Speaker 1: Late wait, general, welcome, late by, good evening. Great to
Speaker 1: have your company on the Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson
Speaker 1: with Liz Storer and filling in for Caleb Bond freyer Leitch.
Speaker 1: Coming up tonight, Virgin Airlines are introducing flights where you
Speaker 1: can take your dog. But what about taking your dog
Speaker 1: to the cinema. Apparently it's about to become a thing.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that later. Plus when we get to
Speaker 1: the papers, The Daily Telegraph in Sydney unveils just why
Speaker 1: houses are so expensive wait until you hear what tradees
Speaker 1: are being paid. And a story on the front page
Speaker 1: of Tomorrow's Australian reveals how a Sydney university is requiring
Speaker 1: students to do a privilege walk so they can understand
Speaker 1: their status and power. We'll get to all of that
Speaker 1: when we'll get tomorrow's news, but we're going to start
Speaker 1: the program tonight in Hungary, where their politicians have just
Speaker 1: voted to ban Budapest's annual gay pride parade. MP's voted
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty six to twenty seven in favor
Speaker 1: of banning the Mardi Gras on the grounds that could
Speaker 1: be harmful to children. The Prime Minister, Victor Auburn tweeted
Speaker 1: child Protection tick Pride March X. Today we voted to
Speaker 1: ban gatherings that violate child protection laws in Hungary. A
Speaker 1: child's right to healthy physical, mental, intellectual and moral development
Speaker 1: comes first. We won't let woke ideology in danger our kids. Now.
Speaker 1: MPs who wanted the gay Pride parade to go ahead
Speaker 1: but lost the vote, well, they responded exactly as you
Speaker 1: would expect them to respond, with rainbow smoke bombs released
Speaker 1: in the Parliament. Activists have vowed to defy the ban
Speaker 1: and hold their Pride march regardless, but the new law
Speaker 1: allows police to use facial recognition technology to identify participants
Speaker 1: and issue them with eight hundred and sixty dollars fines.
Speaker 1: So what do we think? Is this a good idea
Speaker 1: or is this limitation on people's democratic freedoms? Frayer, Liz,
Speaker 1: how about it? What do you think?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: I would start off by saying some of the scenes
Speaker 3: you see from Pride marches in Australia and around the
Speaker 3: world are truly shocking public nudity, obscene acts on display
Speaker 3: for all to see, and so there has to be
Speaker 3: some line here. But that is why we have public
Speaker 3: decency laws. So if it's about shielding children from horrible
Speaker 3: sites that will scar them for life, why don't we
Speaker 3: start by actually enforcing the existing public decency laws that
Speaker 3: we already have. Because my main concern with a bill
Speaker 3: like this is that it's a violation of people's right
Speaker 3: to assembly. That's central to any democracy. We should be
Speaker 3: able to gather freely, and in this instance it's being
Speaker 3: used to stop mighty gras, which you know, people might
Speaker 3: have different thoughts on that, but that could easily be
Speaker 3: used against conservative if the wrong government gets into powers.
Speaker 3: So it's important that we defend these fundamental rights.
Speaker 2: I would say it's got absolutely nothing to do with
Speaker 2: freedom of assembly, because if they were simply assembling with
Speaker 2: their clothes on and acting in an upstanding, decent way,
Speaker 2: they would be allowed to assemble. I would even argue
Speaker 2: this isn't about public nudity. Go to any beach in
Speaker 2: any part of the world, and you'll see plenty of
Speaker 2: that there, but it's an entirely different context. While people
Speaker 2: wear very little clothes to the beach, it's not overtly
Speaker 2: sexual and people aren't engaging and what would otherwise be
Speaker 2: very much understood to be adult behavior. Now, we need
Speaker 2: to be very clear about what the bill has outlawed
Speaker 2: in terms of calling it child protection. It prohibits the
Speaker 2: depiction or promotion of homosex homosexuality to anyone under eighteen
Speaker 2: in any content available to so that means children's programs, cartoons,
Speaker 2: educational facilities, schools are forbidden to talk about LGBTIQ matters
Speaker 2: to children. Wouldn't you love to see that here? How
Speaker 2: often we talk about another school being busted indoctrinating kids
Speaker 2: into something that their parents have not only not signed
Speaker 2: off on, but are completely unaware of. It also bans
Speaker 2: the mention of LGBTIQ issues in schools. I've already said that,
Speaker 2: and forbids public depiction of gender deviating from sex at birth.
Speaker 2: Once again, how many times that we've talked about the
Speaker 2: epidemic of gender confusion amongst children. Hungary is taking steps
Speaker 2: to ensure that that simply isn't a thing. We talk
Speaker 2: about our hyper sexualized society and the fact that when
Speaker 2: it comes to our kids, you can do no wrong
Speaker 2: in saying, you know what, adults, this has always required
Speaker 2: your self control and adults putting children's needs and their
Speaker 2: innocence ahead of an adult's desire to engage in sexual
Speaker 2: anything in public, including nudity. We have always as a
Speaker 2: society understood that that was necessary. I don't care who
Speaker 2: you're sleeping with, I don't care what kind of sexual
Speaker 2: acts you enjoy and engage in, but as a society
Speaker 2: we go, look, kids should not be exposed to that.
Speaker 2: And we still live in a country where to even
Speaker 2: engage in sexual activity if you're under the age of
Speaker 2: sixteen is forbidden. You are breaking the law. So why
Speaker 2: is it that children are routinely exposed through our health system,
Speaker 2: through our education system, through all manner of other systems,
Speaker 2: including dizzysknee programs, you name it again. How many times
Speaker 2: are we calling these things out? Because even if you're
Speaker 2: the best parent in the world, you are up against
Speaker 2: a system that is working against you. Just before we
Speaker 2: came to air, I was made aware of a headline
Speaker 2: regarding the Allen government in Victoria pushing their librarians as
Speaker 2: part of a LGBTIQ plus package to ask children what
Speaker 2: their pronouns are. Yeah, while the state's going to hell,
Speaker 2: this is what the Allen government is focusing on. Parents
Speaker 2: cannot be vigilant enough. The war on our children has
Speaker 2: been blown open countless times. Remember that disgusting bdsm Teddy
Speaker 2: bear of a naked man in bondage gear that was
Speaker 2: put up at as a mural in Wynyard Station here
Speaker 2: in Sydney. Some absolute legend poured paint over it, to
Speaker 2: which I.
