Speaker 1: Late welcome, Late plain.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks for joining us. I'm James Macpherson with Liz
Speaker 2: Storer and Caleb Bond coming up. Police complain that unisex
Speaker 2: uniforms are damaging their ability to do their job. We'll
Speaker 2: explain that fully a little later in the program. Plus,
Speaker 2: when we look at the papers, attempts to declare every
Speaker 2: creek in the New South Wales Shire as an Indigenous
Speaker 2: sacred site, and the government and out sweeping reforms to
Speaker 2: veterans affairs, all of that, as I said, when we
Speaker 2: look at the papers. But first, if you've ever thought
Speaker 2: environmentalism was a quasi religion, where you're going to love
Speaker 2: this story. Climate chaplains are being employed in organizations to
Speaker 2: help people deal with climate grief. NPR, that's National Public
Speaker 2: Radio in America have reported the eco chaplain is a
Speaker 2: twenty first century invention, and well, no one knows exactly
Speaker 2: how many there are. Chaplaincy experts agree the number is
Speaker 2: likely less than one hundred. They have been operating in Australia,
Speaker 2: the US, Canada and the UK. Now caleber lives you'll
Speaker 2: be fascinated to learn these climate chaplains, novel spiritual leaders
Speaker 2: have been developing spiritual rituals to help people close rituals
Speaker 2: to help people deal with climate regret, that's where you
Speaker 2: feel like you didn't do enough to save the planet.
Speaker 2: Climate complicity, where you feel guilty because you have played
Speaker 2: a part in the degradation of the planet. Climate lamit,
Speaker 2: where you're just generally sad, and helping people deal with
Speaker 2: saying goodbye to species that are becoming extinct. Now, NPR
Speaker 2: went along to what they called a climate Grieving circle
Speaker 2: where people sat around together led by a former Buddhist
Speaker 2: now turned climate chaplain in breathing exercises where you exhale
Speaker 2: and as the way you're laughing, this is a very
Speaker 2: serious attempt to help people with climate grief. As you
Speaker 2: exhale the plants and trees they inhale, and you become
Speaker 2: one with creation and contribute to the healing of the planet. Now,
Speaker 2: there's a bit more to this, and I don't want
Speaker 2: to make it sound too simple, because Caleb, they've got
Speaker 2: chaplains who deal with younger people and older people, because
Speaker 2: the issues are different. For younger people, you're trying to
Speaker 2: help them deal with climate fright, where they are just
Speaker 2: petrified of wildfires, hurricanes and a second Trump presidency. And
Speaker 2: then you've got Chaplains dealing with the older generation who
Speaker 2: are just mourning the fact that decades of climate activism
Speaker 2: tying themselves to the port of Newcastle has done nothing
Speaker 2: to stop the climate crisis. And so I think this
Speaker 2: is a wonderful thing, Liz, that we need to see
Speaker 2: more of. I think a lot of people are going
Speaker 2: to be helped by this.
Speaker 3: I want this job.
Speaker 4: I bet they're all in six figures. And I would
Speaker 4: just begin by being like, why are all so stupid?
Speaker 3: Why are you all so stupid?
Speaker 4: Has anyone shown you definitive scientific proof.
Speaker 3: That see is destroying the planet?
Speaker 4: Did you know it's actually the most important nutrient for
Speaker 4: life on Earth? Without it, we'd all be dead, There'd
Speaker 4: be no plants, there'd be no humans, nothing, And in fact,
Speaker 4: science shows they were running short of it before we
Speaker 4: rocked up and started pumping some extra into the atmosphere.
Speaker 4: After my consults, they'd all leave climate change denials.
Speaker 3: I'd be like, give it ten years.
Speaker 4: You're going to feel real stupid. Do not waste any
Speaker 4: more time on your regret. You're grieving your anxiety and depression.
Speaker 2: That's conversion therapy.
Speaker 5: Illegal.
Speaker 4: This is just This is so sad, and it speaks
Speaker 4: to the state of people's mental health in today's world
Speaker 4: and the fact that no one driving this wave of
Speaker 4: mental health around climate change.
Speaker 3: Nobody is answering for this.
Speaker 4: All the fear porn that is being pumped in to
Speaker 4: our young and yes the older people as well, being
Speaker 4: made to feel like all your life you didn't even
Speaker 4: know about this, and you've trashed the planet and you've
Speaker 4: ruined it for generations to come. Genuine vulnerable, conscientious people
Speaker 4: are now made to feel like you're to answer for
Speaker 4: what we're now facing and the coming generations who now
Speaker 4: need to live in caves otherwise there's no way we
Speaker 4: can survive here.
Speaker 2: To be fair, they're not just old, they're whites as well.
Speaker 1: So I'm just at a loss. I am. I am
Speaker 1: completely at a loss, Like we are staffed.
Speaker 5: As a human race.
Speaker 1: If we need to have bloody echo chaplains, I might
Speaker 1: leave my glasses off because it's harder to see the
Speaker 1: world with my glasses off, And at this point that's
Speaker 1: kind of how I want it. Like if nothing will
Speaker 1: show you how far we have fallen, like the fact
Speaker 1: that we now have quote unquote eco chaplains, presumably in
Speaker 1: schools and workplaces and nursing homes and whatever else, holding
Speaker 1: people's home. But when you said before, this concept of
Speaker 1: them having these breathing circles, right, and so they're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, inhale and then then exhale deeply. Now, surely
Speaker 1: there's a big problem with that, because every time you exhale,
Speaker 1: you are exhaling carbon dioxide and you are contributing to
Speaker 1: the carbon emissions flying out into the atmosphere. So surely
Speaker 1: in these breathing circles, they should be encouraging you to
Speaker 1: hold your breath for as long as possible until you
Speaker 1: go purple in the face and drop dead, because that's
Speaker 1: the best thing you could possibly do for the planet.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it alleviates all your climate anxiety.
Speaker 1: But you know, we make all these jokes, but it
Speaker 1: is really sad that there are children, in particular, children
Speaker 1: who are genuinely concerned that the world they are living
Speaker 1: in today, that they are growing up in today, may
Speaker 1: not exist by the time they are eighty years old.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lead to believe that the whole
Speaker 1: joints going to fall apart and the world's going to
Speaker 1: implode and it's going to be like and the dinosaurs
Speaker 1: became extinct and all the mediaors came and took us out,
Speaker 1: like it's not gonna happen. It ain't gonna happen. There's
Speaker 1: this little thing called evolution, right, and when things change,
Speaker 1: the atmosphere change, the climate changes, as it has always changed.
Speaker 1: Some species survive and some species don't. It has ever
Speaker 1: been thus But you know what, we are the smartest.
