 5: Let's talk about.
Speaker 4: Alban Easy at the National Press Club today. Of course
Speaker 4: he's on his victory lap, and deservedly so because he
Speaker 4: did have an exceptional election win. But he's been talking
Speaker 4: about this message recently about what do you calls progressive patriotism.
Speaker 4: I think he sniffed the wind. And of course seeing
Speaker 4: that overseas, particularly in Europe, there has been a great
Speaker 4: move towards people saying I want my country to remain
Speaker 4: my country, particularly when they've.
Speaker 5: Had issues of migration.
Speaker 4: We know how large the migration has been in this
Speaker 4: country in recent years under Alberanize in a move towards
Speaker 4: people saying I want to look after my country first. Alah,
Speaker 4: Donald Trump America first.
Speaker 5: So the Prime Minister.
Speaker 4: Anthony Albiniz, he's tried to tap into a little bit
Speaker 4: of that while also.
Speaker 5: Maintaining a left wing a gender It's a bit strange.
Speaker 5: Take a look.
Speaker 7: On the third of May, the Australian people voted for
Speaker 7: Australian values, for fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all, for
Speaker 7: a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things
Speaker 7: our own way.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm going to come back to the progressive patriotism
Speaker 4: point in a moment.
Speaker 5: Can we just see a little bit of that again.
Speaker 4: Keep your eyes very closely on the Deputy Prime Minister
Speaker 4: Richard Miles. When the Prime Minister talks about national pride.
Speaker 7: On the third of May, the Australian people voted for
Speaker 7: Australian values for Fenn.
Speaker 5: He rolls his eyes.
Speaker 4: The Prime Minister talking about Australian values. Wat should again
Speaker 4: that is very clearly an eye roll. Now, the cameraman
Speaker 4: who turned the camera on Richard Miles deserves a raise
Speaker 4: for picking up that bit of footage. I did sit
Speaker 4: forget about anything else, the Prime Minister said at the
Speaker 4: National Press Club today. The fact that the Deputy Prime
Speaker 4: Minister rolled his eyes at the PM mentioning Australian values,
Speaker 4: what is going on?
Speaker 3: It's like Richard Miles's nose, Alban easy is full of
Speaker 3: absolute horsepoo. I mean, you can't what is progressive patriotism?
Speaker 3: It is an oxymorn. Patriotism is in inherently conservative. It's
Speaker 3: about love of country. It's about protecting what we have
Speaker 3: been proud of who we are. No country that no
Speaker 3: government that has let in record numbers of migrants, no
Speaker 3: government that is making our country commit economic suicide for
Speaker 3: reliance on intimate and energy, No government that is trying
Speaker 3: to rewrite our history as this dark, negative, terrible thing
Speaker 3: we should all be ashamed of, that can possibly claim
Speaker 3: to stand for Australian values or any form of patriotism.
Speaker 3: And this progressive patriotism stuff is just a sham.
Speaker 2: You're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Patriotism does not exist in the world of Anthy Albanesi
Speaker 1: and nor the facts. Here he is speaking about the
Speaker 1: Channel nine US correspondent who was shot with a rubber bullet.
Speaker 2: Listen to what he says about that incident.
Speaker 7: Well, she was clearly identified, was clearly identified. You know,
Speaker 7: there was no ambiguity. She wasn't wearing a trekkie, She's
Speaker 7: wearing a helmet and something identified her as media.
Speaker 1: Really, well, let's take a look at the vision we
Speaker 1: all saw it yesterday. I just am surprised Anthie Alberanze's
Speaker 1: spoke about it without having seen it. She's wearing a helmet,
Speaker 1: as you can clearly see there, and she's got across
Speaker 1: her chest media, so she's clearly Oh, hang on a second,
Speaker 1: she's neither wearing a helmet nor a vest. That says
Speaker 1: media Anthony Albanesi is speaking about footage she clearly has
Speaker 1: not seen. I think this is just elbow jumping on
Speaker 1: the anti Trump bandwagon. He's using this as a pretext
Speaker 1: to slam Trump and Trump's policies, which is typical Labor
Speaker 1: and typical Anthony Albanesi. But clearly he's got his backs
Speaker 1: wrong or he's being deliberately foresee.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think they were Trump's gooons anyway. I
Speaker 4: think the suggestion is they were lapd So you can
Speaker 4: take it up with another bunch of people. Indeed, But
Speaker 4: you know, I think the point he is making is
Speaker 4: right that you shouldn't be shooting rabber bullet's a journal
Speaker 4: simply doing their job. But just take some detail, take
Speaker 4: some hair in the detail, because it discret read it
Speaker 4: to your argument when you get basic things like that wrong.