Speaker 4: Say, buddy, I absolutely love.
Speaker 2: You whoever you are. You're doing the Lord's work. But
Speaker 2: it's not just that. It's the vile books that we
Speaker 2: catch out in our libraries and schools. It's the teachers
Speaker 2: that get caught out in our libraries and schools. It's
Speaker 2: drag Queens storytime being hosted in Victorian and New South
Speaker 2: Wales Parliament. And even if you go to the Victorian's
Speaker 2: educational website, they will say, yes, if you don't approve
Speaker 2: of your child transitioning, we'll do it behind your back
Speaker 2: at school.
Speaker 1: So are we conflating a couple of issues because you've
Speaker 1: done what at all?
Speaker 2: Child protection is child protection and so that is the issue.
Speaker 1: So that's ya address, that's the principle that they are
Speaker 1: trying to defend. But specifically they're saying the Budapest Gay
Speaker 1: Mardi Gras cannot go ahead and anybody who participates in
Speaker 1: it will be prosecuted and fined. So the thing that
Speaker 1: gets people talking about the Sydney Gay Martigra for instance,
Speaker 1: and you alluded to this, is there seems to be
Speaker 1: this double standard when it comes to public nudity, public
Speaker 1: obscenity and public vilification. So you can't go nude in
Speaker 1: the street without being prosecuted unless you do it during
Speaker 1: the Mardi Gras, in which case you're celebrated and broadcast
Speaker 1: on I don't know the ABC or the SBS. You
Speaker 1: can't engage in lude sex acts in public you be
Speaker 1: prosecuted unless you do it under a rainbow flag. And
Speaker 1: you can't vilify someone based on gender, sexuality or religion
Speaker 1: unless you're a gay guy addressing as a Catholic nun
Speaker 1: at the gay Mardi Gras, and then instead of prosecuting
Speaker 1: you for vilification, the police will post for a photograph
Speaker 1: with you, as they did in twenty twenty two, and
Speaker 1: they posted the photo to the official police website before
Speaker 1: complaints from the Catholic Church had them reluctantly and belatedly
Speaker 1: pull it down. So nudity, obscenity and vilification and nogo
Speaker 1: zones except during Mardi Gras and have your march protest
Speaker 1: for your rights. Do all you want, but shouldn't the
Speaker 1: people during that march be expected to adhere to the
Speaker 1: law as everybody else is expected to every other day
Speaker 1: in every other context.
Speaker 4: Of course, that's exactly what should happen.
Speaker 3: We should just enforce the obscenity laws that already exist. Now,
Speaker 3: the problem with your argument, Liz is I think we
Speaker 3: all agree on the fundamental premise, which is that we
Speaker 3: should protect children from this woke politics that is being
Speaker 3: shoved down their throat in every single aspect of society.
Speaker 3: Of course, everyone here agrees with that, and most people
Speaker 3: watching would agree with that.
Speaker 4: The question is.
Speaker 3: Where do you draw the line in the balance between
Speaker 3: protecting children and also protecting the freedom of others. Now,
Speaker 3: you are essentially saying that the mine Okay, So then
Speaker 3: let me ask you this. Children above ours in.
Speaker 2: Society, they should agree that a child's innocence, which, by
Speaker 2: the way, once taken, is gone for us children to apunges.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you this question.
Speaker 3: Please, do you support banning social media for children under sixteen?
Speaker 2: Ah? I'm so glad you raised this, because that isn't
Speaker 2: it interesting?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: Isn't it interesting that our government does not care about
Speaker 2: protecting children. I just gave you multiple examples of how
Speaker 2: they are facilitating shoving this down your child's throat, and
Speaker 2: yet it was only two weeks after they passed their
Speaker 2: Digital ID bill that suddenly they cared about your child's
Speaker 2: innocence and the fact that they might be bullied online.
Speaker 2: I don't buy that for an incidance. And you know what,
Speaker 2: it doesn't apply to porn websites. It doesn't apply to
Speaker 2: the things that we have known for years. There are
Speaker 2: mountains of evidence.
Speaker 1: So you've pointed out the hypocrisy of the government, But
Speaker 1: isn't there hypocrisy in your position.
Speaker 2: I've never supported that then, not once.
Speaker 3: Then I can tell you, with someone that grew up
Speaker 3: on social media, this stuff you see on social media,
Speaker 3: this law and Hungry, by the way, is all about
Speaker 3: banning the expression of homosexuality to children in any form.
Speaker 3: That we're targeted at child literally on social media. So
Speaker 3: the best way to protect them from those scenes would
Speaker 3: naturally then to also be to ban them from social media.
Speaker 3: So I don't understand how you can support a ban
Speaker 3: on Marti gra but then not support a ban on
Speaker 3: children accessing social media when they see they are entirely differently.
Speaker 1: What's the point? Why is the adults public kids and
Speaker 1: parents take and what's.
Speaker 2: The role of parentss place? Sorry?
Speaker 3: Why are children bringing Why are parents bringing their children
Speaker 3: to Marty Grat in the first place if they.
Speaker 2: Want to expose their kids to that kind of ideology,
Speaker 2: As you've just helpfully pointed out, there is any number
Speaker 2: of sites they can take their kids to movies that
Speaker 2: they can show their children. They're probably part of the
Speaker 2: lgbt IQ tumnity themselves, but why should other children mac
Speaker 2: You just mentioned these things are broadcast on free to
Speaker 2: air TV, so even if you're just watching the serience,
Speaker 2: your kids are going to see these scenes depicting So
Speaker 2: I've been selling marketing homosexuality and gender confusion to your
Speaker 2: children at a time when the government is already ramming
Speaker 2: it down their throads.
Speaker 1: So I don't disagree with anything you've said. I just
Speaker 1: think that protecting children from harm, and we're all going
Speaker 1: to disagree on what constitutes harm, is a weak argument.