Speaker 1: We're at the top of the tree. If anyone can
Speaker 1: find a way to adapt to the planet being you know,
Speaker 1: one and a half degrees warmer or whatever it's supposedly
Speaker 1: going to be, it's human beings who can do that. Like,
Speaker 1: it ain't going to be that big of a problem.
Speaker 1: But kids are genuinely worried that the world is not
Speaker 1: going to be here by the time they're aty, that
Speaker 1: they're all going to cark it because it's too hot.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know it gets pretty hot in Australia,
Speaker 1: but try living in some other parts of the world
Speaker 1: where they never get any rain and it's hot all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 2: This is this is like the religion of choice for
Speaker 2: urban atheists, who just prove the point that you can
Speaker 2: say I'm not interested in religion, but if in the
Speaker 2: end you are innately spiritual, you have to come up
Speaker 2: with something. So, you know, climate activitism's got its saints,
Speaker 2: you know, like Greta Tunberg. It's got its sinners like BP,
Speaker 2: it's got its evangelists El Gore, it's got its penance,
Speaker 2: you buy your carbon credits, and it's got all the
Speaker 2: hallmarks of religion. Being say no, I'm not into religion,
Speaker 2: and yet you're completely into religion as if you were
Speaker 2: following any of the mainstream religion.
Speaker 4: And people must be made to believe in it because
Speaker 4: we have not even seen the beginnings of the price.
Speaker 4: The government is going to increasingly demand that you pay
Speaker 4: for this religion, whether you believe in it or not.
Speaker 4: You don't get to subscribe from this. And this is
Speaker 4: why I can't believe people have relinquished the scientific argument
Speaker 4: so quickly.
Speaker 3: We're told that the science is settled.
Speaker 4: Well, of course, the science is settled when you gag
Speaker 4: everyone who disagrees with you. Because what governments around the world,
Speaker 4: particularly Western governments, are increasingly requiring of their people in
Speaker 4: the name of this climate change, gender is going to become.
Speaker 3: More and more and more onerous.
Speaker 4: That is why we're not allowed to question it, We're
Speaker 4: not allowed to cast.
Speaker 3: Doubts on it. And now we're supposed to take it.
Speaker 4: So seriously that we have chaplains to deal with people's
Speaker 4: climbing anxiety about an issue that I genuinely feel sorry
Speaker 4: for these people because they think.
Speaker 3: That this is one hundred percent real.
Speaker 4: This is all going to happen imminently unless everyone changes
Speaker 4: at the speed of light. Even the evangelists that Mac
Speaker 4: just talked about, even the governments themselves perpetuating this narrative,
Speaker 4: dolling out these onerous policies that are only going to
Speaker 4: get worse and worse.
Speaker 3: Even they are.
Speaker 4: The ones that we catch out every other week spending
Speaker 4: millions of.
Speaker 3: Dollars of our taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 4: On their flights for trips that could have been a
Speaker 4: ten minute car ride.
Speaker 3: No, no, we've got to save the planet. Not if
Speaker 3: you're them.
Speaker 4: They are laughing at you, These people buying beachfront properties
Speaker 4: while preaching to the plabs that we're all.
Speaker 3: Going to be underwater in a matter of years.
Speaker 4: It is utterly ridiculous, and so more than anything, although
Speaker 4: it is extremely funny, I get angry when I read
Speaker 4: stories like this, because you've always got those of us
Speaker 4: humans that tape things to the nth degree. There's still
Speaker 4: people post COVID wearing masks and being deathly scared that
Speaker 4: they're going to transmit it to someone or that they're
Speaker 4: going to cause issues in that space, because they're extremely
Speaker 4: conscientious and they're genuinely still scared.
Speaker 3: It's abominable.
Speaker 1: Well, if you've caught the climate disease, I'm glad to
Speaker 1: tell you that the later bait is the inoculation. Please
Speaker 1: get your dose every single night at ten pm here
Speaker 1: on Sky New. Speaking of the environment, you may have
Speaker 1: heard the story earlier in the year that the federal
Speaker 1: government wants to set up an environmental cop on the beat.
Speaker 1: It was one of their election promises that they would
Speaker 1: set up a federal version of the EPA. Generally that's
Speaker 1: Protection Authority, it's called in the various states. The federal
Speaker 1: version would be called Environment Protection Australia. Well, the federal government, sorry,
Speaker 1: is in a spot of bother because they're struggling to
Speaker 1: get this legislation through the parliament because, as you would expect,
Speaker 1: the opposition the Coalition saying this thing goes too far,
Speaker 1: because essentially what the government has suggested is that it
Speaker 1: would perform all the sort of jobs that the EPA
Speaker 1: currently does statewide. You know, it monitors environmental issues with
Speaker 1: developments and minds and this sort of thing, but the
Speaker 1: federal government wants to actually give it enforcement powers. So
Speaker 1: it would essentially be able to make decisions instead of
Speaker 1: the Minister, who at the moment is tenure plip a second.
Speaker 1: We'll get to her in a moment, but it would
Speaker 1: be able to make decisions about developments and minds and
Speaker 1: these sort of things instead of the minister making that decision.
Speaker 1: And of course, when you think, well, this mob is
Speaker 1: the Environment Protection Authority, it's probably going to make decisions
Speaker 1: that are not necessarily about the economy and what's good
Speaker 1: for the country. They're going to make decisions that they
Speaker 1: think are supposedly good for the environment. So the coalition
Speaker 1: says we've got to water this thing down, we want
Speaker 1: less powers given to it, and the Greens, on the
Speaker 1: other hand, which is the other mob that might be
Speaker 1: able to get it through the Parliament, say no, we actually.
Speaker 5: Want to beef it up further.
Speaker 1: Now you can imagine what it would look like if
Speaker 1: the Greens got their hands on it. And Tanya Plipasek,
Speaker 1: who is the minister in charge of this thing, you
Speaker 1: will know, recently denied a gold mine in New South
Speaker 1: Wales because supposedly there's some indigenous heritage problem here, even
Speaker 1: though she overruled the hand picked Indigenous heritage advisor within
Speaker 1: her department and took the word of someone else against
Speaker 1: the word of the local indigenous people. So she can't
Speaker 1: get that right. She's been roundly criticized for that. She
Speaker 1: can't get this Environment Protection Authority legislation through the parliament.
Speaker 1: So what do you reckons She's decided she needs to
Speaker 1: do to take the heat.
Speaker 5: Off her portfolio.
Speaker 1: At the moment, she's dabbling in some fashion modeling. Yes,
Speaker 1: that is a real clip that Tanya Plibasik posted on
Speaker 1: social media. It's good to see that she's taking the
Speaker 1: job really seriously right now. But you can just imagine,
Speaker 1: and we talked about the eco chaplains, right here's a
Speaker 1: mob that they can go and work for it, but
Speaker 1: they will be federally employed ego chaplains in every school
Speaker 1: across the country once the EPA is established. But knowing
Speaker 1: how Tanya Plibasik has recently conducted herself as the Minister
Speaker 1: knocking back of mind that the local indigenous population says
Speaker 1: they want a need because they want the jobs that
Speaker 1: the EPA in New South Wales said.
