Speaker 1: Late General, Welcome late to pay.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming up.
Speaker 3: Did you know that rocks can have agenda? In fact,
Speaker 3: rocks can even be transgendered. That's what one Australian museum
Speaker 3: is telling people. We'll talk about that a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus when we get to the paper as a convicted
Speaker 3: murderer let out of maximum security so that she can
Speaker 3: undergo IVF treatment, and an incredible story on the front
Speaker 3: page of Tomorrow's Australian talking about the lengths to which
Speaker 3: the Environmental Defender's Office went to block a new gas project. Honestly,
Speaker 3: you've got to read this story to believe it, and
Speaker 3: we'll share it with you a little later.
Speaker 2: But at the beginning of the show, I thought it
Speaker 2: might be.
Speaker 3: Appropriate for us to just take a moment to send
Speaker 3: our thoughts and prayers to US government workers in the
Speaker 3: State Department. They're having a really tough time dealing with
Speaker 3: life since November six, Donald Trump winning the election has
Speaker 3: really upset people in the State Department, so much so
Speaker 3: that the State Department is providing therapy sessions to help
Speaker 3: US government workers deal with democracy Republican candidate Darryl Isier
Speaker 3: wrote to Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln after hearing about
Speaker 3: these therapy sessions, saying, I'm concerned that the department is
Speaker 3: catering to federal employees who are personally devastated by the
Speaker 3: normal functioning of American democracy through the provision of government
Speaker 3: funded mental health counseling, or because Kamala Harris wasn't elected
Speaker 3: president of the United States. Now, there was an email
Speaker 3: that went around to government workers encouraging them to take
Speaker 3: part in these cry sessions, advising that they would help
Speaker 3: them to navigate these challenging times. I have questions Calivin
Speaker 3: is fought specifically. Firstly, this has to ask questions about
Speaker 3: these government workers' ability and or willingness to work for
Speaker 3: the Trump administration. I mean, they're undergoing mental health sessions
Speaker 3: right now to cope with Trump winning the election in
Speaker 3: a couple of weeks, Trump will be their boss. But second,
Speaker 3: it raises questions about their fitness to work.
Speaker 2: For the government at all.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's beggar's belief that you would employ people
Speaker 3: in the government service who are so fragile.
Speaker 2: I mean, would you employ such people in your business?
Speaker 3: Or else would they get a job by why they're
Speaker 3: for the govern Well, they don't have the ABC in
Speaker 3: the United States, so although MSNBC would probably pick up
Speaker 3: some of these people.
Speaker 2: Third, what does it say about the.
Speaker 3: Culture of the bureaucracy in the United States that this
Speaker 3: sort of behavior is not only tolerated, but it's actually encouraged.
Speaker 3: I know Donald Trump was criticized for talking about having
Speaker 3: to drain the swamp. Well, this sounds like kind of
Speaker 3: swampish behavior. And finally, what an insult to taxpayers that
Speaker 3: they have to fund these infantile sessions for people trying
Speaker 3: to cope and get over the results of a fair
Speaker 3: and free election.
Speaker 1: Look, I think you're being a little hard, James Trump.
Speaker 4: Derangement syndrome is a real diagnosable mental illness.
Speaker 1: Of course they need treatment for it.
Speaker 4: I forget the name of the little book that psychologists
Speaker 4: and psychiatrists use.
Speaker 1: But it ought to be in there because it is legit.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's got to be legit if they need
Speaker 4: this sort of help, surely. I mean, it just makes
Speaker 4: a mockery of things said. Imagine being that fragile that
Speaker 4: upset that someone won a democratic election, that you actually
Speaker 4: need a therapy session, and not just well, I'm going
Speaker 4: to trundle down to a therapist.
Speaker 1: Myself to get some help.
Speaker 4: Clearly someone in the department has taken notice there and
Speaker 4: so many people is moping around the office now that
Speaker 4: we'd better do something about.
Speaker 1: It to try and lift morale.