Speaker 1: A much stronger argument is no public nudity, no public obscenity,
Speaker 1: and no vilifying groups. Don't do those things and you
Speaker 1: can have your parade and you can probably take your
Speaker 1: kids to it, and it'll be Okay. We've got to
Speaker 1: move on, because we've got other things to talk about,
Speaker 1: not least of which is Elon Musk. Elon Musk was
Speaker 1: loved by the left. I mean, he is the most
Speaker 1: prominent promoter of evs, which are going to save the
Speaker 1: planet from global boiling and global warming and every other ailment.
Speaker 1: But then, of course he gave his support to Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and became enemy number one from the left. What's happening, though,
Speaker 1: is not just that Elon Musk personally is being targeted
Speaker 1: by the left, but his business is being targeted. Vehicles
Speaker 1: are being vandalized, dealerships firebomb and charging stations for Tesla's destroyed.
Speaker 1: The effect is that stocks in Tesla's have dropped by
Speaker 1: forty eight percent. Sales have plummeted. Here in Australia in
Speaker 1: February there was just over fifteen hundred Teslas sold, compared
Speaker 1: to almost six thousand at the same time last year,
Speaker 1: and that's been repeated right around the world. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was asked, does this constitute an active domestic terrorism? You
Speaker 1: consider this an act of gymnastic terror.
Speaker 6: I think so why I think that if and when
Speaker 6: they catch the people, and I hope they do. The
Speaker 6: good thing is they have a lot of cameras in
Speaker 6: those places.
Speaker 1: And they've got some already having to do with that.
Speaker 6: I think that you will find out that they're paid
Speaker 6: by people that are very highly political.
Speaker 1: On the left. This has been going on here in Australia.
Speaker 1: On the tenth the only Tesla dealership in Tasmania was vandalized.
Speaker 1: People wrote on it, do you really want to drive
Speaker 1: a SWATSTICKR car? You can see the pun. They're very
Speaker 1: clever leftists and hail Tesla, with the SS from the
Speaker 1: Nazis emphasized in the word Tesla. The irony about this,
Speaker 1: of course, is that the Democrats have smeared Elon Musk
Speaker 1: as a Nazi, pointing to an unfortunate gesture he made
Speaker 1: that wasn't a Nazi saloop, but they all made out
Speaker 1: like it was, and so they've driven this hatred that's
Speaker 1: now gone right around the world. There's some ironies in this,
Speaker 1: of course, Freyra and Liz. Firstly that most Tesla drivers
Speaker 1: are probably of the left because they believe in global warming.
Speaker 1: They want to do the right thing by the environment there,
Speaker 1: so the left are attacking the left. Second, setting evs
Speaker 1: on fire is probably bad for the environment, not the
Speaker 1: best thing to do. And they're accusing Elon Musk of fascism,
Speaker 1: but in doing that, they're using themselves of storm trooper tactics.
Speaker 1: There was a US website set up quote for people
Speaker 1: on the hunt for Tesla's with actually doxed Tesla owners
Speaker 1: and put online the names and addresses of people who
Speaker 1: own a Tesla. And when you went on that site,
Speaker 1: the cursor on the website was a Molotov cocktail, which
Speaker 1: is kind of suggestive, incredible. So they call Trump a fascist,
Speaker 1: they call Elon Musk a fascist, but they themselves are
Speaker 1: resorting to these kind of tactics as they go after
Speaker 1: ordinary people for the crime of having purchased an EV.
Speaker 1: The question is is this just vandalism, is this just
Speaker 1: anger or is this something more sinister? Is it domestic terrorism?
Speaker 1: I would argue the definition of terrorism that is using
Speaker 1: violence and intimidation for a political cause, would fit this,
Speaker 1: and people who are engaging in this kind of behavior,
Speaker 1: whether in the US or here in Australia, should be
Speaker 1: prosecuted accordingly.
Speaker 2: And it's actually incredibly effective because now you've got all
Speaker 2: these Tesla owners. I mean, we can't overstate this scale
Speaker 2: of this charging stations. Tesla dealerships have literally been firebombed
Speaker 2: and shot at in Portland, Oregon alone. Now we all
Speaker 2: know Portland is the home of the standing Antifa army.
Speaker 2: They've had three attacks on Tesla dealerships just this year alone.
Speaker 2: And they're not small attacks. These are guys with bellaclavers
Speaker 2: absolutely going for it, using molotov cocktails. So it's not
Speaker 2: just an icon or on a little website. They mean business.
Speaker 2: So Tesla owners are now saying, well, I can't even
Speaker 2: get rid of my Tesla because no one wants to
Speaker 2: buy it from me. Everyone's worried about their insurance premiums
Speaker 2: because can you imagine how many insurance companies are going
Speaker 2: to keep dolling out, Oh okay, something bad's happened to
Speaker 2: your Tesla. No, they're going to take action and you're
Speaker 2: just going to be completely screwed. And then, of course
Speaker 2: there is the Tesla market, which hasn't been doing well
Speaker 2: for ages anyway. But who's going to buy one even
Speaker 2: if indeed their heart's in the right place and they
Speaker 2: want to do the right thing by the environment, and
Speaker 2: it's going to work for their lifestyle if these guys
Speaker 2: are on the loose. Check out some of these stickers
Speaker 2: that people have resorted to using. One of them literally
Speaker 2: says I bought this Tesla before Elon supported Trump, being like,
Speaker 2: please hands off, I need to be saved here. This
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that I support this administration or the men
Speaker 2: who gave him two one hundred million dollars to win
Speaker 2: the presidency. So it's a frighteningly very I guess I
Speaker 2: would say effective way of doing what they're doing, because
Speaker 2: this is unquestionably going to stemy tesla owners, the current
Speaker 2: ones and the would be ones.
Speaker 3: And this is exactly how the radical intolerant left operates.
Speaker 3: It's all about the mob mentality. Once they identify the target,
Speaker 3: it's like, let's get all of our psycho friends on
Speaker 3: board to absolutely destroy anyone who speaks out against us.
Speaker 4: And it is actually horrible.
Speaker 3: But I will say this, I never really considered getting
Speaker 3: an electric vehicle, but after seeing all the tesla's being taught,
Speaker 3: I reckon, I'm.
Speaker 4: Going to try it.