Speaker 5: There was no problem with that.
Speaker 1: The Premier of New South Wales, Chris Mins, has no
Speaker 1: problem with she's making political decisions I believe to advantage
Speaker 1: herself in her electorate in suburban Sydney as opposed to
Speaker 1: what is good for the greater good of the state
Speaker 1: of New South Wales in the country. So if that's
Speaker 1: the attitude she takes his minister, imagine what this EPA
Speaker 1: would do if she managed to get it up.
Speaker 2: Well, imagine what will happen if we get the hung
Speaker 2: Parliament at the next election and the Greenens and their price,
Speaker 2: because the Greens not only want this organization which will
Speaker 2: have the power to approve or disapprove developments without reference
Speaker 2: to anybody else, which almost convinces me an organization that
Speaker 2: doesn't have to reference tenure plipar sc you could almost say.
Speaker 3: Could be might be an improvement.
Speaker 1: That's how bad.
Speaker 4: The only people who will get appointed to the EBA
Speaker 4: will be like Tang your plibosec on steroids. Well, these
Speaker 4: people will make the social workers look.
Speaker 3: Like like g Stapo.
Speaker 4: Like these these people appointed because it will be under
Speaker 4: the Albanzi government. If they can get it across the line,
Speaker 4: it'll be ten times worse. And then the minister government
Speaker 4: loves to do this gets to go.
Speaker 3: It wasn't me, it was.
Speaker 4: The EPA and these are their recommendations.
Speaker 2: Government is well practiced in blaming public service.
Speaker 4: Exactly, so they'll just be like vet every mining proposal,
Speaker 4: logging a thing of the past, like they'll do the
Speaker 4: dirty work for the government, while the government simply says, well.
Speaker 2: Okay, good point. So while Labor are willing to compromise
Speaker 2: on that to get coalition and support, the Greens are
Speaker 2: saying no, no, that's got to remain.
Speaker 3: End.
Speaker 2: They want a climate trigger, whereby every development is assessed
Speaker 2: as to how it will affect the climate crisis. So
Speaker 2: you can imagine not just the bureaucracy, but the cost
Speaker 2: that this will impose on pretty much every development that's imaginable.
Speaker 2: It will literally bankrupt the country because nothing will be affordable.
Speaker 4: It's a nightmare waiting to happen. And anyone reading about
Speaker 4: this today goes.
Speaker 3: It's bad enough as it is.
Speaker 4: We've already got state governments passing laws that dictate what
Speaker 4: developments have to look like. So we've got the cultural
Speaker 4: heritage type stuff vetting projects here, there and everywhere. Then
Speaker 4: we've got the environmental in Victoria, you've got to have
Speaker 4: double glazed windows and white rooms if you're in this
Speaker 4: specific area.
Speaker 3: All the rest of it.
Speaker 4: The state governments are already implementing local governments as well.
Speaker 4: Enough red tape to curl anybody's hair, and now you
Speaker 4: want an EPA on top of that. The Coalition has
Speaker 4: taken a common sense middle ground here where they're saying, look,
Speaker 4: if it's a compliance only role and it's simply a
Speaker 4: watchdog of sorts to say, hey, you're not obeying the laws,
Speaker 4: the environmental laws that are already passed, already up and running.
Speaker 3: You guys are breaking the rules.
Speaker 4: We'll vote for it if it's compliance only.
Speaker 3: The Greens want to be fed up.
Speaker 4: There seems to be absolutely no middle ground here. Either
Speaker 4: Labor agree to giving this thing like weapons grade powers,
Speaker 4: or they water it down. Here's hoping that they come
Speaker 4: to the coalition's party and not the Greens.
Speaker 2: Otherwise we're screwed and just on that tenure plbisk Instagram thing.
Speaker 2: Isn't that an example of what they call fast fashion,
Speaker 2: which is really bad?
Speaker 4: Yeah, where is the sustainability unless you's had all those
Speaker 4: suits for ten years apiece, in which case it's okay.
Speaker 5: That is true.
Speaker 1: They may well be of good quality. But of course
Speaker 1: the other problem with it is, and I know we
Speaker 1: all disagree with the decision that Tanya Plibasik has recently
Speaker 1: made about the Goldman and Blainey, but I prefer these
Speaker 1: decisions to be made by the minister rather than faithless
Speaker 1: buau arrest right is because not only exactly because not
Speaker 1: only is it something for them to hide behind, it
Speaker 1: abrogates the.
Speaker 5: Responsibility of the minister.
Speaker 1: The minister, much like the Prime Minister and all politicians,
Speaker 1: are elected to make moral decisions on behalf of the public.
Speaker 5: That is why we elect them.
Speaker 1: We elect them to make decisions that we want them
Speaker 1: to make. It's not then their job to farm that
Speaker 1: decision making out to other people's well within the purview
Speaker 1: of the public service to come back and make recommendations
Speaker 1: to ministers, but it should ultimately be up to the
Speaker 1: minister to make that decision. Otherwise, well, why have the ministers.
Speaker 1: Let's just cut out all the crap in Canberra, just
Speaker 1: at the public service, run the Taylor. We have questions, Yes,
Speaker 1: you have questions.
Speaker 2: You said that our politicians are elected to make moral decisions. Yes,
Speaker 2: well they've been in government two years. When will they start?
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's not my job to tell them when to do
Speaker 1: their jol I'm just saying that what we elect them for.
Speaker 6: We know they.
Speaker 1: Abrogate the responsibility all the time. But that's the idea
Speaker 1: of the system, right. It doesn't always work, but that's
Speaker 1: the point.
Speaker 3: Onto more environmental madness.
Speaker 4: In New South Wales, there's a new Plastics Project Action Plan.
Speaker 4: You thought they'd stop at banning plastic straws while you're
Speaker 4: sucking on your soggy paper ones.
Speaker 3: You thought they'd stop at banning plastic cutlery. No, they're
Speaker 3: taking it one further.
Speaker 4: Forcing cafes to accept reusable cups and standardizing the packaging
Speaker 4: four disposable cups are among the ideas the New South
Speaker 4: Wales government is putting out for consultation on Monday, being today.
Speaker 3: Other ideas listed in the.
Speaker 4: New South Wales Plastics the Way forward action plan include
Speaker 4: banning the release of helium balloons. Yeah, that'll save the
Speaker 4: planet quick smart, Banning plastic sticks for lollipops. Off, we
Speaker 4: are saved in favor of paper or wooden alternatives. Banning
Speaker 4: the plastic ties on bread bags, Yes, that has kept
Speaker 4: me awake at night. And tethering lids to plastic bottles
Speaker 4: accepted in return and earn schemes now.