Speaker 4: It is absolutely incredible, and it is exactly these people
Speaker 4: who need Trump to be president just so we can
Speaker 4: show what a bunch of lunatics they are. Seriously, this
Speaker 4: is what Trump's going to do. He's going to rat
Speaker 4: all of these people out. They won't be able to
Speaker 4: work there anymore. Because imagine them. If this is what
Speaker 4: they're like now, like you said before, Jane, imagine what
Speaker 4: they're going to be like when Trump is actually president.
Speaker 4: They're all hand in their resignations. He won't have to
Speaker 4: send in Vivik Ramaswami and Elon Muster clean the joined up.
Speaker 4: They'll just walk out on mass Fantastic he's hoping.
Speaker 5: But these guys are meant to be non partisan government officials.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is what bureaucracy is supposed to be anyway.
Speaker 5: But I got to tell you, I love the difference
Speaker 5: between Australians and Americans on this score, because we just
Speaker 5: do not get that head up about our elections. Our
Speaker 5: struggle is getting people half interested in our politics. People
Speaker 5: go here to the polling booths because they don't want
Speaker 5: to get a fine for not voting, because it's mandatory.
Speaker 5: Over there, it's very tribal. Everyone's at each other's throats.
Speaker 5: Even the most low info regime bots are very passionately
Speaker 5: barracking for their team. Ozsies might drop a few expletives
Speaker 5: if they're preferred. Prime Minister doesn't get in. Other than that,
Speaker 5: nobody's going to therapy. Nobody cares enough. No one's shedding tears,
Speaker 5: no one's making complete fools out of themselves. We're just
Speaker 5: not that emotionally invested in Australian politics. And I think
Speaker 5: that's a good thing.
Speaker 4: Imagine a therapy session because Albanezi became Prime minister. You know,
Speaker 4: I need some help, I need some help. Please here,
Speaker 4: but elbows in charge. I mean, I'm sure there's someone
Speaker 4: out there who take the money to give you the session,
Speaker 4: But you'd be laughed out of the place, wouldn't you.
Speaker 3: I remember years ago, I was at a seven eleven
Speaker 3: and I'm you know, you know where they've got the
Speaker 3: fridges and you're looking for a drink or whatever. And
Speaker 3: there was this lady standing and she was talking and
Speaker 3: she had an American accent. So I commented. And it
Speaker 3: was when Clinton was running against Trump, and I said,
Speaker 3: so who you supporting? And she said obviously Clinton, and
Speaker 3: she said you want to win?
Speaker 2: I said, I actually kind of like Trump.
Speaker 3: And she literally turned away and made a noise and
Speaker 3: stormed off. Was my first inkling to man, they really
Speaker 3: take this seriously. I'm just hoping for a sausage when
Speaker 3: I go.
Speaker 5: To vote, you know what I mean. We've been like
Speaker 5: playing all these clips of people sabotaging each other's pictures
Speaker 5: of their preferred candidate out the front of their houses.
Speaker 5: There's been people who then put shocks shockers on their
Speaker 5: signs so that when someone drove along to get rid
Speaker 5: of their signs, their tires were flattened or they got
Speaker 5: an electric shock because they were trying to rip up
Speaker 5: these I mean, none of that happens in Australia. No
Speaker 5: one cares. I know, half the people are like, oh
Speaker 5: wait a minute, is there an election on them? Because
Speaker 5: I just saw a crowd outside of a school on
Speaker 5: a Saturday, So better pull over, better vote.
Speaker 2: Our current government. Maybe we should care a little.
Speaker 5: Bit more to I'm not I'm not saying. I'm just saying,
Speaker 5: in terms of the kind of meltdown and the kind
Speaker 5: of social lack of cohesion around every single American election,
Speaker 5: we simply don't have that.
Speaker 4: There's not that tribalism in it, which in many ways
Speaker 4: is a good thing because it's a lot of trouble
Speaker 4: and we wouldn't go around trying to shoot our would
Speaker 4: be presidents either, Isn't it fantastic?