Speaker 4: And one of the great criticisms of Albanizi from within
Speaker 4: his cabinet and people within the Labor Party is that
Speaker 4: he is not a details man, much like Donald Trump
Speaker 4: in some ways he far favors truncated versions of detail
Speaker 4: and for someone to explain it to him rather than
Speaker 4: to pour over documents and go to the nth degree
Speaker 4: on the details of things, and this would seem like
Speaker 4: an example of him missing those basic details.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Well, speaking of the LA riots, things are
Speaker 3: only escalating. Seven hundred Marines and have now been deployed
Speaker 3: to Los Angeles and they'll be joining the two thousand
Speaker 3: National Guard that are already there. And the scenes on
Speaker 3: the streets are honestly shocking. Setting fires to cars, throwing
Speaker 3: bricks at police vans. I mean that is tantamount to
Speaker 3: attempted murder. And all of this is happening while the
Speaker 3: lap are completely overwhelmed. So Trump is naturally sending in reinforcements,
Speaker 3: but Gavin Newsom doesn't want them, and the Democrats have
Speaker 3: doubled down on their call to stop stop aggravating the
Speaker 3: protesters by enforcing the law. But the one Democrat that
Speaker 3: does seem to have their hair their heads switched on
Speaker 3: is US Senator John Fetterman, who said, rightfully, he does
Speaker 3: unapologetically stand with free speech, but you lose the moral
Speaker 3: high ground when you refuse to condemn setting cars on fire,
Speaker 3: destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement. And he rightfully points
Speaker 3: out This is anarchy and true chaos, and that's exactly
Speaker 3: what it is. But it is genuinely shocking because sometimes
Speaker 3: it feels like we live in an alternative reality to
Speaker 3: the mainstream media, because we've all seen the images of
Speaker 3: the sheer chaos in La Yet some in the media
Speaker 3: in the US think it's it's all happy dandy, just
Speaker 3: a bunch of peaceful protesters.
Speaker 8: Check this out, large group of people. It could turn
Speaker 8: very volatile if you move law enforcement in there and
Speaker 8: the wrong way and turn what is just a bunch
Speaker 8: of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive
Speaker 8: confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators.
Speaker 3: That's what I do on the weekend. I'm just one
Speaker 3: of those people who watches cos Ben have fun. This
Speaker 3: is honestly insane.
Speaker 1: It absolutely is, And I mean that was just one example.
Speaker 1: Take a look at this. This is media reporting versus
Speaker 1: the reality we can all see with our own eyes.
Speaker 4: The La County Police say that they have it under control.
Speaker 3: Caring a plague is not illegal.
Speaker 4: As you know, these agents are the ones provoking protesters.
Speaker 4: We are having an administration that's targeting peace full protest
Speaker 4: people that are there at protests unrest is isolated, LA
Speaker 4: has bombed, and millions of people, most of them are
Speaker 4: having a normal day here on Sunday.
Speaker 3: Conyson's rate there was anything like a riot happening on
Speaker 3: Friday Saturday.
Speaker 1: Of course, not everybody understands what the media are talking
Speaker 1: about when they're talking about Trump deporting illegals.
Speaker 2: He's this woman.
Speaker 3: I hear Donald Trump is sending all of the ill
Speaker 3: Eagles out of the country. But if the eagles are
Speaker 3: so great, doesn't he just take them to the vat.
Speaker 1: I love it, But the Democrats are really that's a joke,
Speaker 1: by the way, in case anyone out that was parody.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are using us to push their pre election agenda,
Speaker 1: trying to paint Trump as a dictator, as someone who
Speaker 1: wants to use the military against his own people. Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsome describe him as a deranged dictatorial president fulfilling his
Speaker 1: fantasies by unleashing the Marines. Democrats Senator Seth Molton said
Speaker 1: this is exactly what Trump wanted to turn the military
Speaker 1: against the American people. Bernie Sanders has ascribed Donald Trump
Speaker 1: as a wanna be dictator. Of course, Trump is simply
Speaker 1: trying to enforce the law which the Democrats who are
Speaker 1: in charge of California are encouraging everybody to break.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 4: Of course, and we mentioned before this business about rocks
Speaker 4: and bricks being thrown at police as take a look
Speaker 4: at this footage.