Speaker 3: Other states have already implemented these. In fact, it wasn't
Speaker 3: until today that I found out it is law.
Speaker 4: It is law New South Walians that you cannot release
Speaker 4: more than nineteen helium balloons. You're having a party, you
Speaker 4: want to make a statement, you want to make all
Speaker 4: the kids go woo. It is literally written into legislation
Speaker 4: in our state that you cannot release more than nineteen
Speaker 4: helium balloons twenty you've broken the law. I mean, we
Speaker 4: are just getting to the well, we're well pass the
Speaker 4: point of ridiculous when this is what the government is
Speaker 4: turning its attention to. Thank you for looking after the
Speaker 4: big issues. Yeah, we can't ban kids from accessing pornography online.
Speaker 3: We can't stop rampant crime in the streets.
Speaker 4: We can't even send immigrants back to where they came
Speaker 4: from if they break our laws in the worst of ways.
Speaker 3: But you can't release more than twenty helium balloons, so
Speaker 3: you know they're doing their job.
Speaker 2: I'm so pleased to hear that.
Speaker 3: I feel a lot better.
Speaker 2: The problem is, I mean, we're sitting here thinking this
Speaker 2: is ridiculous. But if you read the Sydney Morning Herald
Speaker 2: comments underneath this article.
Speaker 3: Everyone's loving it.
Speaker 4: Everyone they've gone further.
Speaker 3: They're saying this is not enough.
Speaker 2: Let me read for you some of the comments. People
Speaker 2: in the comments they want to ban fridge magnets because
Speaker 2: they never break down fridge magnets. Other people said, you
Speaker 2: know synthetic football fields. They want to get rid of astrotypes.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, AstroTurf.
Speaker 2: Someone just went on there and said, let's just ban
Speaker 2: cars completely. Sure. Someone else said this is serious. They
Speaker 2: said the problem with plastic coffee cups. We should ban
Speaker 2: people walking with coffee. Then you wouldn't need to take
Speaker 2: away coffee cups and have your coffee. These are serious comments.
Speaker 2: In the Sydney Morning Herald, someone said polysh styrene beads
Speaker 2: in bean bags, Well, how does a bean bag work
Speaker 2: if you can't have those beans? Beans in the bag,
Speaker 2: and my favorite one band bin liners.
Speaker 3: Actually, actually I have.
Speaker 4: A member of my family who shall remain nameless, who
Speaker 4: literally he won't allow bin bags.
Speaker 3: They just have to clean out their bin risk.
Speaker 4: Like, what is the difference?
Speaker 3: What difference are you making?
Speaker 1: But to the plaint the point here always is that
Speaker 1: you know, we as a species progressed, we keep progressing.
Speaker 1: We find ways to live. Well, I'm getting to the point.
Speaker 1: We find ways to make life easier and whatever, and
Speaker 1: we sort of got to the pinnacle of that, and
Speaker 1: now we're like, okay, let's go backwards. Like we develop
Speaker 1: products that are good tea use and easy to use,
Speaker 1: let's go back to all the products that we replace
Speaker 1: them with because they were no good. No, no, no, let's
Speaker 1: go back to the ones that were no good. Let's
Speaker 1: have the paper straws, let's have the paper sticks, all
Speaker 1: this sort of nonsense.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The problem, as far as I can see here is litterers, right,
Speaker 1: because the issue with all the plastics and I know
Speaker 1: they don't break down whatever, but the issue is that
Speaker 1: people discard them. They chuck them out of car windows,
Speaker 1: and they put them in places where they shouldn't be,
Speaker 1: and then they end up in the ocean, and then
Speaker 1: fish consume them, and then the fish are all full
Speaker 1: of plastics, and then you eat that as microplastics when
Speaker 1: you look up your fish, et cetera, et cetera. Why
Speaker 1: don't we just go full Singapore on people who litter
Speaker 1: their plastics and then there's no problem. We can dispose
Speaker 1: of the plastics properly, and that's fine. It's the people
Speaker 1: who are chucking them out willy nilly, just letting them
Speaker 1: go in the environment that are the problem. And not
Speaker 1: only is it bad for the environment when they do
Speaker 1: it, it looks bad. Let's just crack down on the litteris
Speaker 1: and then you've got no problem. As far as I'm considered, good.
Speaker 4: Part about this, and I'm actually being serious now, the
Speaker 4: good part about this action plan the way forward with
Speaker 4: plastics is that they are addressing the issue of microplastics.
Speaker 4: We were talking about this last week where scientists found
Speaker 4: more microplastics in people's brain tissue. Apparently it absorbs more
Speaker 4: in the brain than anywhere else in the body, and
Speaker 4: they're getting quite concerned about it. They said this should
Speaker 4: be an international emergency, and nobody's even talking about it. Well,
Speaker 4: New South Wales Plastics Actions Plan is and I quote
Speaker 4: this strategy, which is open for consultation until November, also
Speaker 4: proposes to phase out plastic microbeads from cleaning products. That's right,
Speaker 4: we keep putting them all over our houses, inhaling them,
Speaker 4: cleaning our plates, with them, eating off them. They're looking
Speaker 4: to phase them out by twenty twenty five and to
Speaker 4: publish a list of chemicals to be phased out of
Speaker 4: food packaging, which of course the food then.
Speaker 3: Absorbs by the end of twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 4: So that much I was like, yes, let's talk about
Speaker 4: those plastics. Not really concerned about the others, but the
Speaker 4: ones that people are unconsciously consuming. Most people aren't even
Speaker 4: aware of microplastics at all, and it is affecting their
Speaker 4: health in ways that we don't even know yet because
Speaker 4: we're not far enough down the microplastics rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: And that's fair enough, that's a health issue as opposed
Speaker 1: to an en mental one. But my biggest problem with
Speaker 1: all of these policies is that it's like it's the
Speaker 1: height of Western concern for the environment, whereby we say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, if we eliminate the plastic straws, and we
Speaker 1: eliminate the plastic cutlery in the coffee cups. We've saved
Speaker 1: the planet. We here in the West, we have single
Speaker 1: handedly saved the planet. Now the effect, of course that
Speaker 1: has is that everyone runs around thinking, well, there's no
Speaker 1: problem if the planet is completely saved because we got
Speaker 1: rid of the plastic straws. No, and the rest of
Speaker 1: the world is I talk about littering. I mean you
Speaker 1: look at some developing nations where they have no concern
Speaker 1: for what they spew out into the atmosphe which was
Speaker 1: mostly our coal. Anyway, we can't burn it, but we
Speaker 1: let other people burn it and staff just being put
Speaker 1: into water ways and all over the shop. That is
Speaker 1: the real damage that is being done to the planet.
