Speaker 1: Lately than gentle manner. Welcome to the late debate. Good evening,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the late debates. I'm killed. Richard's with me
Speaker 1: on the desk tonight, Evelyn Ray and Lucy Zelig. Now
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be transitioning towards renewable power. Well are
Speaker 1: we transitioning or why are we just wobbling in an
Speaker 1: uncertain direction? Also tonight, when there's a lone wolf kind
Speaker 1: of terrors, such as the person that we saw in
Speaker 1: this horrible event in New Orleans killing fifteen people, how
Speaker 1: safe are we in Australia and could they be activated
Speaker 1: by what's happening in the Middle East? Those stories coming up.
Speaker 1: But firstly tonight, what are you going to do in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five? Well, I know one thing for certain
Speaker 1: you'll be doing. You will be voting, possibly in March,
Speaker 1: but perhaps as early as April, it could be that early.
Speaker 1: And how are we going to vote? Well, it may
Speaker 1: depend on whether your twenty third pair of chromosomes are
Speaker 1: xx or x y. Because we're told men and women
Speaker 1: are interested in different things. Women more aggrieved about the
Speaker 1: cost of living than men, and there's a gender split
Speaker 1: on key election issues. Generally, men apparently more in favor
Speaker 1: of nuclear power and more concerned about left wing ideology,
Speaker 1: women more concerned about the cost of living and less
Speaker 1: inclined to trust governments. So, Lucy, is there a gender
Speaker 1: split in this election?
Speaker 2: My gosh, who would have thought men and women are different?
Speaker 3: Shock me, Kel, this is a revelation.
Speaker 2: What do we do with it? I mean, look, I
Speaker 2: was listening to Caroline de Russo talk about this earlier
Speaker 2: with Danika de Georgio, and I tended to agree with
Speaker 2: her line of thinking in that you know, I know
Speaker 2: that we like to argue, and I guess in many respects.
Speaker 2: Now we're a modern, involved society. The roles have changed
Speaker 2: in the household. I certainly still adopt a very traditional
Speaker 2: role in my household. I'm the one doing the groceries,
Speaker 2: the cooking, the cleaning, and all those sorts of things.
Speaker 2: And my husband is the hunter gatherer, providing for his family.
Speaker 2: God bless him. But you know, I'm the one that's
Speaker 2: seeing the daily costs. I'm the one going and seeing
Speaker 2: just how much I'm getting for one hundred dollars, which
Speaker 2: is barely two bags of groceries. I'm the one usually
Speaker 2: seeing the bills come in and all of those sorts
Speaker 2: of things. So and I also think to a agree
Speaker 2: that it's a lot of this fear mongering around nuclear
Speaker 2: that has very much kind of, I guess potentially scared
Speaker 2: women off and they've seen the surface level of it,
Speaker 2: and that's sort of, you know, really gotten to them.
Speaker 2: And when I speak to most women, and a lot
Speaker 2: of them very intelligent, a lot of them in the
Speaker 2: corporate world, et cetera. To be fair to them, a
Speaker 2: lot of them are as invested in finding out what
Speaker 2: nuclear is all about, right, and the impacts and you know,
Speaker 2: the safety issues surrounding it that existed were you know
Speaker 2: in the days of Fukashima and Chernobyl that we've evolved
Speaker 2: from that that we do have a plant in Lucas Heights,
Speaker 2: for example, that's been running without much issue. So I
Speaker 2: think that those are the key kind of fundamental points
Speaker 2: where we can see a bit of a divide there.
Speaker 2: But I'd encourage most women to have a look at
Speaker 2: nuclear and to really explore a lot around it, and
Speaker 2: you'll understand why very quickly that countries like the United States,
Speaker 2: why they have bipartisan support for something like this, and
Speaker 2: why it is the most reliable and stable form of
Speaker 2: energy going forward.
Speaker 1: Research that's been done, Evelyn suggests that the parties neither
Speaker 1: party has got policies that really appeal to women, that
Speaker 1: both parties are actually failing to reach women voters.
Speaker 4: What do you think, Yeah, it's an interesting one.
Speaker 5: I mean, if you look statistically, women tend to vote
Speaker 5: more left side of politics, and men tend to vote
Speaker 5: more right, which is why if you look at American politics, they,
Speaker 5: you know, the Democratic Party, focus so hardly on things
Speaker 5: that they think women are going to like, like abortion
Speaker 5: and those have viv I know that's very true, but
Speaker 5: you know, I think it comes down to like the nature.
Speaker 5: You know, you're not allowed to say this, it's taboo,
Speaker 5: but you know, men and women are different, you know,
Speaker 5: color it's shocking.
Speaker 4: I'm actually great grateful.
Speaker 5: That we're able to say that live on TV.
Speaker 4: Men and women are different.
Speaker 5: And I think the reason why perhaps women vote more
Speaker 5: left is because we.
Speaker 4: Are by nature more nurturing, more caring.
Speaker 5: So these socialist policies tend to tug at our heartstrings,
Speaker 5: you know, these things like well, we want to make
Speaker 5: everybody not be poor, and that's a noble and moral
Speaker 5: way for us to think. But I think the anchoring
Speaker 5: part is when you get like that you know, voice
Speaker 5: of reason or the reality check that that it doesn't
Speaker 5: actually work out that way in the end. And perhaps, like,
Speaker 5: you know, it's good that we're having these discussions so
Speaker 5: that women can learn more if they perhaps haven't heard
Speaker 5: about nuclear maybe their circles haven't heard the other side
Speaker 5: or the other opinion. And now that women are more
Speaker 5: aggrieved about the cost of living, which has come out
Speaker 5: of here, they can start having conversations with people outside.
Speaker 4: Of you know, their usual talking structures.
Speaker 5: And here, you know, the other side. It's not scary
Speaker 5: being right wing. It's not you know, we're not demons,
Speaker 5: we're not we're not this awful wing all come exactly.
Speaker 5: And so these conversations are really good because I think
Speaker 5: the women vote is so important for policies, and I
Speaker 5: think sadly we've perhaps got it so wrong because we've
Speaker 5: convinced women for such a long time that you know,
Speaker 5: anyone the right basically hates them, which is not true.
Speaker 5: So good, good that this is coming out and hopefully
Speaker 5: change can happen.
Speaker 1: Well, the political wonks are very fond of saying the
Speaker 1: liberal party has got a women problem, but this research
Speaker 1: is suggesting, Lucy, both parties have got a women problem.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's a failure of politicians to connect
Speaker 1: generally with women.
Speaker 2: I think it's a failure on the voter's part to
Speaker 2: be honest, because, you know, and I asked the.
Speaker 3: Women, Yeah, we'll just on voters in general.
Speaker 2: And I remember asking this question the other day on
Speaker 2: Talkbak radio with two GB and saying, how much do
Speaker 2: you know about the people you're voting for? And this
Speaker 2: applies to both men and women, right. I genuinely believe
Speaker 2: that a lot of people that are going to the polls,
Speaker 2: and we had this debate very much so last night
Speaker 2: about whether or not this is going to be a
Speaker 2: referendum on energy and how much the impacts of inflation,
Speaker 2: costs of living, et cetera, will wager into how they
Speaker 2: cast their votes come May, if it is May. But ultimately,
Speaker 2: for me, I think it's up to voters to really
Speaker 2: do their research.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I watched a shocking piece of footage on another program
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago in which they were interviewing
Speaker 2: people on the streets of Melbourne and asking them who
Speaker 2: the premiere of the state was oh yeah, and people went,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: They started showing.