Speaker 1: By hard Colet, Yeah, this was the.
Speaker 3: Thing that finally got me over the line on ebs.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's lot Musk's crime is wanting to save
Speaker 1: the American taxpayer from fraud and waste, and for that
Speaker 1: he's being persecuted and bullied all around the world.
Speaker 3: And also they tried to compare him to Hitler, but
Speaker 3: that is well, extremely offensive.
Speaker 4: My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor.
Speaker 3: But secondly, he has been to Israel, he has worn
Speaker 3: the necklace saying bring them home, to advocate for the hostages.
Speaker 3: He's used his platform to support the Jewish people. So
Speaker 3: for them to now associate him with Hitler imagery trivializes
Speaker 3: the Holocaust, trivializes the Nazis, and is in itself a
Speaker 3: form of anti Semitism. So this is where the tolerant
Speaker 3: left gets you.
Speaker 1: There you go. But it's not all bad. Is because
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, of course, has come to the rescue of
Speaker 1: US astronauts.
Speaker 2: Of those stranded astronauts that Boeing one another failure on
Speaker 2: Boeing's scorecard. I mean, these guys cannot get anything right.
Speaker 2: These guys have been stranded out in space for nine
Speaker 2: months now. You may remember one of the first things
Speaker 2: Trump did after he won the election was to be
Speaker 2: like Elon bring these guys home. Well today it happened,
Speaker 2: and here it is history and the making. With this touchdown.
Speaker 7: And splashdown crewdine back on Earth, copy Slashdown, shoots cut
Speaker 7: nipt Alex Butch funny on behalf of SpaceX Welcome home.
Speaker 2: Here's doctor Charles Kamada telling the worldwide. This guy has
Speaker 2: not This guy being Elon has not only saved these astronauts,
Speaker 2: He's saved space exploration into the future. Check it out.
Speaker 5: The Elon must save the US space program. If it
Speaker 5: wasn't for Elon Musk, we would not be able to
Speaker 5: fly US astronauts from US soil to the International Space Station.
Speaker 5: Make no, that is no doubt about it. We stopped
Speaker 5: flying astronauts on Space Shuttle in twenty eleven.
Speaker 2: There you have it, Elon mask just casually saving the
Speaker 2: day again. I got to say, the most curious thing
Speaker 2: about SpaceX, though, was just last year. We're celebrating the
Speaker 2: fact that they went eight hundred and seventy miles into space,
Speaker 2: and it was just like, Wow, this is incredible. Everyone's
Speaker 2: froffling over it. It was line news across the world, and
Speaker 2: I'm like, yet you still want us to believe that
Speaker 2: in the sixties we were tearing around on the Moon,
Speaker 2: which is all of two hundred and forty thousand miles away.
Speaker 2: So imagine it's back in the sixties and you and
Speaker 2: your family are gathered around the TV tuned into CBS,
Speaker 2: and this is what you see Radio Command Lincoln.
Speaker 6: Actually it's a link along that tether line you see there,
Speaker 6: twenty five feet.
Speaker 1: Of umbilical cord.
Speaker 2: And yet I'm the idiot for not believing in the
Speaker 2: moon landing. And then just six.
Speaker 1: Was not real.
Speaker 2: Six that was line on seed Less and then six
Speaker 2: years simulation simulation two CBS. Just six years later, we're
Speaker 2: tearing around the Moon in a rover.
Speaker 8: The ground air under.
Speaker 2: That was in nineteen seventy two. We haven't been back since.
Speaker 2: Even though that was like over fifty.
Speaker 1: First year was not real. It was from a program
Speaker 1: called This Week in Space, hosted by Walter Concrete, and
Speaker 1: he himself said this is a simulation.
Speaker 2: Indeed, and Buzz upheld that and was like it was
Speaker 2: done in a studio. So you're telling me even though
Speaker 2: you know, say the moon, they were in the studio vision.
Speaker 2: He said that you happily watch Buzz saying this repeatedly
Speaker 2: several interviews, Shane, we never went, but you're telling me that,
Speaker 2: even though you know that was a simulation, you just
Speaker 2: believe that they went. They simulation.
Speaker 3: Entire video was to show what would happen when they're
Speaker 3: on the Moon, and that's why they're walking through the
Speaker 3: umbilical cord that connects them to the spacecraft. The point
Speaker 3: was that it was a demonstration of what would happen.
Speaker 3: It was never supposed to be the actual moonlanding.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the actual moon landing was no better. It
Speaker 2: was legally.
Speaker 1: To prove the moonlanding was fake. You can't you can't
Speaker 1: prove a fake with a fake.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that. I'm saying people gathered around their
Speaker 2: TVs and they were like, this is how it's gonna go, everybody,
Speaker 2: this is what you're gonna see. That is not what
Speaker 2: they actually saw in the end, and then we're asked
Speaker 2: to believe. Just six years later, we're tearing around in
Speaker 2: this buggy thing with a like little satellite dish on
Speaker 2: the front.
Speaker 6: There.
Speaker 2: We've never been back since, and last year we were
Speaker 2: rejoicing to high heaven that Elon Musk SpaceX had made
Speaker 2: it eight hundred and seventy miles into space, but we
Speaker 2: made it two hundred and forty thousand miles all the
Speaker 2: way to the moon the sixties mid hilarious.
Speaker 1: This is not sure about the moon landing. What we
Speaker 1: are sure about, though, is Elon Musk has saved the
Speaker 1: US reputation as well as those astronauts, as well as
Speaker 1: the space program. In fact, Elon Musk said that he
Speaker 1: offered Joe Biden back in November to bring these astronauts home,
Speaker 1: and according to Elon Musk, Biden refused that offer because
Speaker 1: he was scared, we don't want a disaster in space
Speaker 1: right before the November election. And that version of events
Speaker 1: is backed up by Butch Wilmore, one of the astronauts
Speaker 1: who's just been rescued. So say what you like about
Speaker 1: Elon Musk and Tesla's if it wasn't for Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: those astronauts who are now the sixth longest astronauts ever
Speaker 1: in space, not because they wanted to be They're only
Speaker 1: meant to be there for eight days, but they now
Speaker 1: hold something of a world record. Let's talk about foreign students, Freyer,
Speaker 1: because the government have been saying we've got to do
Speaker 1: something about immigration. We're going to curb things, We're going
Speaker 1: to deal with foreign students. But foreign student numbers are
Speaker 1: at historic record levels.