Speaker 5: It's worse than you can imagine it could be. Oh,
Speaker 5: can you.
Speaker 4: Throw on bricks at the police? You know, that's what
Speaker 4: happens in the United States now when you try to
Speaker 4: enforce the law. I suspect many of the people there
Speaker 4: probably a bit like that joke we showed you about
Speaker 4: the illegals. That's probably the greatest understanding of what all
Speaker 4: of this is about. They're just there to ironically actually
Speaker 4: have some fun because for some reason or another they
Speaker 4: think that's the way to behave in Trump's America.
Speaker 5: He's so bad, the Orange Man bad that.
Speaker 4: It justifies us doing all this sort of stuff. It
Speaker 4: is just disgusting.
Speaker 5: Before we get to a break, you might.
Speaker 4: Have heard this evening, The Sidny Morning Herald has been
Speaker 4: reporting that the ABC's long running current affairs program Q
Speaker 4: and A is coming to an end. Just a day
Speaker 4: after Channel ten said they were going to act the
Speaker 4: project over there, the ABC says they're now going to
Speaker 4: get rid of their flagship panel show seventeen years or
Speaker 4: nearly seventeen years. In two thousand and eight, Q and
Speaker 4: A has been running on the ABC, and once upon
Speaker 4: a time it.
Speaker 5: Was appointment viewing.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, I never missed Q and A
Speaker 4: on a Friday because it was the place you could
Speaker 4: go to for some real debate about the issues that
Speaker 4: were facing Australia. And they get any time there was
Speaker 4: someone big in Australia, they'd have them there on the panel,
Speaker 4: the Richard Dawkins of the world, Like, you know, anyone
Speaker 4: who was a major international figure when they were here
Speaker 4: was on Q and A to slug it out. I
Speaker 4: feel like in recent years, particularly after Tony Jones left,
Speaker 4: it's more or less turned into a left wing gab fest,
Speaker 4: so it's lost its reason for being. Consequently, it's lost
Speaker 4: all its viewers, and now the ABC says it's a
Speaker 4: lost cause.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a shame. There's not really anything like it
Speaker 2: on television at the moment.
Speaker 1: But I dare say it's such a great concept, and
Speaker 1: back in the day, as you say, it was a
Speaker 1: must watch program. So I dare say, at some point
Speaker 1: somewhere someone will bring back something similar and I hope
Speaker 1: they do because we need decent debate in this country.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 1: When we come back, look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 1: including members of the public in the Northern Territory will
Speaker 1: be allowed to carry peppespra pepbat spray for self defense.
Speaker 2: That's coming up in just a moment. Welcome back to
Speaker 2: the program.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at what's making headlines tomorrow, so
Speaker 1: your first informed. The Northern Territory News has an interesting
Speaker 1: story on the front page. Plans to bring in pepper
Speaker 1: spray sale trial for safety OC spray to be sold,
Speaker 1: reads the headline. The COLP government is taking public safety
Speaker 1: to a new level in the Northern Territory with pepper
Speaker 1: spray to be available for sale in coming months. Plans
Speaker 1: to launch a twelvemonth trial will allow eligible members of
Speaker 1: the public to carry the substance for self defense under
Speaker 1: strict legal conditions. Now pepper spray is of course illegal
Speaker 1: right around the country except in the West. Australian government
Speaker 1: allows people to carry pepper spray on their person if
Speaker 1: they have quote unquote reasonable grounds to believe that a
Speaker 1: threat might arise, which is a little murky as to
Speaker 1: how do you prove that you have reasonable grounds to
Speaker 1: believe a threat will arise. There's an interesting case there
Speaker 1: in twenty two thousand and two where a motel owner
Speaker 1: broke up a fight between guests using pepper spray, and weirdly,
Speaker 1: he wasn't charged for using the pepper spray, but he
Speaker 1: was charged for having the pepper spray on him because
Speaker 1: he was asked why did you have it in the
Speaker 1: first place, and he couldn't prove that he had reasonable
Speaker 1: grounds to believe he would have been a target of assault.