Speaker 3: Photographs and the girl that I how old this person?
Speaker 5: We're talking like probably twenties, twenties to thirties, probably late twenties.
Speaker 3: And they showed photographs to this young woman and.
Speaker 1: Can you recognize this person?
Speaker 2: And you know what she said? She goes, she looks
Speaker 2: all right, And I went, what And these are people
Speaker 2: who are going to the polls that are going to
Speaker 2: decide the future.
Speaker 4: Of our country.
Speaker 2: That's why, you know, in America they espoused that view
Speaker 2: of you know, this is one of the most important
Speaker 2: and key elections of our lifetime. I very much feel
Speaker 2: that way about this election for us.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's our fault. Maybe it's the media. We are
Speaker 1: not communicating with the right people. Are we letting down
Speaker 1: that If young people don't know, right, if the twenty
Speaker 1: year old don't watch Sky News, if they're somewhere along
Speaker 1: the line, they must be getting information, and the old
Speaker 1: news sources seem not to be playing that role.
Speaker 5: I think a lot of younger generations kind of follow
Speaker 5: what their parents do, and I know, like, you know,
Speaker 5: my parents not Now I've radicalized.
Speaker 1: The fifteen year old sode exists to say no, Dad,
Speaker 1: you're wrong. That's what fifteen year olds do all the time.
Speaker 1: They don't follow their parents all the time.
Speaker 5: But I do think and statistics do show, particularly young women,
Speaker 5: they usually do what their dad does, what their father does.
Speaker 5: And so what our parents of our generation used to
Speaker 5: do was just basically do what our parents did and
Speaker 5: who our parents voted for. And once upon a time,
Speaker 5: you could trust the ABC, you could trust these mainstream
Speaker 5: media things. And I think now that there's been a shift,
Speaker 5: you know, they need to start going outside. I'm not
Speaker 5: telling to be disrespectful to your parents, but look at
Speaker 5: other different news sources like Sky and news like listen
Speaker 5: to us but you and stuff. Yeah, that's right, So
Speaker 5: that's an important one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's move on to what we will actually be
Speaker 1: voting on. And one of the issues is, as Lucy said,
Speaker 1: energy And at the moment, the big switch is meant
Speaker 1: to be on where there's this transition that is taking
Speaker 1: us in nice, steady, organized steps from the old coal
Speaker 1: fired power to renewable power. But is it happening. It's
Speaker 1: Chris Bowen's baby. He's supposed to be organizing this, and
Speaker 1: every time he talks, he says very confident things, but
Speaker 1: the energy bosses disagree. Today, the energy bosses have called
Speaker 1: for market certainty, that's what they call it, market certainty.
Speaker 1: As the nation switches towards renewables. Now they're saying they
Speaker 1: want to know what's going to happen, what the plan is,
Speaker 1: and what happens next. Why are they feeling uncertain?
Speaker 2: They've got every right to feel uncertain, kel because Anthony
Speaker 2: Albanezi a lah the Voice, hasn't done a very good
Speaker 2: job of explaining what this path to part of me
Speaker 2: to renewable energy is. Actually I'm not sure he knows.
Speaker 2: He doesn't, and it's the issue with it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: And the one of the key things that I took
Speaker 2: from this article that came out via the Australian Tales
Speaker 2: Great Report in response to the Australian CEO Survey twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, the leading executives warned they were seeing investors
Speaker 2: pull investment from Australia into countries with more stable and
Speaker 2: supportive policies. So what does that mean? Most of the
Speaker 2: top perform economies economies in the world have adopted nuclear
Speaker 2: and very successfully. Right, And what we're seeing here is
Speaker 2: this petulance and this resistant resistance from the Labor Party
Speaker 2: side to acknowledge a they need to lift the moratorium,
Speaker 2: B that we need to have a transparent, educated and
Speaker 2: honest discussion surrounding what the best pathway forward is. We
Speaker 2: know that renewables aren't stable, we know that they're not reliable,
Speaker 2: that they aren't the cheapest form of energy, and that
Speaker 2: we need to start acknowledging these facts. Right. So there's
Speaker 2: a lot of issues surrounding this, and I think the
Speaker 2: Labor Party, unfortunately have been thrust into a situation now
Speaker 2: where they're being shown for who they are when it
Speaker 2: comes to this, which is very disorganized and incompetent.
Speaker 1: And these are the CEOs who sit in the board
Speaker 1: rooms and make the decisions about the money that will
Speaker 1: fund the sources of energy that we have. So them
Speaker 1: being uncertain, them being unhappy is bad news.
Speaker 4: It certainly is bad news. It's a massive red flag.
Speaker 5: But you know, if something is cheaper, something's more reliable,
Speaker 5: and something's more efficient, newsflash, you don't have to force
Speaker 5: it on people.
Speaker 4: People will willingly go to it.
Speaker 5: But the reality is it isn't cheaper, it isn't more reliable,
Speaker 5: and it isn't efficient. I don't know about people at home.
Speaker 5: I've said this example before, but it's a perfect one.
Speaker 5: We used to have dial up internet and then we
Speaker 5: went to broadband, and now.
Speaker 4: We have starlink. I have starlink.
Speaker 5: I think it's absolutely fabulous, especially because I live in
Speaker 5: the bush and I get perfect internet.
Speaker 4: Long thank you.
Speaker 5: But the thing is, no one had to put a
Speaker 5: gun to my head, or make legislation in the government,
Speaker 5: or make my life a living hell.
Speaker 4: To get me to that point.
Speaker 5: I willingly went to that point because it was better,
Speaker 5: it was more reliable, more efficient, and it was cheaper.
Speaker 3: It's that simple with this debate.
Speaker 1: And the force that does that is the market force.
Speaker 1: You put these things on the market and let the
Speaker 1: market decide what they want to buy and what they
Speaker 1: want to pay for. But that's not happening in this case.
Speaker 1: Because renewables are so heavily subsidized, we can't tell what
Speaker 1: the market wants, and these CEOs, I assume, can't tell
Speaker 1: what the market will take because of the huge amount
Speaker 1: of government subsidies floating in this area.
Speaker 2: But this is why, Kelly, you've hit the nail on
Speaker 2: the head. But this is why they're demanding more reliable
Speaker 2: and I guess clearer pathways forward on what this is
Speaker 2: going to actually look like. And unfortunately in Labour's case,
Speaker 2: in particular Chris Bowen's case and his insistence on pushing
Speaker 2: renewables onto the Australian public is that it's putting it's
Speaker 2: putting politics ahead of progress, right, it's not acknowledging that
Speaker 2: we do have another viewpoint, another argument in this debate,
Speaker 2: which is of course nuclear energy. And I guess that
Speaker 2: a lot of people have looked at it and you
Speaker 2: know some of their major concerns are around the timeframe, right,
Speaker 2: so how quickly will we be able to do this?
Speaker 2: And then it also broadens the scope to the other side,
Speaker 2: the darker side of the argument, which is depending on
Speaker 2: who you speak to. I mean I caught up with
Speaker 2: David little Proud from the leader of the Nationals Party,
Speaker 2: and when I put to him why it's important for
Speaker 2: us to remain in that Paris agreement, Why the coalition
Speaker 2: supports the Paris Agreement, given that we have some of
Speaker 2: the cleanest coal in the world, for example, and that
Speaker 2: we know that this time frame, this rush that labor
Speaker 2: really has a sin in the scare mongering that they
Speaker 2: have us in is something that isn't required. Right, we
Speaker 2: can take our time in that transition phase. But he
Speaker 2: pointed out to me and said, look, if we don't
Speaker 2: continue our I guess our partnership in our subscription to
Speaker 2: the Paris Agreement, what we're going to see is an
Speaker 2: increase in tariffs and that's going to hit Australian taxpayers
Speaker 2: hard in their pockets. So there's a lot of kind
Speaker 2: of moving parts to consider in all of this.