Speaker 1: But it's no wonder, you know. Of course, they were
Speaker 1: told that Trump would be literally Hitler, so of course
Speaker 1: they need therapy sessions.
Speaker 4: I mean, imagine being told that Hitler was going to
Speaker 4: run the country. Let's come back to Australia now, where,
Speaker 4: of course one of the great warriors, warriors, Well, she
Speaker 4: might be a bit worried.
Speaker 1: Actually, warrior was the word I.
Speaker 4: Was going for against nonsense that is being perpetrated upon children.
Speaker 4: Of course, ginder transitioning is Pauline Hansen.
Speaker 1: She has been on.
Speaker 4: This for quite some time, and for the fifth time
Speaker 4: she has tried to ask the Senate for an inquiry
Speaker 4: into the use of puberty blockers on children, and for
Speaker 4: the fifth time it has fallen over. Why is it
Speaker 4: that our senators just seemed to be that they have
Speaker 4: no inkling, no interest in investigating anything whatsoever. We can't
Speaker 4: have an inquiry into puberty blockers, we can't have one
Speaker 4: into babies born alive, we can't have one into COVID.
Speaker 1: Oh imagine us doing our jobs.
Speaker 4: And actually looking into the things that are going on
Speaker 4: in this country. No, they have no curiosity whatsoever. They
Speaker 4: just go along with the ideology. But of course the
Speaker 4: ideology as we know when it comes to gender transitioning
Speaker 4: children in Australia is now well behind the rest of
Speaker 4: the world. Paulin Hanson pointed this out in her post
Speaker 4: on x after her fifth attempt failed.
Speaker 1: She said, why won't they listen?
Speaker 4: For the fifth time I have stood in the Senate
Speaker 4: and called for an inquiry into the experimental use of
Speaker 4: puberty blockers on vulnerable children. Every single time I have
Speaker 4: asked for an inquiry, it's been because new evidence has
Speaker 4: come to like showing the risks and harm these treatments
Speaker 4: posed to kids. This time, even New Zealand has joined
Speaker 4: the growing list of countries including the UK, Finland and Sweden.
Speaker 1: Raising the alarm.
Speaker 4: While other nations are waking up, the Albanezy Labor government
Speaker 4: and the Greens remain asleep at the wheel, refusing to act.
Speaker 1: And that is correct.
Speaker 4: New Zealand is now reviewing its policies around this stuff
Speaker 4: and is inviting public submissions. Back in March, the NHS,
Speaker 4: the public Health service in the UK, stopped the use
Speaker 4: of puberty blockers on children. Denmark did the same thing
Speaker 4: in September last year. It is changing across the world.
Speaker 4: The Tavistock Clinic, the biggest gender transition clinic in the UK,
Speaker 4: has been shut down. This is happening all across the
Speaker 4: Western world, and yet here in Australia we still continue
Speaker 4: to use puberty blockers on children and continue on as
Speaker 4: though there is nothing wrong. How is it that the
Speaker 4: rest of the world is starting to say and without
Speaker 4: any issue. I mean, even the New York Times, for
Speaker 4: heaven's sake, is publishing pieces now about people who regret.
Speaker 1: Transitioning their gender when they were children.
Speaker 4: I mean these are stories that two three years ago
Speaker 4: a paper like The New York Times would never have touched.
Speaker 4: Now it is a mainstream issue. But here in Australia.
Speaker 4: It still seems like it's off with the fairies zone.
Speaker 2: I forget that.
Speaker 3: The topic that's dominating discussion in the Senate right now
Speaker 3: is the welfare of children.
Speaker 2: Our senators have been looking at this bill to.