Speaker 1: That was later overturned on appeal. But I think that's
Speaker 1: the kind of law that this will be for certain
Speaker 1: individuals who have grounds to believe they are in need
Speaker 1: of self defense and a weapon to provide that defense.
Speaker 3: It only seems reasonable, especially with the youth crime crisis
Speaker 3: going on in the Northern territory. I would argue this
Speaker 3: should probably be extended to Queensland as well. I mean,
Speaker 3: you have kids coming in armed with knives and machetes,
Speaker 3: all sorts of weapons, and you're in your home completely defenseless, Like,
Speaker 3: how is that fair?
Speaker 4: Well, I should be extended everywhere as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 4: I've never understood why pepper spray is illegal for a
Speaker 4: person to carry.
Speaker 5: I mean, you don't hear of massive.
Speaker 4: Problems in Western Australia as a result of it, do you.
Speaker 4: If there was an issue, I'm sure we'd know about it.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, we don't really have any form
Speaker 4: of self defense available to us in Australia. Of course,
Speaker 4: we have very strict gun laws. You can't have you'll
Speaker 4: carry like you do in the United States.
Speaker 5: If you're a woman.
Speaker 4: Who finishes work late at night and you're on your
Speaker 4: way home, walking through a park or on a footpath
Speaker 4: or whatever, we basically say, yeah, your fair game. You
Speaker 4: have nothing with which to defend yourself. And I think
Speaker 4: that is a ridiculous situation that we should have done
Speaker 4: something about a long time ago. Good on the Northern
Speaker 4: Territory for taking some steps to do.
Speaker 3: Something, completely agree Moving on to the Herald Sun now,
Speaker 3: the headline is hospital fraud scandal. Damning allegations that staff
Speaker 3: at Victoria's busiest emergency department have been falsifying records to
Speaker 3: meet strict new workload targets are being investigated by the
Speaker 3: Department of Health. A Northern hospital whistleblower has claimed staff
Speaker 3: routinely change records, a practice dubbed data washing, to show
Speaker 3: patients being offloaded from ambulances within target times. Screenshots of
Speaker 3: internal hospital systems allegedly show offload times being falsified by
Speaker 3: up to an hour in some cases. So let me
Speaker 3: get this straight. Staff and a Victorian hospital are literally
Speaker 3: manipulating data, so committing low level fraud in order to
Speaker 3: show that they're more competent than they really are. I mean,
Speaker 3: nothing much surprises me coming out of Victoria these days,
Speaker 3: including gross incompetence, but this does seem concerning.
Speaker 2: It's an old expression.
Speaker 1: There's lives, damn lives and Victorian hospital figures. In August
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, it was reported that in all of
Speaker 1: Victoria there were only twelve percent of ambulances available to
Speaker 1: attend emergencies because eighty eight percent of the available ambulances
Speaker 1: were waiting outside hospitals for patients to be offloaded, and
Speaker 1: the two worst hospitals were the Northern Hospital near Epping
Speaker 1: and the box Hill Hospital. So a year later, it's
Speaker 1: not surprising to hear that staff at the Northern Hospital
Speaker 1: are accused of falsifying records to try and make it
Speaker 1: look a little better.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it was South Australia.
Speaker 4: They built a temporary tent next to the Royal Adelaide
Speaker 4: Hospital so they could grit patients out of the ambulance,
Speaker 4: so they could therefore say that there was no problem
Speaker 4: with ramping, even though of course the patients just to
Speaker 4: be moved out of the ambulance neve to the tent,
Speaker 4: so it did nothing to help the capacity of taking
Speaker 4: on the patients. And there was a very similar story
Speaker 4: broken in the Sydney Morning Herald on Sunday that in
Speaker 4: New South Wales hospitals public hospitals are meeting their KPIs
Speaker 4: and targets for surgery waitlists by just simply refusing to
Speaker 4: put people on the waitlist, particularly people with like category
Speaker 4: one cancer surgery required. That these are the most serious
Speaker 4: cases and the surgeons are having pressure put on them
Speaker 4: from those above them.
Speaker 5: That unless you can guarantee.