Speaker 1: It is, in fact that's the problem. We think if
Speaker 1: we'll just pull out of the Paris Agreement, which is
Speaker 1: what Trump is quite likely to do, or abandon that
Speaker 1: zero but the way the rest of the world then
Speaker 1: reacts may be not good for us. So, as David
Speaker 1: little Proud was telling Lucy, we have to take our
Speaker 1: steps seat easily while we're talking about what's happening in
Speaker 1: Australia is not quite so serious, but it's still happening.
Speaker 1: There was a Melbourne couple who drove from Melbourne seventeen
Speaker 1: hundred kilometers to get up to Barren Bay. They went
Speaker 1: to a beach called Tiagra Tiger was a little bit
Speaker 1: north of Byron Bay and they'd heard that it was
Speaker 1: a nude bathing beach, so they went there. They took
Speaker 1: off their gear, walked onto the beach and people wearing
Speaker 1: swimmers came up to them and said, that doesn't happen
Speaker 1: here anymore. So the question is, are we becoming a
Speaker 1: nation of prudes? Nude beaches shut out in the nanny state? Now,
Speaker 1: what's actually happened in this particular case. It used to
Speaker 1: be under Barron Bay, a barren Shire council. They said
Speaker 1: it was optional, you didn't have to wear any clothing
Speaker 1: on the beach if you didn't want to. That was challenged,
Speaker 1: it was renewed, but suddenly New South Wales Parks and
Speaker 1: Wildlife discovered they controlled the beach. It was their beach,
Speaker 1: so they immediately said goes back to being a normal
Speaker 1: beach where your swimmers. So what do we do about
Speaker 1: nude beaches? Are we being a nation of prudes? Or
Speaker 1: is this something that we suggest say it's okay these days.
Speaker 5: I'm happy if you want to call me a prude,
Speaker 5: but I think it should be open to everybody. I
Speaker 5: don't think that we should have mid beaches. I happen
Speaker 5: to think that we should have a high public standard.
Speaker 5: You know, they tell the government to stay out of
Speaker 5: the bedroom. Well, I would like the bedroom out of
Speaker 5: public view, thank you very much. If you look at
Speaker 5: a particular nude beach Enviarron Bay, I don't know if
Speaker 5: it's the same one as this, but back.
Speaker 4: In twenty seventeen there were.
Speaker 3: Multiple reports about sex pests that were.
Speaker 4: Loitering around these places.
Speaker 5: There was a woman who saw people performing sexual acts,
Speaker 5: you know, and then another group in you know, with
Speaker 5: multiple people, like a group scenario. You had men blocking
Speaker 5: women on the path. I honestly think that the world
Speaker 5: will be better if we had high standards. If you
Speaker 5: reward bad behavior, you get more of it. And I
Speaker 5: think we should as a society have a high standard.
Speaker 5: And I'm more than happy you call me a prude,
Speaker 5: but I think nude beats beaches.
Speaker 4: Should be gone beach okay.
Speaker 1: And that's why there was a complaint. There was a
Speaker 1: complain to lude behavior and so they said, you know,
Speaker 1: stop it being a nude beach, and Buyern Council said no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's still going to be a nude beach. But then
Speaker 1: Parks and While Life said no it won't be. So
Speaker 1: are we a nation of proof. I mean, as an
Speaker 1: old family man, I come from a generation that thinks
Speaker 1: when you make a beach a nude beach, it means
Speaker 1: families can't go. And so what you're doing is you're
Speaker 1: not actually creating a beach for people who want to
Speaker 1: be nudes, you're closing it for families. Am I wrong?
Speaker 2: It's an interesting one because you know, I have traveled
Speaker 2: a lot in Europe and it's really quite commonplace. It
Speaker 2: hasn't been uncommon to and I go completely nude. I'll
Speaker 2: just make that clear. But it's very normal to see
Speaker 2: women kind of walking around topless. I mean, you don't
Speaker 2: necessarily see men completely nude. But it's interesting how we
Speaker 2: have completely kind of different cultural views when it comes
Speaker 2: to this. I completely disagree with any forms of solicitation
Speaker 2: or issues or sex pests floating around. I think once
Speaker 2: that becomes an issue, shut it down. And the other
Speaker 2: school of thought also in this is that you know
Speaker 2: they're public beach is right, So I guess if you
Speaker 2: know that it's a nude beach, you know what you're
Speaker 2: going to be getting when you get there. But is
Speaker 2: it fair to completely shut down a nude beach?
Speaker 5: Actually also to find around nude that's anywhere else.
Speaker 2: Well, that's true, But you know, is it completely fair
Speaker 2: to shut down a beach and say, well, no, if
Speaker 2: you don't want to come here nude and be an exhibitionist,
Speaker 2: then you can't come.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's I have a view that if it's
Speaker 5: a nudist beach, I'm not going to be going there.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to be visiting there. You know, I'm
Speaker 4: not going to be.
Speaker 5: Going on gluing myself on the hard walk shut down
Speaker 5: on the nude beaches.
Speaker 1: But you want to know ahead of time if that's
Speaker 1: what you going to be coomed.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 5: But yeah, in a perfect well you're finding very quickly kell.
Speaker 4: Not hard to get.
Speaker 1: It doesn't take you long if you go there to
Speaker 1: work out what's going on. Let's turn to what's happening
Speaker 1: in the world of employment, which is also changing. We're
Speaker 1: told that the things that are happening in the world
Speaker 1: of employment will be different in twenty twenty five, and
Speaker 1: one of the things that will be different will be diversity,
Speaker 1: equity and inclusion.
Speaker 5: That's the de Well my band words we did this week.
Speaker 1: Well, they've said that there's a lot of hype about
Speaker 1: what's changing in workplaces and this will change. Now a
Speaker 1: lot of companies are now saying they're not so much
Speaker 1: abandoning diversity, equity inclusion the DEI, but they're going to
Speaker 1: change the way it operates, some very large companies, so
Speaker 1: they've announced changes to these programs so you won't be
Speaker 1: chosen for a job necessarily on the basis that you're
Speaker 1: the right gender or the right race or whatever. Are
Speaker 1: they going to really move away from DEI? Do you think, Lucy,
Speaker 1: or is this just a smoke scheme.
Speaker 2: You're a word smith, and you know all of the
Speaker 2: wonderful cliches that we have, and we discussed this earlier.
Speaker 2: If you polish a turn or put lipstick on a pig,
Speaker 2: it's still a pig, and it's still a turd. I
Speaker 2: don't know that they're necessarily going to move entirely away
Speaker 2: from this. It's something that they have created as a
Speaker 2: pillar in an attempt to try and you know, showcase
Speaker 2: to everybody just how virtuous they are. I want the
Speaker 2: person for the job that is rewarded with the job
Speaker 2: based on merit, right, That's who I want for the job.