Speaker 3: Yes, new data from the ABS shows a staggering two
Speaker 3: hundred thousand, over two hundred thousand foreign students entered Australia
Speaker 3: in February alone, and some estimates are now saying that
Speaker 3: there are seven hundred thousand foreign students in Australia, another
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand on bridging visas and a further twenty
Speaker 3: five thousand who are currently appealing their visa before the
Speaker 3: Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So in total, that brings us to
Speaker 3: eight hundred and twenty five thousand foreign students in Australia
Speaker 3: in the middle of a housing crisis. Now, this is
Speaker 3: perfectly consistent with Labour's record on migration because as we know,
Speaker 3: in their first two years in government, they brought in
Speaker 3: one billion extra migrants. In that time, we only built
Speaker 3: three hundred and fifty thousand houses, by the way, but
Speaker 3: that is a side note, and that's seventy percent higher
Speaker 3: than any other period on record.
Speaker 4: Ever.
Speaker 3: Now, I, as a recent graduate of Sydney University, have
Speaker 3: a lot of thoughts on foreign students I'm sure my
Speaker 3: alma mater will not be thanking me for this right now.
Speaker 3: But I think the challenge with foreign students is that
Speaker 3: our universities have become so overly reliant on them, to
Speaker 3: the point that we have the highest percentage of foreign
Speaker 3: students in our university systems than any other OECD country.
Speaker 3: At Sydney University it's about fifty percent of students. In
Speaker 3: some postgraduate courses, it is way higher. Now you have
Speaker 3: to think, apart from the obvious impacts on the housing crisis,
Speaker 3: what does this do to education standards when around one
Speaker 3: in twelve foreign students and admit themselves that they do
Speaker 3: not speak good English. So it leaves you with a
Speaker 3: few questions, how are these people even passing courses? And
Speaker 3: then what does it do to the student experience on campus?
Speaker 3: Because I'll tell you what happened at my university. Essentially,
Speaker 3: the classes would separate into domestic students and international students,
Speaker 3: and in some classes as a domestic student UIV minority.
Speaker 3: So rather than enhancing this diverse multicultural experience as the
Speaker 3: universities want to make you think, what it does is
Speaker 3: actually ruin the student experience. It ruins campus life their
Speaker 3: clubs are much less active and people basically segregate into
Speaker 3: racial groups, which is the opposite of what we should
Speaker 3: want for our universities.
Speaker 4: So we need to rain this in asap.
Speaker 3: And I personally think despite Labour's eighteen months of talk
Speaker 3: on course caps, they're actually making no significant cuts to
Speaker 3: student numbers. Their cap is just bringing the numbers back
Speaker 3: to twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4: Levels, which is a joke.
Speaker 3: We need to be setting hard caps twenty five percent
Speaker 3: international students max per course.
Speaker 1: And the problem is not just the number of students
Speaker 1: coming in to study, but the fact that so many
Speaker 1: of them stay on in there after their study has finished.
Speaker 1: I think you said one hundred thousand former students on
Speaker 1: bridging visas trying to gain permanent residency or other visas,
Speaker 1: and then there's twenty five thousand additional former students who
Speaker 1: have been told to go but are now using the
Speaker 1: court's appeal after appeal after appeal in order to stay
Speaker 1: in the country. So the government's got problems at both end,
Speaker 1: too many coming in and not enough leaving. But as well,
Speaker 1: it feeds into the charge that's been made about universities
Speaker 1: they've departed from their mission and they've become all about
Speaker 1: bums on seats and dollars. I had to laugh when
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago the Chief Executive of Universities
Speaker 1: Australia made the serious argument that money being directed towards
Speaker 1: roads should be redirected towards universities for research. And he
Speaker 1: actually said, quote unquote, voters would rather a booming economy.
Speaker 1: Didn't quite explain how more university students are going to
Speaker 1: create a booming economy, but he said voters would rather
Speaker 1: a booming economy rather than a shorter commute, which really
Speaker 1: demonstrates the ten year of our universities who continue to
Speaker 1: bring in more and more foreign students to line their
Speaker 1: own pockets, seemingly oblivious or uncaring and unconcerned about the
Speaker 1: impact that's having on everyday australian's i e. The housing crisis.
Speaker 2: Sure the guy does have a point about the economy
Speaker 2: though it was worth fifty one billion dollars as of
Speaker 2: January this year. That is how much international students here
Speaker 2: in Australia. That is what it is worth to the
Speaker 2: Australian economy. And as according to the Education the Federal
Speaker 2: Education departments own website as of the ninth of January
Speaker 2: this year, which answers all these questions, Right, why are
Speaker 2: they doing it? How could they allow it to happen?
Speaker 2: It comes down to the dollar. I don't have a
Speaker 2: problem with these students staying on because at the rate
Speaker 2: of our immigration anyway, it just means perhaps our government
Speaker 2: will allow less immigrants in or.
Speaker 1: Not air Uh So that's not what's happening.
Speaker 2: No, No, it is because if they weren't having this
Speaker 2: many students, they just import more immigrants anyway. They say
Speaker 2: it's all about the bottom line, and they mean it.
Speaker 2: They have numbers, so.
Speaker 3: They have to make up these students because they want
Speaker 3: to support universities which are fundamentally broken institutions and are
Speaker 3: now producing a whole class of leftist activists.
Speaker 4: Kay, no argument they're dead.
Speaker 3: But the problem and the problem with the figure you
Speaker 3: cited around the value of international students is it's actually
Speaker 3: false because the data does not account for the income
Speaker 3: that those international students are earning when they're in the country,
Speaker 3: and given three quarters of them are actually working in Australia,
Speaker 3: their value as an export is actually significantly lower than
Speaker 3: the fifty billion figure cited by the university lobby.
Speaker 2: That's that's just the government department.
Speaker 4: But that's dim it's account for the income.