Speaker 1: So we can eliminate every single plastic straw in Australia
Speaker 1: and it will do nothing for the planet. But we
Speaker 1: feel warm and fuzzy, and that's the most important.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean the insanity of it. And my favorite
Speaker 2: one that you listed was the plastic bread tags. So
Speaker 2: you ban those, right, but the whole loaf is wrapped
Speaker 2: in plastic.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: And as for the wooden sticks for your lollipop, can
Speaker 2: you just imagine you're chopping down trees left, right and centrance.
Speaker 3: See why are you destroying the forest. Well, that's what
Speaker 3: we've done with the wooden cutlery instead of plastic.
Speaker 4: Now, that's what we've done with the paper straws. What
Speaker 4: do you think they're made out of instead of the
Speaker 4: plastic straws. So how this is environmentally friendly is a
Speaker 4: rather large question mark.
Speaker 3: Same with all the single use.
Speaker 4: Plastic bags that used to be in the supermarkets, and
Speaker 4: now everyone's got covered full these thick cardboard like bags
Speaker 4: that still managed to rip somehow whenever you buy anything
Speaker 4: remotely heavy, which means.
Speaker 3: That you've got to go back, you've got to buy more.
Speaker 4: And the Coles Woolies and the lights are laughing all
Speaker 4: the way to the bank because you've got to pay
Speaker 4: twenty five cents apart.
Speaker 2: So with the western world going mad, we've decided we're
Speaker 2: all moving to Hungary because at least in Hungary they've
Speaker 2: got some brains, especially and not least on asylum seekers.
Speaker 2: They're refusing to pay a massive fine handed out by
Speaker 2: the European Union because they won't accept asylum seekers. During
Speaker 2: the period twenty fourteen to about twenty twenty, millions of
Speaker 2: asylum seekers came into Europe, and of course Germany in
Speaker 2: particular took so many it's completely changed the dynamic in
Speaker 2: the country. But Hungary said, no, we are not accepting
Speaker 2: asylum seekers and if they come, we'll put them into
Speaker 2: detention camps until they leave. Well, for not accepting these
Speaker 2: asylum seekers, the European Union imposed a fine of two
Speaker 2: hundred million euros to give you an example, that's about
Speaker 2: three hundred and thirty two million Australian dollars, and Hungry
Speaker 2: just said, well, we're not paying. So the EU have
Speaker 2: given them one more deadline to pay. I think September
Speaker 2: seventeen is the deadline, by which time if they don't
Speaker 2: pay this fine, then that amount of money will be
Speaker 2: deducted from what they received from the EU budget.
Speaker 3: So that's what's happening.
Speaker 2: But Hungary are not impressed and they are unmoved. The
Speaker 2: government State secretary today said that if Brussels are so
Speaker 2: intent on having illegal migrants, then they can have all
Speaker 2: of ours have a listen.
Speaker 1: The Hungarian government's anti immigrant rhetoric was furthered when a
Speaker 1: senior officials said Budapest would buzz illegal migrants to Brussels.
Speaker 6: Pro Pounio brus or aquario kag word you angeried yugbh
Speaker 6: akiktun akikaatic di Mirio Coltos startung A, Mario fell Indianhan Edukat.
Speaker 2: Now, of course calib that's a brilliant idea. But if
Speaker 2: they do bust all these illegal migrants to Brussels, then
Speaker 2: they'll get another EU fine for breaching their carbon emissions limits.
Speaker 2: But the leaders of Hungary have said this asylum seeker
Speaker 2: issue is an existential threat to national sovereignty and to
Speaker 2: social cohesion, and they are having no part of the
Speaker 2: EU's fetish for taking everyone from everywhere and allowing them
Speaker 2: to join their country.
Speaker 1: They should be given carbon credits for putting them on
Speaker 1: buses instead of planes, to be perfectly honest, But they
Speaker 1: are so right, and they're the only country just about
Speaker 1: in Europe that he's standing up against this nonsense. And
Speaker 1: it's hard to be a lone voice in the wilderness.
Speaker 1: But they're saying, look around Europe, and you only have
Speaker 1: to look around Europe. Look at the EU elections just
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago and the response, the overwhelming
Speaker 1: response of Europeans to the mass migration that they have
Speaker 1: seen in their countries. They don't like it. They're standing
Speaker 1: up against it because they've seen what it's done in
Speaker 1: terms of change of culture, they've seen what it's done
Speaker 1: in terms of the allocation of budgets, they've seen what
Speaker 1: it's done in terms of housing. And some of these
Speaker 1: things sound very familiar here in Australia, and not on
Speaker 1: the basis of illegal migration here, all on the basis
Speaker 1: of quite legal migration. Mostly Hungary is the only country
Speaker 1: just about that is saying no, we are not on
Speaker 1: board with this, and for that they cop a two
Speaker 1: hundred million euro fine. Is it any wonder that the
Speaker 1: UK pulled out of the European Union? Is it any
Speaker 1: wonder that brex had got up because they saw this
Speaker 1: stuff coming? And this is the problem with big governmental
Speaker 1: organizations like the EU, because you know, if you've got
Speaker 1: all these different little countries with their different little agendas,
Speaker 1: how are they ever going to come together and adhere
Speaker 1: to one policy.
Speaker 5: It ain't going to work.
Speaker 1: And it's in situations like this where they try to
Speaker 1: impose clearly damaging policy across the entire continent. Someone has
Speaker 1: to say no, But then they're the lepper for doing.
Speaker 4: So what kind of policy is this that you are
Speaker 4: forcing European Union members to just take your legals and
Speaker 4: if you don't, we'll find you extortionately, Like, what kind
Speaker 4: of union is this, what kind of parliament is this?
Speaker 3: What kind of laws are you creating?
Speaker 4: You are literally changing the face of Europe forever, which
Speaker 4: has already happened. Those indigenous to these countries are.
Speaker 3: Completely up in arms about it.
Speaker 4: You're quite right to raise the European Union election that
Speaker 4: happened recently, very comprehensive results centered around the fact the
Speaker 4: Europeans themselves are sick to death of seeing their countries change.
Speaker 3: And I'm not surprised it's.
Speaker 4: Hungary who taken action in this and said we are
Speaker 4: just simply not complying. These guys are very very strong
Speaker 4: about national identity. They've got some of the best measures
Speaker 4: in the world encouraging Hungarian women to have as many
Speaker 4: babies as possible, like they want to keep Hungary Hungarian period,
Speaker 4: and their own parliament takes very serious measures to ensure
Speaker 4: that can happen. So how dare the EU come along
Speaker 4: and just say no, you too will be flooded with illegals,
Speaker 4: Whether you like it or not.
Speaker 3: I wish we saw more of this in Europe, because the.
Speaker 4: People of any number of these European countries would back
Speaker 4: their own government if their government was to put their
Speaker 4: foot down.