Speaker 4: We can get them in a room within thirty days,
Speaker 4: do not put them on the waiting list, because of
Speaker 4: course once they go on the waiting list it takes
Speaker 4: fifty days. Then it shows up as a problem with
Speaker 4: the weight times. If you're not on the waiting list,
Speaker 4: then you don't count in those statistics. It's a bit
Speaker 4: like Anastasia Palishaine. Queensland performed all these laws around youth
Speaker 4: crime and said, look, there's been a reduction in youth
Speaker 4: crime mostly because they got rid of crimes and change
Speaker 4: the behavior just means there are a few of people
Speaker 4: doing crime. Speaking of Coinsland, on the front of the
Speaker 4: courier Mail tomorrow it said road fines cash grab Queensland
Speaker 4: motorists was like nearly five hundred million dollars half a
Speaker 4: billion dollars in fines in a single year, with the
Speaker 4: government raking in three times more cash from bear drivers
Speaker 4: than it was five years ago. Motorists breaking seatbelt, red light,
Speaker 4: speed limit and mobile phone news rules. We find four
Speaker 4: hundred and sixty four point three million dollars in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty three twenty four, up from one hundred and seventy
Speaker 4: two point two million dollars in twenty nineteen twenty despite
Speaker 4: fewer offenses being committed. Well, you're not telling me that
Speaker 4: state governments used traffic offenses for revenue raising, are you.
Speaker 5: No, that wouldn't possibly mean true.
Speaker 4: So fewer offenses are being committed, but clearly they have
Speaker 4: increased the fines, so they rake in more money and
Speaker 4: say happy days.
Speaker 5: I mean, what is the point. What is the point? Well,
Speaker 5: I know what the point is for them to make
Speaker 5: lots of money, but it's not fair.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you could take the argument, well, if
Speaker 1: you don't speed, you won't have to pay the.
Speaker 2: Fines, so there you go.
Speaker 1: My problem, though, is less with the amount that people
Speaker 1: are being fined, and more the way they change speed zones,
Speaker 1: where you go from sixty to forty and back to
Speaker 1: sixty again. It's chopping and changing, and half the time
Speaker 1: you never know what speed limit it is on the
Speaker 1: road that you're driving.
Speaker 2: That's where they catch Yeah.
Speaker 3: I've been caught like that on the West Connex Tunnel
Speaker 3: in Sydney when there was a construction zone which was
Speaker 3: changed to forty. I obviously assumed it was still sixty
Speaker 3: or eighty and so you know, it sucks. But really
Speaker 3: I think fines are often just a tax on the stupids,
Speaker 3: so I support them.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the front page of the Hober Mercury, where,
Speaker 1: of course, the political stalemate in Tasmania dominates Governor Baker
Speaker 1: to consider all available options before triggering state election. And
Speaker 1: of course the sub editors have had their best day
Speaker 1: this year with the headline poll dancing to describe the situation.
Speaker 1: Tasmania will remain in limbo for several days as the
Speaker 1: governor pond is a way to resolve the state's political crisis.
Speaker 1: Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe met with Governor Barbara Baker at Government
Speaker 1: House last night. After losing a vote of no confidence
Speaker 1: on the floor of the House of Assembly last Thursday.
Speaker 1: Mister Rockcliffe was expected to ask for an election to
Speaker 1: be called. That meeting was quite brief, less than an hour,
Speaker 1: and the Governor has said he should just cool his
Speaker 1: jets while she works out what should be done. So
Speaker 1: it'll be almost two weeks where Tasmania has effectively had
Speaker 1: no political leadership. There's major decisions hanging in the balance,
Speaker 1: not least of which Caleb the AFL Stadium. No one
Speaker 1: knows what's going to happen. It seems the governor doesn't
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen either.
Speaker 4: Am going to say good on Barbara Baker because she's
Speaker 4: simply trying to void the good people of Tasmania having
Speaker 4: to go to an election again. Because elections have very
Speaker 4: expensive things to run. So she's saying, look, seriously, you
Speaker 4: lot knock your heads together and sort this stuff out.
Speaker 5: You're acting like a bunch of children.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 3: Yes, but I'm not really sure about why that's the
Speaker 3: authority of the governor, given she would be pot it
Speaker 3: by the Premier.
Speaker 5: But that's the only point of the government.
Speaker 3: It's interesting. Moving on to the Australia now second Monash
Speaker 3: embryo debacle, Satan Federal health ministers will meet on Friday
Speaker 3: to urgently discuss regulation of the IVF sector after listed
Speaker 3: fertility company Monash IVF reported a second a mix up
Speaker 3: that resulted in the wrong embryo being implanted in a woman.