Speaker 3: Ban sixteen year olds and younger from looking at social
Speaker 3: media because we're really concerned about what social media is
Speaker 3: doing to the mental health of our young people. So
Speaker 3: you would have thought this is a pretty good time
Speaker 3: for Pauline Hansen to raise the issue of you know,
Speaker 3: should our young people be put on puberty blockers and
Speaker 3: medicalized because of gender ideology? Maybe we should look into
Speaker 3: that since we're so concerned about the welfare of children,
Speaker 3: and yet on this issue our senators are entirely incurious,
Speaker 3: and as you said, Caleb, our senators must be the
Speaker 3: least curious people on the planet. But sadly it's not
Speaker 3: a lack of curiosity born of just pure ignorance. It's
Speaker 3: deliberate in curiosity because they don't want a discussion on
Speaker 3: the welfare of children and what gender ideology means, because
Speaker 3: that might lead to a discussion on what is a
Speaker 3: woman and then the woke mod will be after them
Speaker 3: if they say what they actually believe, and so they
Speaker 3: just rather not go there, and they sacrifice our kids
Speaker 3: so they can hold firm to their ideology and their position.
Speaker 2: Same is true with babies born alive.
Speaker 3: We don't want to talk about babies born alive because
Speaker 3: that would entail.
Speaker 2: A discussion of late term abortion, and.
Speaker 3: That might start to get people asking awkward questions about
Speaker 3: the ethics of abortion. So we'd rather just pretend that
Speaker 3: these babies born alive aren't really humans because their existence
Speaker 3: threatens our ideology. Therefore, we will just turn our back
Speaker 3: on them. It's shameful. It is that they are so
Speaker 3: incurious about the issues that really matter.
Speaker 5: But like you say, they're not incurious. They know enough.
Speaker 2: It's delivered.
Speaker 5: These things are brought to the Senate, they are told
Speaker 5: case in point by the person presenting it. In the
Speaker 5: case of babies born alive post abortion, that was Senator Babett.
Speaker 5: In this case, this is Pauly J. Hanson's fifth attempt
Speaker 5: to say we are behind the rest of the world now.
Speaker 5: And as she just said in that quote that kayleb
Speaker 5: bred out, every time I bring this again, it's because
Speaker 5: I have even more proof we are failing our kids.
Speaker 5: If you really want to protect them. Let's take another
Speaker 5: step back, by the way, and just ask ourselves why
Speaker 5: the amount of kids presenting with gender dysphoria. He's over.
Speaker 5: It's absolutely exploded. It is now two hundred percent what
Speaker 5: it once was, and even bigger numbers than that are
Speaker 5: being recorded. This wasn't always the case. How about we
Speaker 5: ask ourselves where that came from. And let's not forget
Speaker 5: these guys are ignoring the experts. When the CAST review
Speaker 5: came out in the UK, there was an emergency stoppage
Speaker 5: of the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones
Speaker 5: in the UK basically from that day was less than
Speaker 5: a month after that the mandate was handed down and
Speaker 5: they stopped it all together. But here in Australia, child
Speaker 5: psychiatrists and child pediatricians, child pediatricians that would be an
Speaker 5: impressive child indeed have been. They've been stood down. They've
Speaker 5: paid the ultimate price. What you're looking at right now
Speaker 5: is Gillian Spencer who in June of last year, she's
Speaker 5: a senior child psychiatrist, she was stood down for raising
Speaker 5: the alarm of this gender affirming care that means giving
Speaker 5: drugs to kids that have very real issues around bone density,
Speaker 5: about chemically carstrating them. That's what some people call it,
Speaker 5: because it messes with their fertility for the rest of
Speaker 5: their life. Who knew you can't just press pause on puberty.
Speaker 5: It simply doesn't work like that. Another legend. Also in
Speaker 5: June of last year, pediatricians Dylan Wilson shout out for him.
Speaker 5: He called for an immediate moratorium on the use of
Speaker 5: puberty blockers. He said, quote, there is no evidence of
Speaker 5: benefit end quote in terms of prescribing this to children
Speaker 5: who are struggling with gender dysphoria, and that, in a
Speaker 5: nutshell was the CAST review's findings. They said, if there's
Speaker 5: any evidence that these drugs help these kids, it is
Speaker 5: with quote very low certainty end quote that anyone would
Speaker 5: even say that. So if anyone wants to make the
Speaker 5: argument of oh, no, well, it's very heartless to suggest
Speaker 5: that we wouldn't treat gender dysphoria in this way. No,
Speaker 5: it is heartless to suggest that we must and that
Speaker 5: we should just blindly keep doing so despite all the evidence.