Speaker 3: It's a shame we're just not seeing more of this.
Speaker 4: Hopefully they'll all grow some gonads watching Hungary stare stand
Speaker 4: its ground and say well, why aren't you Why aren't
Speaker 4: my government doing this as well?
Speaker 2: And that's a great point. Citizens love it because you
Speaker 2: elect people to represent you. But instead we always hear
Speaker 2: this fluff about well as good members of the international community,
Speaker 2: and such a community doesn't exist anyway. There's no such
Speaker 2: thing as an international community. But to see a government
Speaker 2: say we are representing these people were interests of the
Speaker 2: World Economic Forum or the EU or somebody else. And
Speaker 2: remember during the Voice campaign, we were all warned if
Speaker 2: we didn't vote yes to the Voice, that Australia would
Speaker 2: be an international pariah and internationally we would be shunned.
Speaker 2: And so we did vote no to the Voice, and
Speaker 2: nothing happened. They constantly use this fear mumbering if we
Speaker 2: don't do what they want, then the international community will
Speaker 2: be uprated. The Hungarian politicians have just said we don't
Speaker 2: believe that, and we're not intimidated and we'll do what
Speaker 2: we want.
Speaker 3: Good on them.
Speaker 1: It's a novel idea, is that a government representing their
Speaker 1: own people. How strange we haven't seen that.
Speaker 5: For a little while.
Speaker 1: Our bit of breaking news tonight the Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 1: Alberizi has announced that there will be a national ban
Speaker 1: on children using social media. We haven't been told yet
Speaker 1: what the age restriction will be, but he will tomorrow
Speaker 1: announce that there will be a national restriction on children
Speaker 1: using social media. And of course this comes after the
Speaker 1: concept being bandied about for a while and the States
Speaker 1: getting on board over the weekend. It started with South
Speaker 1: Australia Premier Peter Malanowskis yesterday announced that there would be
Speaker 1: South Australian restrictions from the age of fourteen.
Speaker 5: Take a listen. The law is more than.
Speaker 7: Just a punitive measure on social media companies. It is
Speaker 7: also an enabler for parents, teachers, other leaders, mentors out
Speaker 7: the community to get kids be able to engage with
Speaker 7: them in more healthy means. We see kids being done harm.
Speaker 7: We know that's true from a growing body of international,
Speaker 7: peer reviewed research. So it's time for governments to act,
Speaker 7: and I don't think any leader around the country should
Speaker 7: sit on their hand in this matter.
Speaker 1: Then the Victorian government jumped on board. Today Premier j
Speaker 1: Cintra Allen announced a very similar policy.
Speaker 4: So it's time to give parents the power to push back,
Speaker 4: not against kids, but against the tech giants.
Speaker 3: That's why we're going to put age limits on social media.
Speaker 4: These rules won't target parents or kids, but they'll target
Speaker 4: the tech giants because they're the ones we need to
Speaker 4: hold to account.
Speaker 1: That announcement, by the way of putting an age limit
Speaker 1: on social media, made on social media on Jacinthra Allen's
Speaker 1: Instagram package and a little bit ironic, isn't it. Now.
Speaker 1: This proposal, as we know, has been backed for some
Speaker 1: time by the opposition. The Shadow Spokesman for Communications David Coleman,
Speaker 1: supported the idea today again.
Speaker 8: Because what we're seeing with the mental health of Australian children,
Speaker 8: especially girls, is a crisis. It is completely unacceptable and
Speaker 8: in action is not an option.
Speaker 1: Now. Look, I think we're all sympathetic to the idea
Speaker 1: that children should not be on social media.
Speaker 5: We know the damage that.
Speaker 1: Social media does to children and more broadly, the damage
Speaker 1: that ready access to the internet is doing to children.
Speaker 1: We see it in the mental health statistics. We see
Speaker 1: it in the loneliness statistics that have shot through the
Speaker 1: roof in the last decade or so as this has proliferated.
Speaker 1: The only problem is we don't yet know what age
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister is going to set this at. And
Speaker 1: it's probably better as a national policy as opposed to
Speaker 1: a state by state one. I just couldn't work out
Speaker 1: how that was possibly going to be workable. Where WA
Speaker 1: might say fifteen, and Essay says fourteen, a Victoria says thirteen,
Speaker 1: and on and on it would go. But there is
Speaker 1: no way to actually implement monitor do any of this
Speaker 1: without having a system whereby to track the age of
Speaker 1: the people who are using social media and the ages
Speaker 1: we're talking about here fourteen, thirteen, et cetera. Kids don't
Speaker 1: have driver's licenses or.
Speaker 5: Anything like that.
Speaker 1: About the only form of identity they have is their
Speaker 1: birth certificate. So is it now going to be a
Speaker 1: system whereby I have to hand my birth certificate over
Speaker 1: to Facebook in order to get a Facebook account. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people are sympathetic to the idea.
Speaker 1: I still don't know how it's going to be working.
Speaker 3: I have said all along.
Speaker 4: It is not a coincidence that all of a sudden,
Speaker 4: this issue that has been an issue for years, youth,
Speaker 4: young people and social media very bad combo, whether it's
Speaker 4: body image, the number of eating disorders.
Speaker 3: They've seen those increase over two hundred percent over.
Speaker 4: The last few years, which is why Coleman made a
Speaker 4: direct reference to it being particularly bad for young girls,
Speaker 4: which you just heard him say, just that.
Speaker 3: It is not a coincidence that just weeks.
Speaker 4: After this government passed a digital ID bill, all of
Speaker 4: a sudden this issue became bigger than Ben heard.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying that's how it will start out. They
Speaker 4: might start out using other measures, but just wait for
Speaker 4: a few months to pass before the government starts crying
Speaker 4: these measures aren't working. We're going to have to implement
Speaker 4: the digital ID because there's no other way to stop
Speaker 4: you from.
Speaker 3: Getting on here underage or not.
Speaker 4: I'm telling you this is exactly what this is about,
Speaker 4: in my humble opinion.
Speaker 3: And that's all it's about.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree with you, but if there is a
Speaker 2: way that and tech giants have to agree to this too,
Speaker 2: that's the other funny thing about.
Speaker 3: This, although we thok you by the government, Well we'll
Speaker 3: see how they go.
Speaker 2: They're not doing a very good job forcing X or
Speaker 2: Facebook to do anything at the moment.
Speaker 3: Well that's free speech.
Speaker 2: But if they can come up with a way to
Speaker 2: correctly identify the age of a person.
Speaker 3: As Caleb just said, they really can't.
Speaker 2: What a credit card, driver's license?
Speaker 1: Could you not use those for a kid? For a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old?
Speaker 4: Will even an eighteen year old doesn't necessarily have a
Speaker 4: credit card?