Speaker 2: I'm not defending them, I'm just quoting the numbers. My
Speaker 2: biggest beef with these universities is that, obviously the biggest
Speaker 2: supporter of their is the Australian government, which means you're
Speaker 2: and my tax dollar. And guess what when your kids,
Speaker 2: when your grandkids apply to go to UNI, they're on
Speaker 2: the back burner, baby, because international students pay up to
Speaker 2: three times as much and they pay up front. So
Speaker 2: your kids, your grandkids trying to get in. They may
Speaker 2: have amazing hex or Ata scores trying to get into
Speaker 2: the same courses. They haven't got Buckley's chance against the
Speaker 2: waves of international students that are cashed up big time.
Speaker 2: It's not fair, but that's the system we've been living
Speaker 2: in for many, many years. Now back to the White
Speaker 2: House where for Saint Patrick's Day they invited a very
Speaker 2: controversial figure in Ireland. His name is Connor McGregor. You
Speaker 2: may remember him as an MMA fighter. He's thrown that
Speaker 2: in now and is instead fighting for Ireland. I'm sure
Speaker 2: nobody expected to see him anytime soon. Behind the podium
Speaker 2: at the White House speaking to a press conference about
Speaker 2: just how bad the immigration levels have reached in Ireland.
Speaker 8: Our government has long since abandoned the voices of the
Speaker 8: people of Ireland and it's high time that America has
Speaker 8: made aware of what's going on in Ireland. What's going
Speaker 8: on in Ireland.
Speaker 1: Is a travesty.
Speaker 8: Our government is the government of zero action with zero accountability.
Speaker 8: You know, our money is being spent on overseas issues
Speaker 8: that is nothing to do with the Irish people. The
Speaker 8: illegal immigration racket is running ravag on on the country.
Speaker 8: Irish Americans, as I said, need to hear this because
Speaker 8: if not, there will be no place to come.
Speaker 1: Home and visit.
Speaker 2: The PM. The Irish BM took a great objection to this,
Speaker 2: obviously being showed up on such an international stage. He
Speaker 2: took to Twitter to say Saint Patrick's Day around the
Speaker 2: world is a day rooted in community, humanity, friendship and fellowship.
Speaker 2: Connor McGregor's remarks are wrong and do not reflect the
Speaker 2: spirit of Saint Patrick's Day or the views of the
Speaker 2: people of Ireland. It's worth looking up that quote just
Speaker 2: to watch him getting absolutely bodied in the comments by
Speaker 2: Irish people saying mate, we are this close to becoming
Speaker 2: a minority in our own country for the first time
Speaker 2: in the history of Ireland. Where backing this ex MMA
Speaker 2: fighter at the White House who's making very public what
Speaker 2: you are doing to our country. And it was quite
Speaker 2: astounding to see the White House platform. This guy is
Speaker 2: some very distasteful shall we say, court case behind him
Speaker 2: back in Ireland, and yet they were happy to share
Speaker 2: to their own Twitter account this happy little jig from
Speaker 2: a very happy little Irishman.
Speaker 8: Happy Parties Day America.
Speaker 2: Now, Connor McGregor has said he wouldn't mind running for PM,
Speaker 2: and the Irish elections are coming up later this year.
Speaker 2: The big question is in order to run for such
Speaker 2: station in the country of Ireland, you have to have
Speaker 2: either twenty members of Parliament to give you the thumbs
Speaker 2: up and basically endorse your standing, or four local councils,
Speaker 2: which begs the question where would such a man find
Speaker 2: them in his country, although I wouldn't be surprised if
Speaker 2: he could, given the absolute fury of the Irish in
Speaker 2: Ireland at the moment as they watch their country be
Speaker 2: absolutely flooded with migrants from all over the world. But
Speaker 2: given these allegations, indeed he's civilly liable for a right
Speaker 2: case back in Ireland. Some say this was just a
Speaker 2: typical smear trying to get a good man trying to
Speaker 2: do good things, standing up to the globalist trying to
Speaker 2: smear him. I guess that's for every single person to decide,
Speaker 2: isn't it. But here he is answering a reporter who
Speaker 2: tried to bring this up.
Speaker 3: One of the teacher says, you don't speak for the
Speaker 3: people of Ireland.
Speaker 8: You're responded, I am an employer of over two hundred people,
Speaker 8: almost three hundred people in the country of Ireland. He's
Speaker 8: an employer of none. Every available metric available to us
Speaker 8: has shown that the government of Ireland currently has failed
Speaker 8: the people of Ireland. In ten years, Dublin City Center
Speaker 8: has gone from one of the most safest cities in
Speaker 8: Europe to one of the most dangerous. So shame and
Speaker 8: him for saying that I'm.
Speaker 6: Here, say to people who feel propriate for you to
Speaker 6: be here, given God bless Iland.
Speaker 1: God bless him.
Speaker 2: The UK has Hourrage, America has Trump, the Dutch have
Speaker 2: Gert Wilda's, Italy has maloney. These characters are adding up
Speaker 2: and while he seems like a very unlikely hero. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't be surprised if he actually gets enough support behind
Speaker 2: him to at least cause a ruckers at the coming
Speaker 2: Irish election.
Speaker 1: He's a very good fighter. I'm not sure whether he's
Speaker 1: going to make much of a politician, although he.
Speaker 2: Loves his country and that is the main ingredient to
Speaker 2: any successful politicians. That's how the global sorry, what do
Speaker 2: they call them, the populists, that's how the populace are
Speaker 2: taking over.
Speaker 1: Well. To be a good fight, you've got to have
Speaker 1: a good sense of timing, and he certainly has that
Speaker 1: because when he got his chance, he was there because
Speaker 1: Trump loves UFC had him there for Saint Patrick's day.
Speaker 1: I don't think Trump was trying to set up Ireland
Speaker 1: because Trump had had the Prime Minister of Ireland in
Speaker 1: the overlof just a few days earlier, and they seem
Speaker 1: to get on quite well. But Connor McGregor, when he
Speaker 1: got his opportunity behind the White House podium, he took it.