Speaker 2: And I think that's really critical and key you know,
Speaker 2: I speak to someone that specializes in government contracts and
Speaker 2: she said it's an absolute nightmare for her because she
Speaker 2: has gotten requests where she said, I look down at
Speaker 2: the paperents as well, we're looking for an indigenous engineer. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean, but based on what I mean, there have
Speaker 2: been job adds that again that I saw this week
Speaker 2: that are targeting specifically in people from indigenous communities, right,
Speaker 2: which I think is just it's a total kind of
Speaker 2: sham of a process then, because what you're saying is
Speaker 2: is that we're not valuing the quality and the skill
Speaker 2: sets that someone has in this role, where putting their
Speaker 2: ethnicity or their race, their heritage above all else. And
Speaker 2: you know, we saw DEI was a perfect example at
Speaker 2: the assassination attempt, right, those women in the Secret Service
Speaker 2: trying to protect Trump. If that wasn't the most glaring
Speaker 2: and obvious example of why we shouldn't have these things
Speaker 2: in place. And I don't know what is well.
Speaker 1: The d I apparently gave us Kamala Harris work out
Speaker 1: terribly well for the Democratic Party or necessarily terribly well
Speaker 1: for America. It is the case, though, that there are
Speaker 1: big companies Walmart and America as an example Evelyn, where
Speaker 1: they actually shut down their DEI department. It's gone. It
Speaker 1: does not exist in Walmart anymore. Might it happen?
Speaker 5: Look, I think that, to be honest, they've done such
Speaker 5: a number on people that people would be so scared
Speaker 5: to not do this, especially businesses.
Speaker 4: Like it's like a mob attack.
Speaker 5: If people don't do Dei HighRes, the mob basically comes
Speaker 5: with their pitchforks and their little fires, and you're done.
Speaker 4: But it's interesting. I think EI has been.
Speaker 5: Around a really long time, and I think it's only
Speaker 5: been getting it so much traction recently because everyone's sick
Speaker 5: of the woke stuff.
Speaker 4: But I witnessed DEI in the police. I probably was
Speaker 4: a Dei high.
Speaker 2: I was my job.
Speaker 4: I mean I was eighteen, I had.
Speaker 5: No life experience, but you know what, I was a female, so.
Speaker 4: I probably got in because I'm happy to say that.
Speaker 4: And that's the thing.
Speaker 2: I am good at your job too.
Speaker 4: It worked out all right. But you know what's funny.
Speaker 5: You know, It's something that I've noticed is that everybody
Speaker 5: says that DEI hires are fantastic.
Speaker 4: Everybody has to have it.
Speaker 5: But as soon as you say to someone you're a
Speaker 5: dee I hire.
Speaker 4: Oh no, I'm not. And they get offended by it.
Speaker 4: That's very telling.
Speaker 1: They want to say I got it on.
Speaker 5: Merit exactly, and that's because everybody knows within themselves that
Speaker 5: that's how they should be employed based off that and
Speaker 5: nothing else.
Speaker 1: Let's turn back to the story which has been dominating
Speaker 1: the news again today, the story of that dreadful attack
Speaker 1: in New Orleans where fifteen people died in a really
Speaker 1: horrible incident. Now the FBI now telling us it was
Speaker 1: a man acting alone, it was not a terror cell around.
Speaker 1: And the problem with these lone wolf sort of actors,
Speaker 1: these lone wolf terrorists, they could be terribly hard to find.
Speaker 1: Mike Puzzulo was the head of the Department of Home
Speaker 1: Affairs in Australia and he is warning us now that
Speaker 1: isis will quote exploit Palestinian anger after the New Orleans
Speaker 1: terror attack, So he's warning us to be careful. The
Speaker 1: terror rating in Australia at the moment is probable. That
Speaker 1: means over fifty percent. It is more likely than not
Speaker 1: we will have one of these attacks. And it's these
Speaker 1: lone wolf factors that it's so hard for the experts
Speaker 1: the intelligence experts, the police intelligence to identify it before
Speaker 1: they strike, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It certainly is. And it goes back to the conversation
Speaker 2: that we're having on last night's program right about you know,
Speaker 2: what can we be doing? Have you certainly agree that
Speaker 2: there's more measures that we could be putting in place
Speaker 2: to prevent these kinds of attacks. But we've always discussed
Speaker 2: very openly and honestly about the catalyst for these attacks
Speaker 2: and what we can attribute them to. And the fact
Speaker 2: of the matter is is that we've imported terrorism into
Speaker 2: our countries. Mass migration across the West, especially in Europe
Speaker 2: for example. I mean, you only have to look at Denmark,
Speaker 2: for example, who has some of the most toughest immigration
Speaker 2: policies in the world. Do you know who's scoffed at them?
Speaker 2: The United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden, by the way, all
Speaker 2: three of them are now in the grips and the
Speaker 2: throes of an immigration a migration crisis, right they don't
Speaker 2: know what to do with the crime. They've got open
Speaker 2: borders in Germany. I mean, it's an absolute circus. So
Speaker 2: the sooner we start admitting to ourselves what the root
Speaker 2: cause of this is and addressing that and recognizing that
Speaker 2: having strong borders in your country isn't a form of racism,
Speaker 2: that it is designed to protect your nation against entities
Speaker 2: that want to enter and espouse hatred for that specific
Speaker 2: country and submit allegiance to their own values above Australia's,
Speaker 2: for example.
Speaker 4: Then we'll start to.
Speaker 2: Have an honest conversation around it and a more logical
Speaker 2: conversation around it.
Speaker 1: Mike Pozzulo, is, the head of the Department of Home Affairs,
Speaker 1: was a man who was an absolute expert on this
Speaker 1: when he was in that job, very highly regarded. I'd
Speaker 1: like to share with you a quote of what he
Speaker 1: said today in that article. He said, we cannot afford
Speaker 1: to take our eye off al qaeder Isis and their
Speaker 1: spin off groups. These groups will also look for opportunities
Speaker 1: to exploit sentiment with large Muslim populations in Western countries.
Speaker 1: I tell you what, it was one puzzling me when
Speaker 1: I looked at that Penny Wong has taken a very
Speaker 1: strong pro Palestinian stance. Does that make us any safer
Speaker 1: or are we still exposed to these attacks?
Speaker 5: Look, I actually have a fairly different take, and I
Speaker 5: think what you know he said is one hundred percent.
Speaker 5: And from my experience in law enforcement, you know, this
Speaker 5: is an opportunity for a lot of things to potentially
Speaker 5: come from this. But I think that we can't just
Speaker 5: blame Isis, and I think it's really important that we
Speaker 5: remember that this problem would have still existed before these
Speaker 5: things happened. There are always opportunistic criminals out there. There
Speaker 5: are always opportunistic people who will, you know, try to
Speaker 5: influence and sway groups of people.
Speaker 4: But what we have to.
Speaker 5: Remember is when you import somebody from another country, you
Speaker 5: don't just import you know, exquisite like spices and different cuisines.
Speaker 5: You import ideas, You import loyalties to their motherland, You
Speaker 5: import ideologies. So regardless of this, I think the problem
Speaker 5: would have still existed. And one thing that I'm really
Speaker 5: worried about is that we're going to get the Palestinian
Speaker 5: protesters who are there to legitimately protest for the rights
Speaker 5: of the innocent Palestinian children, which is tens of thousands
Speaker 5: who are dying in this war.
Speaker 4: You're going to I'm worried that we're going to create.
Speaker 5: A problem where we're going to conflate people who are
Speaker 5: just legitimately from a Palestinian background, who are there and
Speaker 5: we're going to assume because of statements like this, or
Speaker 5: there all must be ISIS terrorists or they all must
Speaker 5: be you know.
Speaker 4: Sympathetic to ISIS.