Speaker 5: How many more experts do you have to have screaming
Speaker 5: about this before? And we're not talking about anything drastic,
Speaker 5: it's just an inquiry, what do you worry that we'll find?
Speaker 4: Which is incredible because there is the story out of
Speaker 4: the US father he's in Texas, his wife's moved to
Speaker 4: California with their son, twelve year old son, and he's
Speaker 4: been talking about this for a few years now in
Speaker 4: the media. Where his wife left took the son with her.
Speaker 4: The son says that he is now a girl was
Speaker 4: born James now goes by the name of Luna, and
Speaker 4: the father, Jeff Younger, says that his wife was essentially
Speaker 4: trying to transition their child from a very young age.
Speaker 4: I mean, he's saying that she was trying to transition
Speaker 4: him from the age of two and wanted to get
Speaker 4: him into a gender clinic.
Speaker 1: At the age of five.
Speaker 4: But this case has now run through a court in
Speaker 4: California where she went to in Los Angeles, and it
Speaker 4: said that the mother will now have full custody of
Speaker 4: their son, which essentially gives her the right to then
Speaker 4: go off and transition her son. And you can imagine
Speaker 4: what the father, Jeff Younger thinks of all this. He says,
Speaker 4: I lost all parental rights to my son. Goodbye, boys,
Speaker 4: Perhaps we will meet you when you are adults. California judge,
Speaker 4: you ha gave my ex wife authority to car straight
Speaker 4: my son James. All contact with my boys must be supervised.
Speaker 4: I won't do that. I send letters and gifts to
Speaker 4: my sons, my ex is not required to give them
Speaker 4: to the boys. I cannot post pictures of my sons.
Speaker 1: I mean, what an.
Speaker 4: Absurd situation where a judge is now making a decision
Speaker 4: about what is medically good for a child when there
Speaker 4: is clear disagreement between two parents. But again, you know,
Speaker 4: it's a case where someone else gets to step in
Speaker 4: and say, well, I'm telling you how your child ought
Speaker 4: to be parented. This is something for the parents to
Speaker 4: deal with. They can go and seek arbitration or whatever.
Speaker 4: But of course, if a court decides that they're on
Speaker 4: one person side over the other because they have a
Speaker 4: particular ideological bent, which is often what happens in these.
Speaker 1: Sorts of cases.
Speaker 4: There goes a child having irrevocable changes made to their
Speaker 4: body via medication.
Speaker 3: And that does seem to be the issue in this
Speaker 3: instance where it seems like the mother does have an
Speaker 3: ideological bent because from the age of two she maintained
Speaker 3: that James was actually a girl. Because James had expressed
Speaker 3: an interest in girls' clothes, and she had started down
Speaker 3: the road of transitioning. And this is a clue as
Speaker 3: to why things are so polarized in the US, because
Speaker 3: in Texas she wasn't allowed to go and get this
Speaker 3: child transitioned.
Speaker 2: So she just moved to California.
Speaker 3: Yeah, where now she's protected as she goes to transition
Speaker 3: the child against the father's wishes.
Speaker 2: But just quickly back to the Australian Senate.
Speaker 3: We've got a situation this week where our senators are
Speaker 3: saying little Sally can't go on Instagram because it's far
Speaker 3: too dangerous for Sally to go on Instagram.
Speaker 2: But it's fine for Sally to.
Speaker 3: Have puberty blockers which will stop her developing breasts.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely okay.
Speaker 5: She can never bear children, and.
Speaker 2: We're supposed to take these people as serious.