Speaker 2: All right, you're right, they're never going to be able
Speaker 2: to do that, but this is the possible way. They've
Speaker 2: got to be able to do that. And take your
Speaker 2: point way it will lead to something else. But there
Speaker 2: is an issue with social media with kids, and they
Speaker 2: should try to find a way to keep kids off.
Speaker 9: Sure, parenting, parenting, Yeah, I agree with you on that,
Speaker 9: but it's incredibly the pressure that parents are under with
Speaker 9: kids to get on social media is more than you
Speaker 9: could imagine.
Speaker 1: I understand that, I understand, but isn't there And I
Speaker 1: say this is someone who is not a parent, But
Speaker 1: I know parents who have enforced you know, no device
Speaker 1: policies upon their kids and they get so much pushback.
Speaker 1: But as a parent, they've gone no, I'm drawing the
Speaker 1: line in the sandy.
Speaker 2: We've got laws that a pub is responsible not to
Speaker 2: allow people under age in sure, so, but you could
Speaker 2: say no, that's a parent's job to make sure a
Speaker 2: kid doesn't go into a pub. But there's an example
Speaker 2: of where you've got parents and government working together for
Speaker 2: the well being of children. This is just another example
Speaker 2: of that. So I don't buy the argument that it's
Speaker 2: the parent's job and there's no place for government at
Speaker 2: all in something that is causing as much harm as
Speaker 2: you outline in your introduction.
Speaker 3: But you can monitor the thing that's happening at home.
Speaker 4: This is something that kids are in bed on their
Speaker 4: devices that their parents what happens.
Speaker 3: All over the place.
Speaker 2: Kids don't just access social media or the internet at home.
Speaker 2: They can access it literally anywhere. That's the problem.
Speaker 4: The problem is not when they've got access to a
Speaker 4: computer at school.
Speaker 3: No, that is not.
Speaker 2: The kids are on all sorts of things. Kids aren't
Speaker 2: just on Wikipedia.
Speaker 3: That awesome, and that falls on the school.
Speaker 4: Like school computers should not be able to even give
Speaker 4: you access to social media. That's not what school computers
Speaker 4: are for. You shouldn't be able to watch porn on
Speaker 4: a school computer or a tablet that you've been given
Speaker 4: by your high school which you're able to take home.
Speaker 4: There should be very severe restrictions on those. Otherwise, schools
Speaker 4: shouldn't be handing them out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do disagree with you.
Speaker 5: I do think parents needs a happening.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: we look at what's making news in the papers, including
Speaker 2: attempts to declare every creek in a new Southweales Shire
Speaker 2: as an indigenous sacred site.
Speaker 5: That's coming up soon.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the late debate. We're going to look
Speaker 2: at what's making news in tomorrow's papers. The reason I'm
Speaker 2: laughing is because you should hear what these two say
Speaker 2: during the ad break. But now we're back on air, Liz,
Speaker 2: what have we got in the papers tomorrow?
Speaker 3: To the front page of the Camera Times. Now. New
Speaker 3: veteran agency.
Speaker 4: The federal government should establish a new agency to focus
Speaker 4: on veteran well being in a way the Department of
Speaker 4: Veteran Affairs has failed to do.
Speaker 3: Sweeping Royal Commission report into.
Speaker 4: Defense and Veteran suicides has found it is not the
Speaker 4: only agency recommended in the three thousand page report, with
Speaker 4: the Royal Commission urging an independent oversight body be established
Speaker 4: to drive reforms after the failure of successive governments to
Speaker 4: act on a culture which has led to an average
Speaker 4: of three deaths by suicide each fortnight. So this Commission,
Speaker 4: you may remember, was a established in July twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4: They've finally handed over their findings three thousand pages long.
Speaker 4: You just it's one of those stories that you can't
Speaker 4: believe it's taken us this long to address.
Speaker 1: And it's much like when we had the Royal Commission
Speaker 1: into aged care, and it's one of those things that
Speaker 1: sort of if it's out of sight, it's out of
Speaker 1: mind for a lot of people. But these are people
Speaker 1: who are extremely vulnerable, who have served their country, who have,
Speaker 1: if they've been in war, seen some of the most
Speaker 1: awful things that anyone could ever see, and then they
Speaker 1: come back to Australia and oftentimes they're just sort of
Speaker 1: thrown into the wilderness and told, well, you're not really
Speaker 1: attached to us anymore.
Speaker 5: You've got to go and fend for yourself.
Speaker 1: How hard must it, Well, we know how hard it
Speaker 1: must be, because we know that the suicide statistics. How
Speaker 1: hard must it be to go and do that without
Speaker 1: any support. The fact that that success your federal governments,
Speaker 1: you know, for time immemorial basically have ignored this issue
Speaker 1: as they did with aged care, is an absolute discs.
Speaker 1: It's good that we have a Royal Commission and we
Speaker 1: have a report. The next task is to implement what
Speaker 1: comes out of this report, this Oversight Body being one
Speaker 1: of the many recommendations that has come out. That's where
Speaker 1: the rubber hits the road, and that's when we find
Speaker 1: out whether the government actually cares about this.
Speaker 2: According to one of the media reports tomorrow, the number
Speaker 2: of suicides of ADF members or former members is twenty
Speaker 2: times higher than the number of soldiers killed in active
Speaker 2: duty over the last twenty five years. So the defense
Speaker 2: bureaucracy is a greater threat to Australian soldiers than the enemy.
Speaker 2: And it's quicker to join the NDIS and get help
Speaker 2: than to get help from veterans affairs. So we have
Speaker 2: to do a lot better with our soldiers.
Speaker 1: Indeed, let's go to the Australians Varro where there's a
Speaker 1: curious little story. It says every creek.
Speaker 5: Is an indigenous site.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we're not going to have any.
Speaker 5: Water lifts soon.
Speaker 1: The historian who helped convince Tenure Pibcic that Regis resources
Speaker 1: one billion dollar gold Blainey would destroy indigenous heritage had
Speaker 1: earlier tried to register every river, creek, lake and swamp
Speaker 1: in the shire as an Aboriginal site. And this is
Speaker 1: the woman whose word, Tanya Plibasek, took over the local
Speaker 1: indigenous people, over the EPA of New South Wales, over
Speaker 1: the premiere of New South Wales, over her own indigenous
Speaker 1: advisors within her department. Now, clearly this woman was pattern
Speaker 1: is just desperate to get her hands on absolutely seeing
Speaker 1: anything she can. She's just trying to create trouble and
Speaker 1: wreak havoc, clearly. But can you imagine if that's the
Speaker 1: sort of person that the Environment Minister is taking advice from.
Speaker 1: Imagine if we applied that across the nation. Every waterway
Speaker 1: in the country is now some sort of sacred Indigenous site. Because,
Speaker 1: of course, every waterway in the country I'm sure at
Speaker 1: some point had an Indigenous person drinking from it, or
Speaker 1: fishing from it, or using it it in some way.