Speaker 5: So what we have to be careful of is while
Speaker 5: this information is true and I've seen it with law enforcement,
Speaker 5: and there will be opportunistic moments from this, we need
Speaker 5: to be very careful to separate the two and be
Speaker 5: very careful not to label everybody who is going to
Speaker 5: be protesting for Palestine as ISIS sympathizers or they've already
Speaker 5: got their foot in the door, because I think there is.
Speaker 4: Loyalty to homeland.
Speaker 5: If you're Palestinian and you're seeing things, of course you're
Speaker 5: going to be on the streets for that. If you're
Speaker 5: from Israel and you're seeing all this stuff, you're going
Speaker 5: to be doing the same thing.
Speaker 4: It's it's in us to do that.
Speaker 1: So the one thing we can take out of this,
Speaker 1: and sometimes some good comes out of evil, is that
Speaker 1: we're now more aware, and certainly the authorities, the people
Speaker 1: in responsible positions in our country are now more aware
Speaker 1: and will be more alert and will take more care.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to the question of who owns what In Australia.
Speaker 1: For a long time, the villains have been the baby Boomers.
Speaker 1: Baby Boomers born nine forty six to nineteen sixty four
Speaker 1: were sought to be thought to be the people who
Speaker 1: bought property cheap, and now they're all millionaires because property
Speaker 1: has gone up so much in value. They've occupied the
Speaker 1: positions that have blocked promotion to everyone else. Well, it
Speaker 1: turns out it's not quite the case anymore. The next
Speaker 1: generation to come along is Generation Next born nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: five to nineteen seventy nine. They are now australa His
Speaker 1: wealthiest people as the boomer started to retire. This is
Speaker 1: an new report from KPMG, the huge accounting company. They
Speaker 1: say the wealth is being transferred from one generation to
Speaker 1: the next generation. I wouldn't be surprised about this. Just
Speaker 1: seems to me to be a fairly natural progression that happens.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I don't think it's necessarily an accurate
Speaker 2: depiction of what's really going on. Whether you have people
Speaker 2: who are passing away and then leaving that certain property
Speaker 2: to members of Gen X, you know, I feel that
Speaker 2: it's not necessarily, as I said, an accurate reflection of
Speaker 2: what's really happening. So ultimately I missed out from all
Speaker 2: of this, but I think about six years so I'm
Speaker 2: not able to share in all of that wealth.
Speaker 4: Share a whole millennial London.
Speaker 2: I've made this point a million times right about my parents.
Speaker 2: You know who came to this country. My dad came
Speaker 2: here with eight dollars in his pocket, was able to
Speaker 2: create a very successful company. Doesn't have to worry about money.
Speaker 2: I keep saying to him, Dad, go and spend it.
Speaker 2: I'm not waiting for them to pass away so that
Speaker 2: I can live. And I think that a lot of
Speaker 2: people are kind of relying very heavily, and sometimes by
Speaker 2: no fault of their own, but relying very heavily on
Speaker 2: that inheritance because of just how difficult the pressures are
Speaker 2: in the cost of living and to enter the housing mind.
Speaker 1: Can I say, if you are a baby boomer, the
Speaker 1: policy you should adopt his skin ski in spend the
Speaker 1: kids inheritance. Now, get on with it now. Robbie Williams
Speaker 1: British entertainer, hugely successful, hugely popular, worth about ninety pounds sterling,
Speaker 1: so a lot of money. He appeared in Sydney New
Speaker 1: Year's Eve, he's just given a concert in Federation Square
Speaker 1: in Melbourne, and he was sad, we say, not entirely
Speaker 1: polite at that concert. He's accused. He's attacked his critics
Speaker 1: who accused him of over promoting his new movie during
Speaker 1: the ABC telecast New Year's e Fireworks, and he did
Speaker 1: he's got a new movie coming out, so he gave
Speaker 1: it a mention. He said, I am here to sell
Speaker 1: my If a movie you twitch, you book Robbie Williams,
Speaker 1: you get Robbie Williams. And he's in the business of
Speaker 1: selling his movies and selling his records. You're Robin Williams.
Speaker 1: A Robbie Williams fan.
Speaker 2: I don't mind him. I didn't have much issue with
Speaker 2: his performance. V I don't know about you. I was okay.
Speaker 2: I thought it was a bit tacky when he was
Speaker 2: talking about, you know, his film and all the rest
Speaker 2: of it. But you know, sometimes I don't want to
Speaker 2: get caught up in and we can be guilty of
Speaker 2: this at times of just finding fault with everything. We've
Speaker 2: become grenches, like you know, everyone was hammering in for
Speaker 2: what he said and his performances. I tended to find
Speaker 2: it a bit humorous and quite funny, especially his quote
Speaker 2: where he said the menopausal audience I attract. They are
Speaker 2: violent efforts. You never know when they're going to go off.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a man ev that's got all
Speaker 2: the money in the world. As Kel mentioned, he can
Speaker 2: do what he likes and say what he likes, and.
Speaker 1: We would expect him, nevertheless, to show some respect for
Speaker 1: the audience, which hep is not to have done. You
Speaker 1: are Robbie Williams fair evalent.
Speaker 5: My dad is and he doesn't watch me on the TV,
Speaker 5: which we'll talk about later. But but my dad, so
Speaker 5: I grew up listening to him.
Speaker 4: Not huge fan.
Speaker 5: To be honest, if I heard him, I probably wouldn't listen.
Speaker 5: I'd flick the channel or something. But I have no
Speaker 5: problem with him saying this. You know what, I'd probably
Speaker 5: react the same way of annoying menstrual women were.
Speaker 4: Snagging at me for something. I go, I don't really care,
Speaker 4: so no problem from my end.
Speaker 1: Look, if he wants to plug something, that's what he does.
Speaker 1: He's in the business to earn money. So the movie
Speaker 1: was actually shot in Melbourne. It's a bioo pick that
Speaker 1: tells the story of his life and if you get
Speaker 1: if you're in that position and you get an opportunity
Speaker 1: to plug your movie or your book, or your new
Speaker 1: CD or your new album, whatever it is, then you
Speaker 1: do it. I mean, I've had a new book come
Speaker 1: out and every time I appear in the program, I'm
Speaker 1: holding up the cover and flogging the book like crazy.
Speaker 1: It's what do you do?
Speaker 2: And again we have to be able to laugh at ourselves.
Speaker 2: The only thing I will say is don't miss with
Speaker 2: a woman and her allmans and I know what.
Speaker 1: It's not safe now as Australia is going to has
Speaker 1: already been the legislation's past Parliament access to the social
Speaker 1: media for under sixteen year olds as a model for
Speaker 1: the world, but the world following talk about that next
Speaker 1: the social media story at a moment, but first in Britain,
Speaker 1: there's a call for a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation.
Speaker 1: The request has been rejected by the Starma Labor government.
Speaker 1: Despite a long and ugly history of young girls being
Speaker 1: groomed and raped by gangs of mostly Pakistani Muslim men
Speaker 1: in cities across the North of England, abuse that was
Speaker 1: ignored for years by authorities who feared being labeled racist.
Speaker 1: One estimate says that in Rotherham alone, something like one thousand,
Speaker 1: four hundred young girls were abused over a sixteen year period.
Speaker 1: And that's just one of a number of cities, mostly
Speaker 1: in the North, where the police and the care services
Speaker 1: are accused of serious failings. Now Evelyn Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: now brought into this debate. What's he had to say?