Speaker 5: Yeah, welcome to Australia, where if you're under sixteen you
Speaker 5: can change your gender, change your sex. We're more than
Speaker 5: happy for you to believe that if you're a boy,
Speaker 5: you can be a girl and vice versa. But no
Speaker 5: Facebook for you, little man, little woman. I mean, how
Speaker 5: bizarre this is? Clown world, Ladies and gentlemen. But let's
Speaker 5: go to Scotland now, where even more clown world. The
Speaker 5: question of what is a woman has made its way
Speaker 5: all the way to the Supreme Court in London. Get
Speaker 5: this headline. The SMP led government, that's the Scottish National
Speaker 5: Party are insisting that a trans woman is a woman
Speaker 5: for the purposes of the UK Equalities Act. Now, this
Speaker 5: first kicked off when a feminist group by the name
Speaker 5: of Four Women's Scotland said, look, you've got this act.
Speaker 5: It's called the Gender Representation of Public Boards Act, which
Speaker 5: was designed to make boards fifty to fifty in terms
Speaker 5: of male female representation. But in that act their SNP
Speaker 5: government defined a woman as quote anyone living as a
Speaker 5: woman end quote. Well FWS wasn't taking this sitting down,
Speaker 5: and they successfully, they met with success in the courts
Speaker 5: when they took the government to court, saying well, hang
Speaker 5: on a minute, this flies in the face of Westminster
Speaker 5: laws that define a woman a bit differently. So what
Speaker 5: are you going to do about that? So on and
Speaker 5: so forth. Now we find ourselves in the Supreme Court,
Speaker 5: Well we will tomorrow. So you'll have the Scottish government
Speaker 5: arguing that anyone who says they're a woman is a woman.
Speaker 5: Anyone with a gender recognition certificate, because we all know
Speaker 5: a piece of paper can change chromosomes. Ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 5: This is the twenty first century. What a wonder. They
Speaker 5: will argue that anyone they say is a woman is
Speaker 5: a woman, and fws are there to bring the case
Speaker 5: saying no, they aren't. The representative from the Feminist Group,
Speaker 5: Susan Smith, told The Daily Mail, if we win, then
Speaker 5: we get a very clear cut idea who is protected
Speaker 5: and when. If we lose, it would make it almost
Speaker 5: impossible to keep a lot of spaces and services female
Speaker 5: only or indeed male only, and Westminster will have a
Speaker 5: real mess to untangle. Susan Smith makes the very apt
Speaker 5: point that you can't get a certificate to say that
Speaker 5: you have a disability you don't. Heck, we'd all have
Speaker 5: acron stickers. Who doesn't want those roomy parts. You can't
Speaker 5: get a certificate to say you're a different age than
Speaker 5: you are. Sure a lot of ladies would make use
Speaker 5: of that, wouldn't we if we could? But why then?
Speaker 5: And this is what the Feminist group is saying. You
Speaker 5: guys sitting in your ivory tower making laws for the
Speaker 5: rest of us now have to answer the question why
Speaker 5: is sex protected in the first place? Like these other categories,
Speaker 5: we have different advantage, not advantages, but different laws pertaining
Speaker 5: to pensioners because they need different kinds of help and assistance.
Speaker 5: Those with disability they get different kind of help, assistants, etc.
Speaker 1: So on.
Speaker 5: I can't wait to see the outcome of this.
Speaker 3: The feminist group are absolutely correct, and I said this
Speaker 3: last night, that you've got to answer this fundamental question.
Speaker 3: Is a woman defined biologically or is it defined by
Speaker 3: the bureaucracy. Once you answer that question, everything flows from there.
Speaker 3: But of course what a woman is cannot be defined
Speaker 3: by the bureaucracy because it will be the opposite of biology,
Speaker 3: and you can't have in law unreality that everybody knows
Speaker 3: is simply not true. So it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 3: whether the court have the curry to rule on this
Speaker 3: as we know they ought, or whether they'll find some
Speaker 3: sort of you know, reason to duck and weave and
Speaker 3: leave room for a bureaucratic definition to remain in law
Speaker 3: so that they don't upset a very small segment of
Speaker 3: the population.