Speaker 1: Surely you could say that about every bit of land.
Speaker 5: In the country.
Speaker 1: See, why don't we just declare the whole joint an
Speaker 1: indigenous heritage site.
Speaker 5: Let's blow the joint up, move somewhere.
Speaker 2: Well, it actually goes further than that, because it's not
Speaker 2: just about you know, surely every lake was used by
Speaker 2: an indigenous person way back when. But indigenous spirituality says
Speaker 2: that all of creation is alive and it's all spiritual.
Speaker 2: And therefore, when you get that kind of religion that
Speaker 2: Goid's government decisions, all development finishes because you can't touch
Speaker 2: anything without upsetting the ancestors, the spirits, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: if you're going to embrace indigenous spirituality as a way
Speaker 2: of deciding policy, you really are completely changing the entire
Speaker 2: country and everything we've been able to do to this
Speaker 2: point in terms of development, progression and so on.
Speaker 3: Indeed, that's the end of development.
Speaker 4: She does say in this application to have them all
Speaker 4: recognized as sacred. Quote all waterways in the Nomina are
Speaker 4: known to have deep spiritual significance end quote.
Speaker 3: But if that's the bar, then, like you.
Speaker 4: Say, everything spiritual, everything has spiritual significance.
Speaker 3: So you can't touch anything period, or you.
Speaker 1: Could just take the water and turn it into spirits
Speaker 1: and then it has some spiritual significance and I'd be
Speaker 1: more on board with that.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the front page of the Courier mail.
Speaker 2: There's an interesting little story right on the bottom left
Speaker 2: hand corner of the front page. Principal Spooking Labor, a
Speaker 2: school principle married to a former labor minister, used her
Speaker 2: government email to promote an exciting election commitment by Stephen Miles. Now,
Speaker 2: obviously governments make commitments to schools, but this principle last
Speaker 2: week sent out an email to staff saying I'm thrilled
Speaker 2: to share some exciting news. The Minister for Education has
Speaker 2: announced that if we elected, our school is set to
Speaker 2: receive a state of the art prep precinct, including multipurpose
Speaker 2: rooms and a security fence. This is a significant investment,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Now, clearly that email
Speaker 2: then starts to seem like an advertisement for voting Steven
Speaker 2: Miles into government in October, which is a big no
Speaker 2: no if you're working in schools. But then to add
Speaker 2: to that, it turns out this principal's husband was a
Speaker 2: minister in the Anna Bly government back in twenty ten,
Speaker 2: twenty eleven and twenty twelve, So not really the dune thing,
Speaker 2: and she's being pulled up by the Education Department.
Speaker 3: Someone needs to tell that principle. Ain't nothing going to
Speaker 3: save giggles.
Speaker 4: Now to the front page of the Northern Territory News,
Speaker 4: just before we leave for an ad break. NRL and
Speaker 4: TE officials condemn violent grand final clash, shame.
Speaker 3: On the game.
Speaker 4: The splash reads a shocking on field brawl which marred
Speaker 4: a Northern Territory Women's Rugby League Grand Final provoked further
Speaker 4: post match fights among spectators, forcing police to deploy tab
Speaker 4: sicken spray on fans.
Speaker 3: I mean this got wild.
Speaker 4: Check Out that picture on the front page. Looks like
Speaker 4: a lot of hair pulling is happening. Honestly, I think
Speaker 4: this is probably the most interesting women's.
Speaker 3: Rugby has ever gone. I would have tuned in had
Speaker 3: I known, I know, be in such an extravagance.
Speaker 1: The means footy codes lost the biff long ago. I
Speaker 1: got to start watching the women's staff to go back
Speaker 1: the old days.
Speaker 2: We always told we've got to get women involved because
Speaker 2: it'd be kinder, softly gentler.
Speaker 3: Nah, clearly not, clearly not We're going to go to
Speaker 3: a break.
Speaker 2: When Joe Biden left office, so he's still in office,
Speaker 2: but you know, was not continuing. We thought, who are
Speaker 2: we going to get laughs from now? But Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: he's providing plenty. We've got more of those after the break.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back with the Kamala Harris show. Rolls
Speaker 2: on Caleb. What's she doing these days?
Speaker 1: Well, you thought they were working hard over time to
Speaker 1: pump up Joe Biden. You should see what they're doing
Speaker 1: with Kamala Harris. Associated Press in the United States put
Speaker 1: out a bizarre piece about her food habits and had
Speaker 1: such subheadings as caramel is a favorite, beautiful music, collared
Speaker 1: greens in the tub, golden arches, of course, Manny McDonald's,
Speaker 1: and Dorito's is a go to snack. All the things
Speaker 1: I wanted to know about the potential president of the
Speaker 1: United States. And to quote this puff piece from AP,
Speaker 1: this is her on the campaign trail in Savannah. At
Speaker 1: Dotty's Market. She says, I want a slice of that.
Speaker 1: Caramel is like my favorite? Harris says, oh, chocolate and caramel.
Speaker 1: She added, after appearing to digest the description, the cake
Speaker 1: was covered in a white frosting with caramel on top
Speaker 1: and drizzling down the sides. Fantastic. Harrah said, well, there
Speaker 1: you go. I'm convinced you should be president.
Speaker 2: Well, as if that's not bad enough, she made a
Speaker 2: speech about coffee cups recently that made no sense whatsoever
Speaker 2: until someone put it in the closing credits of Seinfeld
Speaker 2: and suddenly it was perfect.
Speaker 10: So you know how those leads all right, because this
Speaker 10: is what I'm just not speaking, Okay, So this is
Speaker 10: so you know how those it's on the Starbucks cups.
Speaker 10: They're white, right, and so if you were a lipstick,
Speaker 10: they get all over the lid. And so then I
Speaker 10: find myself in meetings if I'm the only woman, and
Speaker 10: that's kind of it. So I keep taking the lid
Speaker 10: off and having my cup out so that I don't
Speaker 10: have that big good stick. So I said, can we
Speaker 10: do something about the color of the lid.
Speaker 4: And then there's the viral clip of her on the
Speaker 4: campaign trial on Saturday in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, comforting a distraught woman.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's gonna be good. We're gonna be good. We're
Speaker 3: gonna be fine. We're gonna be fine. We are all
Speaker 3: in this together. We are. We're gonna be Yes, we are, Yes,
Speaker 3: we are. It's all good.
Speaker 5: It's all good news, standing strong, right, you love her absolutely?
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's right. Who says this is a relative and you're.
Speaker 1: Just a.
Speaker 2: World's going to be all right. We're just going to
Speaker 2: hug it out with Kamala and everything will be good.
Speaker 2: That's it from us stick around. Coming up is the
Speaker 2: reader Pennahy Show in just a moment,