Speaker 5: Well, it's interesting he actually tweeted free Tommy Robinson and
Speaker 5: then underneath that tweet he's attached a documentary. Now, this
Speaker 5: documentary was one that Tommy Robinson released which basically gets
Speaker 5: into the nuts and bolts of this particular type of
Speaker 5: crime that is rampant across the UK at the moment.
Speaker 4: Tommy Robinson is now.
Speaker 5: In prison because part of him releasing this documentary was
Speaker 5: him being in breach of court orders. The police told
Speaker 5: him to not post this he would be in breach
Speaker 5: and he posted it. This is kind of what has
Speaker 5: flared this situation up. So Originally in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 5: an independent inquiry was made into this type of thing.
Speaker 5: Now from that there are about twenty recommendations that were given.
Speaker 5: Now as a result of that, people are saying it's
Speaker 5: not good enough. Because nothing has happened since this independent
Speaker 5: inquiry and so they've tried to resurface it again. Now
Speaker 5: as a result of this, you have absolute online outrage
Speaker 5: at just the information that is coming ahead. We also
Speaker 5: have Kemy Badnock, who was called for a national inquiry
Speaker 5: and she has come out and said that she wants
Speaker 5: an inquiry into the grooming scandal that took place across
Speaker 5: the UK towns and cities, arguing that one was long
Speaker 5: over due. So she's come out and said that, which
Speaker 5: is massive, which is really good, which hopefully.
Speaker 4: Will get things happening.
Speaker 5: But I just wanted to go through some of the
Speaker 5: information that has come out as a result of this,
Speaker 5: because it's amazing the CEO what the owner of Twitter
Speaker 5: can do, because it took someone of that magnitude to
Speaker 5: just put a comment on this issue for it to
Speaker 5: go viral across the world and stories have been flooding in.
Speaker 5: And one story is that it's actually close to over
Speaker 5: two one hundred and fifty thousand white girls over the
Speaker 5: last twenty years, and that's what we know of that
Speaker 5: have been involved in these grooming rape cases. To just
Speaker 5: let that sink in, over two hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 5: that we know of. There is a story of a
Speaker 5: thirteen year old girl who was arrested for being drunk
Speaker 5: in an apartment with seven Pakistani adult men. Now how
Speaker 5: this came about is a neighbor heard a scream. Police
Speaker 5: have attended and upon attending found a nearly naked thirteen
Speaker 5: year old girl at the scene who was drunk. She
Speaker 5: was arrested and she was found guilty in court. But
Speaker 5: the worst part about this, and what everybody is saying,
Speaker 5: is that every time this is spoken about, is that
Speaker 5: their feared being called a racist.
Speaker 4: There was a girl by the name of Samantha Smith.
Speaker 4: She went on gb.
Speaker 5: News okay, and she spoke about the gangs in Telford
Speaker 5: over there, and the next day police attended her address
Speaker 5: and knocked on her door and intimidated her.
Speaker 4: To stop talking about it.
Speaker 5: There was also an MP who shared a tweet basically
Speaker 5: saying these girls in Rodin should shut up and that
Speaker 5: they should shut their mouths because of racism.
Speaker 1: On the top of all of those stories, the thing
Speaker 1: that is really staggering, Lucy, is that the Starma government
Speaker 1: won't act, won't actually say let's have a national inquiry
Speaker 1: and a child sexual exploitation. That's hard to understand, isn't it?
Speaker 2: For what reason?
Speaker 1: Kel?
Speaker 2: I mean, when you hear a story like this, and
Speaker 2: if this is the first time, apologies viewers, because it
Speaker 2: is very confronting. But if this is the first time
Speaker 2: that you're hearing this, it will be incredibly shocking and
Speaker 2: off the back of that when you put it into
Speaker 2: the context of the entire story, and then you've got
Speaker 2: someone like who's very bright, by the way, I love
Speaker 2: her very much, Chemi badnock and very strong when I host.
Speaker 1: Can I just say for people who don't know, she's
Speaker 1: the leader of the opposition, correct, the leader of the
Speaker 1: Conservative Party, So that's who we're talking about, that's.
Speaker 2: Right, and she was appointed last year the head of
Speaker 2: the Tories. You know, when you see issues like this
Speaker 2: come about and you see government resistance to launching an
Speaker 2: inquiry into this to get to the root cause of it,
Speaker 2: to get to the bottom of why there was this
Speaker 2: systemic failure from authorities to act in this regard. I mean,
Speaker 2: a thirteen year old girl in an apartment, of.
Speaker 5: These Sathers who were arrested, who tried to take their
Speaker 5: children back, I.
Speaker 2: Just I feel sick at the thought of this. This
Speaker 2: is disgusting. Our children are our most vulnerable and they
Speaker 2: are the most worthy of the greatest protections that we
Speaker 2: have to offer them. This has been a catastrophic failure.
Speaker 2: It's a huge scandal. It's probably why they don't want
Speaker 2: to launch an inquirity into it, because they feel as
Speaker 2: though it's going to make them look like failures and
Speaker 2: they are.
Speaker 1: Some of the people who did this have been caught.
Speaker 1: By my account, there's something like fifty nine men in
Speaker 1: Rotherham who have been charged with mostly with multiple offenses.
Speaker 1: They're now in prison. They're serving a total jail time
Speaker 1: of two hundred and nineteen years. So there's a sense
Speaker 1: in which the people who did it have been caught.
Speaker 1: It's the people who covered it up and who ignored
Speaker 1: it that's the worry, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Everly, it's certainly a worry when you have law enforcement,
Speaker 5: the people who are supposed to protect you from this
Speaker 5: basically saying that, you know what, I've deem racism as
Speaker 5: a bigger threat than the threat of being ganged rape.
Speaker 4: That's very dangerous, and that's.
Speaker 2: Instead of being a racist there they are of doing
Speaker 2: their jobs, and that's right.
Speaker 3: Young girls.
Speaker 4: Shame on all of you exactly.
Speaker 5: The fact that fathers who are trying to intervene were
Speaker 5: arrested as well, Like, it's astronomical, the outleabit interestingly, and
Speaker 5: I'm making no suggestion here, but there are lots of
Speaker 5: people online who are sort of saying that the reason
Speaker 5: why this wasn't dealt with properly is because who was
Speaker 5: in power during these years, who was in charge of
Speaker 5: the public the prosecution department. It is, it's a snowball,
Speaker 5: and to be honest, I think they're afraid of what's
Speaker 5: going to be at the end of that, which is
Speaker 5: why there's so much censorship around it. But coming from
Speaker 5: law enforcement, and I worked in child sex crimes as well,
Speaker 5: it's I feel like this is the tip of the
Speaker 5: iceberg and that's what terrifies me the most and needs
Speaker 5: an inquiry.
Speaker 1: Well, now you know what's going on, you've heard of
Speaker 1: what's happening in Britain. I mean, you could be part
Speaker 1: of it by going online and simply if you want
Speaker 1: make your voways heard as well. And at least there
Speaker 1: are people now calling, such as the leader of the Opposition,
Speaker 1: Andy laud Musk, calling for that full National Public Enquiry.
Speaker 1: How long can that be resisted? We'll see. Let's move
Speaker 1: back to the subject of social media, because that's where
Speaker 1: all of the news about this case is being spread.
Speaker 1: At the moment. Social media in Australia is now not
Speaker 1: open to anyone under the age of sixteen. Well, the
Speaker 1: law doesn't come into effect for a while, but the
Speaker 1: law has been passed by our federal Parliament and when
Speaker 1: it was past we were told this, we're leading the
Speaker 1: world in this. This is the model for the world.