Speaker 4: But this is the crazy thing, right, is that it
Speaker 4: is now actually up to a court to decide what
Speaker 4: a woman is. I mean when you were at school, James. Heck,
Speaker 4: even when I was at school, which was a little
Speaker 4: after you were at school. If I had been asked,
Speaker 4: you know, year five, yor four or whatever.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 4: Right down, little Caleb, what is going to happen in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four?
Speaker 1: If I had written down to go into the little
Speaker 1: lock box, a court will rule on what a woman is?
Speaker 4: The teacher would have, mate, you are absolutely bonkers.
Speaker 1: What the hell are you on about? And yet that's
Speaker 1: now reality.
Speaker 4: In twenty twenty four, that courts are being asked to
Speaker 4: ask to answer such simple questions as what is a woman?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 4: Politicians, as we know, have struggled to answer the question,
Speaker 4: so no doubt the court will struggle to do so
Speaker 4: as well, because everyone gets so caught up in the ideology.
Speaker 4: I mean, it shouldn't have to be a question of
Speaker 4: the law or a court what a woman is. It's
Speaker 4: just self evident to anyone who has a few brain
Speaker 4: cells to rab together. You can argue that, oh, you
Speaker 4: know this is a woman. We all know what the
Speaker 4: biology is. Just go and talk to a biologist. I
Speaker 4: mean sack all the judges. Let's just put biologists in charge.
Speaker 5: You will you imagine these five justices? I mean to
Speaker 5: be a Supreme Court justice UK or anywhere. These guys
Speaker 5: are literal. As a former law a student, you live
Speaker 5: in awe of them. They are walking, talking encyclopedias of law.
Speaker 5: They are incredible. Can you imagine them? Oh my gosh,
Speaker 5: just going Are you kidding me? This is what I
Speaker 5: studied for years and years. I fought cases, I built
Speaker 5: my reputation.
Speaker 2: I have now.
Speaker 5: Reached the peak of my career and you're getting the
Speaker 5: five of us to sit down and decide whether someone
Speaker 5: with a piece of paper who says they're a woman
Speaker 5: but biologically is not, is a woman or.
Speaker 3: Not the man Scottish government are actually going to argue
Speaker 3: that women can die of testicular cancer, men can be pregnant,
Speaker 3: two men can be lesbians. You've got to give credit
Speaker 3: here to someone who doesn't get enough credit, and that
Speaker 3: is Moses, who thousands of years ago, in the Book
Speaker 3: of Genesis wrote God created the male and female, which
Speaker 3: I always thought was kind of a redundant thing.
Speaker 2: To say that he was ahead of the game.
Speaker 3: He knew what was coming and made a very profound shavement.
Speaker 4: Can I be a lesbian is what you're saying.
Speaker 3: Least in the Scottish government, you would well be within
Speaker 3: your rights to be a lesbian.
Speaker 1: Cour Surely that's worth a ten percent pay rise. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's going to be something. There's going to be something
Speaker 1: I can get for claiming I'm a lesbian.
Speaker 3: Let's come back to Australia, where welcome to country, of
Speaker 3: course is ubiquitous. Everywhere you go there's a welcome to country.
Speaker 3: If I was ever called upon to give a welcome
Speaker 3: to country, I reckon I would keep it short, and
Speaker 3: because you would be aware, a lot of people don't
Speaker 3: like it.
Speaker 2: A lot of people say.
Speaker 3: It shouldn't be done at all, So i'd call I'd
Speaker 3: keep it brief, I'd keep it concise. I certainly wouldn't
Speaker 3: preach your lecture. I certainly wouldn't say stupid things, and
Speaker 3: I'd try really hard not to be divisive. I reckon
Speaker 3: most people would understand. Just do that, and you'll be
Speaker 3: allowed to keep doing it. Unfortunately, those who do welcome
Speaker 3: to country keep taking liberties, such as the lady who
Speaker 3: gave her welcome to country on Sunday at Sydney's Hyde
Speaker 3: Park as they celebrated the ninetieth anniversary of the Anzac Memorial.
Speaker 3: She gave a welcome to country that wore out.
Speaker 2: It's welcome.