Speaker 1: So you got to give him that. We're going to
Speaker 1: go to a break. When we come back, we'll look
Speaker 1: at what's making news tomorrow, including the incredible salaries that
Speaker 1: trades are getting. They wonder that building a house is
Speaker 1: so expensive. That's coming up in just a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: kids studying degrees at university might want to reconsider when
Speaker 1: they read Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph. Check out this for a headline,
Speaker 1: supply crisis creates two hundred and fifty thousand dollars tradees
Speaker 1: brickies on big bickies. Very clever sub editor at the
Speaker 1: Daily Telegraph. Here's what the story says. Gold plated trade
Speaker 1: salaries of more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year and one of the biggest factors fueling the
Speaker 1: housing crisis, with developers unable to afford the cost of building.
Speaker 1: It goes on to quote research that shows land prices
Speaker 1: in Sydney more than double any other state. Sydney housing
Speaker 1: is now the second and most expensive in the world.
Speaker 1: But here's the real point of the article. He quotes
Speaker 1: an auctioneer who has spoken to bricklayers charging one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a day for their services. He tells the Telegraph,
Speaker 1: it's not a housing problem we've got, it's a construction problem. Well,
Speaker 1: I suppose when you've got a very tight labor market.
Speaker 1: Trying to find people willing to cut bricks on hot
Speaker 1: days is going to be difficult, So you've got to
Speaker 1: pay what you have to pay. When I was living
Speaker 1: in towns Or, one of my best mates was a
Speaker 1: brickie and he was earning an absolute fortune. And this
Speaker 1: is before the housing crisis. He was on very good money.
Speaker 1: I used to be amazed when he told me what
Speaker 1: he did, and then he told me the sort of
Speaker 1: money he was getting for it. As I said, that
Speaker 1: was before there was a housing crisis. Now they're in
Speaker 1: short supply. But of course that all contributes to the
Speaker 1: high cost of trying to build a.
Speaker 3: Home exactly, and it's only going to get worse because
Speaker 3: labor has this target that they want to see fifty
Speaker 3: five percent of people attaining tersiory qualifications. Fifty five percent
Speaker 3: of people don't need a university degree. We need people
Speaker 3: who actually make stuff, who are productive.
Speaker 4: You contribute to the economy.
Speaker 3: And when we have a shortage of labor like we've
Speaker 3: got now, well, building costs just go through the roof.
Speaker 3: And you combine that with the red tape the builders face,
Speaker 3: plus all the union action that's been going on and
Speaker 3: it's no wonder housing in Australia is so expensive.
Speaker 1: Your second degree in gender studies is not going to
Speaker 1: help solve the housing.
Speaker 2: Crist Well, you know scrips ray oh gosh, to the
Speaker 2: front page of The Australia Now with a splash reads
Speaker 2: House of Cards. Labor wrecking ball is demolishing building sector.
Speaker 2: Building companies are collapsing at record levels amid a dramatic
Speaker 2: increase in strikes following Labour's abolition of the Building Watchdog,
Speaker 2: with projects facing lengthy delays and costs blowouts. After four
Speaker 2: forty seven thousand, one hundred days were lost to industrial
Speaker 2: disputes on construction sites last year, the search in it
Speaker 2: The surge rather in industrial action targeting the construction sector
Speaker 2: has coincided with three four hundred and forty five building
Speaker 2: firms plunging into insolvency over the past twelve months as
Speaker 2: builders are strangled by labor shortages, high costs, red tape
Speaker 2: and approval delays. Now you mean to tell me the
Speaker 2: government can't step in and do what is required to
Speaker 2: make sure these projects go ahead, especially when we are
Speaker 2: in the middle of a housing crisis and we need
Speaker 2: these guys more than ever, and yet nothing's done. We've
Speaker 2: just seen this many thousand, almost three and a half
Speaker 2: thousand more building firms gone into insolvency right under our noses.
Speaker 2: How are we supposed to build stuff in this country
Speaker 2: when A we're so short on tradees, and B the
Speaker 2: firms in charge are like, we're hitting the wall. We
Speaker 2: can't do anything else.
Speaker 1: It's like a perfect store, isn't it. You've got green tape,
Speaker 1: red tape, you've got labor shortages, you've got the cost
Speaker 1: of materials, and then you add to that industrial action
Speaker 1: that's increased exponentially in the last couple of years under
Speaker 1: this labor government. If you're trying to build a house
Speaker 1: or you're a developer, just can't take a trick. Twenty
Speaker 1: six and a half percent of all insolvencies over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years have been within the building industry.
Speaker 1: So that just piles pressure upon pressure exactly.
Speaker 3: It's really concerning. And on top of that, building activity
Speaker 3: is now at a decade low. At a time when
Speaker 3: we should be building more houses than ever, we're actually
Speaker 3: building less.
Speaker 4: And here's an idea for the government.
Speaker 3: Maybe instead of bringing in two hundred thousand international students.
Speaker 3: We bring in two hundred thousand trainees. That might solve
Speaker 3: some of our nation's problems. But over in camera things
Speaker 3: are very interesting. We've seen the Trump cuts around the
Speaker 3: world and now it's A and you on the chopping block.
Speaker 3: The Australian National University has lost funding as the Trump
Speaker 3: administration puts pressure on universities to justify how American grants
Speaker 3: are spent. Among the questions that were sent to the
Speaker 3: a and U is whether any departments or staff defend
Speaker 3: against gender ideology.
Speaker 4: Now, if you've had a look.
Speaker 3: At anything Australian universities are putting out in terms of
Speaker 3: humanities research and even in other disciplines as well, you
Speaker 3: will know they are basically unable to answer that question
Speaker 3: because so much of the research now centers around promoting
Speaker 3: gender ideology. So that's going to be a sticky one
Speaker 3: for Australian universities to get out of.
Speaker 1: It's something that I don't think enough people have talked
Speaker 1: about with Donald Trump. You know, people talking about his
Speaker 1: economic policies is tariffs, but even his economic policies really
Speaker 1: are built around culture wars. Donald Trump is really determined
Speaker 1: over the next four years not just to make the
Speaker 1: economy boom, but he's using economics to fight the culture
Speaker 1: wars and fundamentally change the social agenda of not just
Speaker 1: the United States but Western come trees as evidence here,
Speaker 1: they won't fund you if you are off in terms
Speaker 1: of his idea of how the culture should be, which.