Speaker 1: The world will follow, But it appears the world is
Speaker 1: not following. Let me tell you about Peter Kyle. He
Speaker 1: is the UK's Technology Secretary and he has abandoned any
Speaker 1: plans to introduce social media age bands. He's looked at
Speaker 1: our legislation, He's looked at our plans and he said,
Speaker 1: not for us just yet. Why the hesitation do you
Speaker 1: think losing?
Speaker 2: I don't know, and I get the sense that the
Speaker 2: panel has a different view to mine when it comes
Speaker 2: to this. I know that there was certainly a lot
Speaker 2: of issues, concerns and questions raised around the Albanese government's
Speaker 2: intention to move forward with this particular legislation. In our Australia,
Speaker 2: but it did have bipartisan support. Peter Dutton and the
Speaker 2: Coalition supported his decision. Where I start to kind of
Speaker 2: lend my feelings in all of this too, is when
Speaker 2: you hear things like and we've seen such a rise
Speaker 2: in it, but the most recent case where a mother
Speaker 2: in Townsville admitted and revealed with everybody overnight that her daughter,
Speaker 2: Addielle Boyd, a twelve year old, beautiful twelve year old girl,
Speaker 2: took her own life over cyberbullying. And it's a really
Speaker 2: difficult conversation to have because I'm a parent and I've
Speaker 2: got a daughter, and I often wonder about what this
Speaker 2: young girl might have been exposed to and what our
Speaker 2: young children are being exposed to in the deep dark web.
Speaker 2: You know, my children have on occasion just watched a
Speaker 2: YouTube video and it's gone on and on and on
Speaker 2: into another area and I've only overheard it because I've
Speaker 2: been in the kitchen or something and there's been swearing,
Speaker 2: there's been violence. There's been videos that as you go
Speaker 2: down the rabbit hole that have emerged that I've gone,
Speaker 2: this is entirely inappropriate for my daughter to be watching.
Speaker 2: So I got rid of it. So there's the school
Speaker 2: of thought where you say, as the parent, I did
Speaker 2: the right thing, and it's up to me to censor
Speaker 2: my child from what I deem to be inappropriate for her.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, I think that when you
Speaker 2: allow your child to have access to social media and
Speaker 2: to all of these platforms, I think it's a big
Speaker 2: risk and I personally will not be allowing my child
Speaker 2: legislation or not to have any form of social media
Speaker 2: until they come And that's the point.
Speaker 1: It's the responsibility of parents to make these decision.
Speaker 2: But mquel it helps having that line where because I
Speaker 2: know and a lot of other parents have complained of
Speaker 2: the same issue that have had the similar stance to mine,
Speaker 2: where they've said, it's all well and good for us
Speaker 2: to have this view, but then they go to school
Speaker 2: and other parents don't have that view other parents, and
Speaker 2: then that's easy for you to then turn around and say, well,
Speaker 2: that's the rule in our house. But then what that
Speaker 2: creates is an environment where your kids start going behind
Speaker 2: your back and being sneaky. I don't want to have
Speaker 2: that issue, And at the end of the day, what
Speaker 2: it does is act as a safety in it where
Speaker 2: you can say it's illegal, you can't have it, and
Speaker 2: that's the end of the conversation.
Speaker 1: So the problem is kids are kids, and we know
Speaker 1: what kids can do, and you tell them you can't
Speaker 1: do that, and that's like a red ragtua bull. And
Speaker 1: the argument has been it will be unworkable. It will
Speaker 1: be unworkable because it will be unenforceable. I mean, kids
Speaker 1: will tell lies about what their age is when they
Speaker 1: go on to websites, and the kids who don't tell
Speaker 1: lies will know friends at school who do tell lies,
Speaker 1: and so they've got it on there iPad. It's really
Speaker 1: hard to see how it's going to work in practice,
Speaker 1: and in fact, I don't think the Obelize government has
Speaker 1: worked out how it's going to work in practice.
Speaker 5: I think they've made some suggestions how they're going to
Speaker 5: put this into practice, which is what's the scary part
Speaker 5: about it.
Speaker 4: I agree with everything that Lucy said.
Speaker 5: I think that social media should be banned from children.
Speaker 5: I think that, you know, it's just.
Speaker 4: Law or not. That's a rule that will be in
Speaker 4: my house as well.
Speaker 5: But I don't for one second think that they care
Speaker 5: about the kids. And I'm sorry, I care about the kids.
Speaker 5: I know everybody here does, and I'm sure most of
Speaker 5: you at home do. I do not for a second
Speaker 5: think that any of this legislation is about the kids.
Speaker 5: I think that it's the trojan horse every tyrants, every
Speaker 5: tyrant comes digitized dressed as a hero. That's what happens.
Speaker 5: And I think that if you look three years before
Speaker 5: they tried to do this in Australia, they tried to
Speaker 5: do it to adults. They tried to make adults upload
Speaker 5: one hundred points of ID for their social media.
Speaker 4: It got absolutely blasted.
Speaker 5: And fair enough, and fast forward three years and they're.
Speaker 4: Like, Okay, we'll do it through the kids.
Speaker 5: Because if anyone at home says I don't want this legislation,
Speaker 5: it looks like you must hate the children. And that's
Speaker 5: exactly what they want you to think. But how they
Speaker 5: enforce this, kel like you said, is through digital ID, is.
Speaker 4: Through the parents.
Speaker 5: Who's like, who's going to do this and doesn't even
Speaker 5: say he wants facial ID to do for this.
Speaker 4: So, you know what, I think that social media is bad.
Speaker 4: I'm all for education.
Speaker 5: I'm all for you know, getting it out there why
Speaker 5: it's so bad, and perhaps educating schools and parents in
Speaker 5: how to do this. That's great, that's fine. I'm not
Speaker 5: for legislationating it. That's the family sphere is for mum
Speaker 5: and dad.
Speaker 1: You're not studying. Don't give me the answer. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is Kel's answer. I'm quite appointed that Dutton and the
Speaker 1: Liberals decided to back this legislation because I think it
Speaker 1: is unworkable. There's a better way to go. What you
Speaker 1: what they should have done is to make it illegal
Speaker 1: to sell a smartphone to anyone under the age of sixteen,
Speaker 1: or for anyone under the age of to own smartphones.
Speaker 1: The reason why that's fun to hang on. I know,
Speaker 1: I know you. I was talking when you were interrupting it.
Speaker 1: That's very root of me. So I shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: But what the model is is we don't allow kids
Speaker 1: to buy cigarettes, so we say kids can't buy smartphones.
Speaker 1: They buy dumb phones. Dumb phones mean they can send
Speaker 1: texts to their friends, they can be contacted by mum
Speaker 1: and dad if they need to be, but they can't
Speaker 1: get onto the web. There's no little screen there on
Speaker 1: the dumb phones. Now, if you passed the law about
Speaker 1: legislation that said we're classifying dumb phones and being like
Speaker 1: alcohol like cigarettes, people under sixteen can't have them. It
Speaker 1: seems to be that might actually be workable and might
Speaker 1: be enforceable, where I can't see how this is enforceable.
Speaker 1: You see the.
Speaker 2: Point, But you've just it's another problem, right, It's you're
Speaker 2: putting down one mole on the mountain and then another
Speaker 2: one's popping up.
Speaker 1: Let me know that we have a model when the
Speaker 1: model is the model is how we deal with cigarettes
Speaker 1: a right, it's.