Speaker 3: Monash IVF on Tuesday morning notified the Australian Securities Exchange
Speaker 3: of its latest bungle, confirming it had mistakenly transplanted a
Speaker 3: Melbourne patient's own embryo to her instead of her partner's embryo,
Speaker 3: as the couple had planned. The incident occurred at the
Speaker 3: company's Clayton laboratory on last Thursday. Now, the details of
Speaker 3: exactly what happened appear a bit confusing one embryo to
Speaker 3: another partner. But it's the wrong embryo. But I think
Speaker 3: the point here is that this is the second second
Speaker 3: mistake made by monash ivf. A couple of months ago,
Speaker 3: they implanted someone else's embryo in a woman, meaning she
Speaker 3: delivered someone else's genetic baby. I can't even imagine how
Speaker 3: traumatic that would be for people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this is not the sort of mistake
Speaker 1: where normal businesses might be excused. This is you're dealing
Speaker 1: with human lives here, and for them to make one,
Speaker 1: not one, two mistakes like that is pretty outrageous and
Speaker 1: quite shocking.
Speaker 3: It's pretty shocking. Just quickly before we go, Snowy Hydro
Speaker 3: two point zero pays frog penalty. They'll pay four hundred
Speaker 3: thousand dollars to protect an endangered frog species as penalty
Speaker 3: for polluting a site and Mount Kosiosko here go.
Speaker 2: You don't want to mess with those frogs.
Speaker 1: When do you go to a When we come back,
Speaker 1: Dope of the day, a tafe teacher who tries to
Speaker 1: sell tape equipment on Facebook marketplace.
Speaker 2: That's coming up for a moment. Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the great things about this job, Caleb,
Speaker 1: is there's always someone doing something stupid to talk about.
Speaker 4: Indeed, there is and we call them the dope of
Speaker 4: the day, and today's entry is a bloke from Queensland
Speaker 4: called Trevor Donaldson. He works at Taife there and he
Speaker 4: stole from his local tafe a fire pump and a
Speaker 4: garden shed, which he decided he would put up on
Speaker 4: Facebook marketplace.
Speaker 5: Now, as you can.
Speaker 4: Imagine, when the tafe found out about this, they said,
Speaker 4: mister Donaldson, you may have to sack you. So he
Speaker 4: appealed the finding of misconduct, and of course the Industrial
Speaker 4: Relations Commissions come back and said, well, yes, you did
Speaker 4: actually misconduct by stealing tafe property and try to sell
Speaker 4: it online. His reason or his excuse for this not
Speaker 4: being misconduct, he says, is because he didn't dishonestly obtain
Speaker 4: and try to sell these items, because he did so
Speaker 4: on Facebook marketplace.
Speaker 5: And so it was well known to everyone.
Speaker 4: That he had taken these items and tried to sell
Speaker 4: them online. Therefore it wasn't dishonest. I mean, that has
Speaker 4: to be the flimsiest argument of all time. I stole
Speaker 4: the tapes property, but it's okay because I didn't hide
Speaker 4: that I did it.
Speaker 1: He also said the property wasn't of any value, to
Speaker 1: which they replied yeah, but you sold it for two
Speaker 1: and a half grands.
Speaker 3: Really, it was last night we told the public service
Speaker 3: to auction off useless items. Clearly he was watching the
Speaker 3: late debate and he took that advice to heart. But
Speaker 3: it's okay, don't worry.
Speaker 2: Before we go.
Speaker 1: A couple in West London woke up in the morning
Speaker 1: to find their Jaguar had disappeared from their driveway stolen.
Speaker 1: So they rang the police and the police said, look,
Speaker 1: we're really sorry, but we just don't have time to investigate.
Speaker 2: Well, there was an Apple air.
Speaker 1: Tag on the car that enabled the couple to track
Speaker 1: it on their phone, so they told the police, if
Speaker 1: you don't track down our car, we'll do it ourselves,
Speaker 1: and so they did. Later that day they found where
Speaker 1: the thieves had stolen the car, so they went back
Speaker 1: and pretty much stole their own car back. There's been
Speaker 1: thirty three and a half thousand car thefts in London
Speaker 1: last year. Out of thirty three and a half thousand thefts,
Speaker 1: three hundred and twenty six have been solved by the police.
Speaker 1: Any wonder that to get their own car? That's it
Speaker 1: from us stick around. Coming up is the Reader Penney Show,
Speaker 1: Good Night