Speaker 2: Is only right, like why would you fund something you
Speaker 2: don't believe in. He's cracking down in America, across the schools,
Speaker 2: across the universities because he knows it's not conducive to
Speaker 2: a flourishing society and indeed the very hierarchy of competence
Speaker 2: upon which any flourishing society is built. So he's like, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not funding you guys doing it over in Australia.
Speaker 2: But speaking of Australia, back to The Australian, the best
Speaker 2: newspaper in the country. Ideology one h one. It's exactly
Speaker 2: what we were just talking about. Students forced into privileged
Speaker 2: walk mcquarie University law students who face the threat of
Speaker 2: failing a component of a key exam if they perform
Speaker 2: an underwhelming acknowledgment of country have been made to adopt
Speaker 2: different personas and perform a quote privilege walk end quote
Speaker 2: in or to do better understand Power and status Agent
Speaker 2: Law Cause Convener Holly Duel Mackay on Wednesday double down
Speaker 2: on revelations publish in The Australian that students were marked
Speaker 2: on their delivery of an acknowledgment of country, saying they
Speaker 2: would quote not meet the metric or rubric end quote
Speaker 2: if they did not perform an appropriate proclamation. So not
Speaker 2: only do we have them doing this, if you're welcome
Speaker 2: to country hasn't got enough passion in it, automatic fail.
Speaker 2: Now they're forced to do privilege walk.
Speaker 1: So I didn't know what a privileged walk was, but
Speaker 1: apparently they line all the students up and they designate
Speaker 1: you're a child born homeless, you're a CEO, and then
Speaker 1: they make statements like you didn't get three meals a day,
Speaker 1: or you do get three meals a day, So you
Speaker 1: would move forward as a CEO, but you would stay
Speaker 1: where you are, and they keep reading out these things
Speaker 1: until Liz, as a CEO, you would end up right
Speaker 1: in front of U Freyer. As a person, there really
Speaker 1: is a walk of shame you made to feel bad
Speaker 1: if you end up out the front and you're told
Speaker 1: that you only got there because you were stepping over
Speaker 1: other people in the process. Now what this has to
Speaker 1: do with your degree in law, economics, or whatever other
Speaker 1: subject they're doing, god only knows, but that the funny
Speaker 1: thing about this is that students are quoted from mccauy
Speaker 1: University saying they're worried they're not going to get a job,
Speaker 1: because when employers find out this is the sort of
Speaker 1: staff being taught to students, they're going to say, do
Speaker 1: we really want to hire someone and bring them into
Speaker 1: our staff who's been indoctrinated, marinated in all of this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. They're going to be a pain to
Speaker 1: work with. We'll take someone from a different university. So
Speaker 1: this could well backfire badly on mccauy University. We're going
Speaker 1: to go to a break, but stick around when we
Speaker 1: come back. Virgin Airlines, you would have heard they're initiating
Speaker 1: flights where you can take your dog. But what about
Speaker 1: a cinema where you can take your dog along to
Speaker 1: the movies? That's coming up in a moment. A couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, I went to see the new Bridget
Speaker 1: Jones movie. I actually fell asleep. A couple of times you.
Speaker 2: Went to see it that movie. I don't know why
Speaker 2: you would admit that.
Speaker 1: The only way it could have been worse, Liz, is
Speaker 1: if there were dogs in the cinema. It's the only
Speaker 1: way it could have been worse.
Speaker 2: Well, at leasi weren't in Paris. Check this out. A
Speaker 2: really arty Parisian theater as decided if you want to
Speaker 2: take your dog o out for some dog o popcorn
Speaker 2: to watch a dog o film, you are more than
Speaker 2: welcome check this out. It has literally been selling out,
Speaker 2: that's how popular it's been. While onlookers who clearly aren't
Speaker 2: dog lovers have worried about the prevalence of fleas in
Speaker 2: those cinemas, where when next I go to the movies,
Speaker 2: am I just going to be sitting in some flea
Speaker 2: ridden seat? And other critics wondered about the atmosphere on
Speaker 2: rainy days due to the likely heard of.
Speaker 1: That feeling that you get.
Speaker 2: When it's just sad and lonely and you want to
Speaker 2: go to the cinemas by yourself, but you decide to
Speaker 2: take your dog. I'm assuming that's a very French concern
Speaker 2: because we just don't have many here. But it's your
Speaker 2: best friend. I back it.
Speaker 3: I love dogs. So much, I would actually go. I
Speaker 3: don't have a dog, but I would go just to
Speaker 3: pat other people's dogs and.
Speaker 2: A dog I love so much.
Speaker 4: Oh that is mean.
Speaker 3: But something that's very happy actually is there's the best
Speaker 3: redemption redemption arc out there.
Speaker 4: At the moment.
Speaker 3: What was once the world's ugliest animal has just won.
Speaker 4: New Zealand's Fish of the Year. Mean, the beloved fish.
Speaker 3: It's bodies that made up of this bloody tissue so
Speaker 3: that it can survive just above the law. Look at
Speaker 3: that glorious beast. What do you guys reckon ugliest Animal
Speaker 3: or Fish of the year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it had to be a pity vote.
Speaker 1: It looks like a medical experiment that went wrong.
Speaker 2: It probably was.
Speaker 1: Someone described it as a frowning pile of goop. But Freyer,
Speaker 1: you'd probably take it to the movies.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if I would like to cuddle
Speaker 3: a boneless, scaleless blob that's meant to live hundreds of
Speaker 3: meters underwater.
Speaker 4: But if it's fluffy and cute, I'll cuddle it.
Speaker 1: I think that's why it's so ugly, right, because it
Speaker 1: lives in a highly pressurized part of the ocean, right
Speaker 1: down deep, so it's virtually no skeleton, no scales, no muscles,
Speaker 1: and nothing much to speak of. I don't know why
Speaker 1: the New Zealand has voted that their favorite fish.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you it was a pity vote. They were like,
Speaker 2: its so ugly, so useless. We can't eat it, we
Speaker 2: can't anything it. Let's just make it fish.
Speaker 3: Of the year.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: Well, on that note, that's it from us. It's good night,
Speaker 1: but don't go anywhere. Coming up in just a moment
Speaker 1: is the reader Penehy show good