Speaker 2: Like prohibition, and we've seen what's happening with vapes. They're
Speaker 2: still going to be able to access them. A black
Speaker 2: market's going to pop up. I'm just saying that it's
Speaker 2: another problem having yourself in another area. The only point
Speaker 2: I'll make is, you know, we're saying that it's unworkable
Speaker 2: and that we're just going to get kids who are
Speaker 2: going to access phones and whatever else. Maybe in the
Speaker 2: short term, right, maybe in the short term you'll see
Speaker 2: that it will be really difficult to convince the kids
Speaker 2: that have either had it or on the cusp of
Speaker 2: having it, that are excited about having it, and maybe
Speaker 2: they'll do the things under the table. And that's where
Speaker 2: as a parent you kind of have that responsibility to
Speaker 2: really pull them through that transition phase. But the longer
Speaker 2: this legislation sticks, the longer it goes that, you know,
Speaker 2: the quicker than it will, I guess, become normal a
Speaker 2: part of the status quo. I agree with your points
Speaker 2: about how challenging it's going to be to put it
Speaker 2: into practice, and how you know it's not going to
Speaker 2: be as workable as we would like it to be,
Speaker 2: and that that rests with Anthony Albansi. But to have
Speaker 2: that safety and that comfort and that ability to be
Speaker 2: able to say to my kids, guess what, it's illegal.
Speaker 5: So that's what I don't like, because I don't want
Speaker 5: to normalize the fact that the government have more power
Speaker 5: or end authority over my kids than mom and dad.
Speaker 3: Can you said that you don't want them to have
Speaker 3: it anyway?
Speaker 1: Say it doesn't reassure me when you say it rests
Speaker 1: with Anthony Albersi for some reason that is true.
Speaker 4: We can all agree on that kel.
Speaker 1: Very quickly before we go. Barcodes are about to change.
Speaker 1: We've had barcodes on products since nineteen seventy four, and
Speaker 1: they're about to upgrade them to I suppose barcodes two
Speaker 1: point zero, and they could be useful to us, so
Speaker 1: that if you've got a barcode in a shop, then
Speaker 1: you put your phone over it and it works like
Speaker 1: a QR code and it will tell you things about
Speaker 1: the products. Is it a or it's just another part
Speaker 1: of the conspiracy.
Speaker 4: It is definitely another part of the conspiracy. I'm sorry, sorry,
Speaker 4: but it's true.
Speaker 5: Look, if you look at the fine print of all
Speaker 5: of this, you're basically going from what looks like a
Speaker 5: normal barcode to what looks similar to a QR code
Speaker 5: and what that does. You can have a lot more information.
Speaker 5: You can only have about twenty five to forty characters
Speaker 5: for the old barcodes.
Speaker 4: This can be up to seven thousand.
Speaker 5: How they're selling it the trojan horse, I'm going to
Speaker 5: use that one trojan horse here is basically that you know,
Speaker 5: we can tell you what allergy is there, we can
Speaker 5: basically tell you whether it's off or not. We can
Speaker 5: do stock take, we can do this. But if you
Speaker 5: look at the fine print, it's about climate. They've said
Speaker 5: that you can monitor climate footprints and all these things
Speaker 5: only have.
Speaker 4: To go to Europe.
Speaker 5: Look at Europe how they've done carbon footprints, how it's
Speaker 5: bumped up prices of certain food depending on that.
Speaker 4: I think that's where this is headed.
Speaker 5: And I'm all for it being innovative, but I think
Speaker 5: this is going to head in a wrong case for
Speaker 5: our meat.
Speaker 2: I'm a farmer, I'm right, how's farting all the emissions?
Speaker 2: We're in big trouble here.
Speaker 1: Everybody a red meat or not. The fact is this
Speaker 1: is going this. We've got no control over this. If
Speaker 1: they decide they go to change the barcodes into these
Speaker 1: QR codes, they will. It's going to happen after the break.
Speaker 1: Billionaire Clive Palmer is applying for trademarks on some very
Speaker 1: odd themes. Tenuine a tip. Billionaire Clive Palmer has applied
Speaker 1: for copyrights patents on the word teal, which is the
Speaker 1: name of the color which is the brand of the
Speaker 1: Climber two hundred group, and also on a party that
Speaker 1: he wants to call the Clive and Pauline Party, apparently
Speaker 1: without asking Pauline Hanson's permission first. They're very odd things
Speaker 1: to get trademarks on. What on earth is he up to?
Speaker 2: I don't think anyone could answer that him and he's billionaires.
Speaker 2: They're just their kookie, aren't they? And they've got the
Speaker 2: capacity to do it. When you're worth over twenty billion dollars,
Speaker 2: you can do and say as you like. I think
Speaker 2: he's deliberately trolling the tea. I think he's got certain
Speaker 2: plans for it. And you know funny that he also
Speaker 2: then included Pauline in the name of the party without
Speaker 2: even asking her again.
Speaker 1: Without asking her to the bottom of that. Okay, I'll
Speaker 1: kill you by solution. My solution, Clive, is I'm going
Speaker 1: to see if I can trademark the expression Clive Palmer,
Speaker 1: and you can buy it back to me after I've
Speaker 1: trademarked it. Let's move on to this woman, because there
Speaker 1: is a woman who has been an actress. She's been
Speaker 1: a working member of the royal family, she's been a
Speaker 1: non working member of the royal family. Now she wants
Speaker 1: to become Nigella Lawson. Meghan Markel is doing a new
Speaker 1: television show in which she cooks. It's called With Love
Speaker 1: from Megan, It's just Big Mocked actually described as the
Speaker 1: fakest thing I've ever seen her new Netflix show. Take
Speaker 1: a look at this little preview.
Speaker 6: I've always loved taking something pretty ordinary and elevating it,
Speaker 6: surprising people with moments that let them know I was
Speaker 6: really thinking of them.
Speaker 1: What this is probably one of the most glamorous moments
Speaker 1: of my life. Now, Evelyn, do you want to learn
Speaker 1: how to cook from Megan Michael?
Speaker 5: No, I don't, But to be honest, she looks like
Speaker 5: she can cook amazingly.
Speaker 4: I have no issue with that.
Speaker 5: I just it is it looks very scripted. It looks
Speaker 5: like she's acting. And this is the problem. You don't
Speaker 5: know if she's acting or if she's genuine. And she's
Speaker 5: kind of created this because of, you know, her being
Speaker 5: known as a bit of a homewrecker. And I'm not
Speaker 5: going to be watching it. If any off I do,
Speaker 5: it's probably just because I want a sticky beak and
Speaker 5: see whether there's any sign of, you know, a nice cake.
Speaker 4: I might bake for myself. But that's about it, to
Speaker 4: be honest.
Speaker 1: Harry and Meghan are struggling to find a career because
Speaker 1: their career was bagging the British royal family and you
Speaker 1: can't do that forever. So Harry's made a documentary series
Speaker 1: on Polo. He was mocked for that, and suddenly Meghan
Speaker 1: wants to be Nigella Lawson.
Speaker 2: Oh she's got to do something right. I mean, I
Speaker 2: think it looks quite lovely, to be honest. She's trying
Speaker 2: to reinvent herself. She's got to deal with Netflix and
Speaker 2: she's got to justify right, so she's got to produce content.
Speaker 2: Good luck, Megan.
Speaker 1: Indeed, in fact, if you'd like to know all the
Speaker 1: royal news that is coming next when Caroline Derresso will
Speaker 1: be here with the Royal Report for the time being,
Speaker 1: that's enough from us and we thank you for your
Speaker 1: company tonight. Good Night,