Speaker 3: She went for nine minutes. She talked repeatedly about how
Speaker 3: this is my country. She talked about how she was
Speaker 3: not going anywhere, and she told those present to listen
Speaker 3: to the breeze because the breeze will.
Speaker 2: Speak to you.
Speaker 3: Sidney Radio's Ben Fordham broke down the nine minute speech
Speaker 3: and will listen.
Speaker 6: In the first minute, everyone was welcomed. In the second minute,
Speaker 6: we had thank you for the Land Council.
Speaker 4: I would just like to let you know I always
Speaker 4: acknowledge the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.
Speaker 6: Three minutes in acknowledgments of traditional owners. Four minutes in family.
Speaker 1: Stories, This is gad equal country.
Speaker 6: Five minutes in we heard about bloodlines.
Speaker 1: My bloodline is here to stay.
Speaker 6: Six minutes in there was a reminder.
Speaker 5: Always was and always will be Haveboriginal land.
Speaker 6: Seven minutes in we heard about taking responsibility. Eight minutes
Speaker 6: in we were told about the importance of listening.
Speaker 5: You listen to the breeze because the breeze talks.
Speaker 6: To you, and after nine long minutes it wrapped up
Speaker 6: with another welcome.
Speaker 3: Could you imagine going along to an event. I'm sure
Speaker 3: there's going to be a Welcome to Country, so you
Speaker 3: think it's going to be you know, ninety seconds, maybe
Speaker 3: two minutes, and it's still going after eight and a
Speaker 3: half minutes. One of the problems with Welcome to Country
Speaker 3: is you get events, whether it's an AFL final or
Speaker 3: a ceremony like they had at Hyde Park, and you
Speaker 3: get people given a platform who, under any other circumstances
Speaker 3: would never be given a platform, they would never be
Speaker 3: given a microphone. But they not only receive a platform,
Speaker 3: they receive respect and they cannot be criticized by virtue
Speaker 3: of nothing.
Speaker 2: More than their race.
Speaker 3: And then they're able to command the attention of everybody
Speaker 3: for as long as they like, and you can't criticize them.
Speaker 3: And instead of taking this as I suppose, an honor
Speaker 3: or a privilege, it seems like some people, not all,
Speaker 3: but some take it as an entitlement. Remember the AFL
Speaker 3: semi final between GWS and the Brisbane Lines.
Speaker 2: I was at that game and.
Speaker 3: A guy got up and he told the crowd that
Speaker 3: Welcome the Country was never designed for white people, and
Speaker 3: he talked about how indigenous folk had been in this
Speaker 3: country for two hundred and fifty thousand years.
Speaker 2: BC before Cook. And he went on and on and on,
Speaker 2: and he got a lot of criticism. Next day. His
Speaker 2: response to the criticism, he.
Speaker 3: Said, and he told the media my only regret, I
Speaker 3: wish I'd gone longer.
Speaker 4: Well, of course you would, you know, honestly, have they
Speaker 4: not realized that we voted no to the Voice sixty forty.
Speaker 1: Last year, like we rejected this stuff. We don't want
Speaker 1: this stuff anymore.
Speaker 4: I just wish Marshall Langton was right when she said that,
Speaker 4: you know, if the Voice gets voted down, there'll never
Speaker 4: be another Welcome to Country.
Speaker 1: I was hanging on for that one, though. You said,
Speaker 1: if you ever asked to.
Speaker 4: Give a welcome to country, this is the version you
Speaker 4: would give. The best one I've ever heard was oh jeseus.
Speaker 4: Going back nearly ten years ago now, I think it
Speaker 4: was Amanda Blair, who our Adelaide viewers will know, was
Speaker 4: m seeing the Advertiser Food Awards, which was on the
Speaker 4: top floor of the Advertiser building in Adelaide, and she
Speaker 4: opened proceedings by saying I would like to acknowledge the
Speaker 4: traditional land of the owners on which we meet tonight,
Speaker 4: the Murdoch family, and of course the place erupted laughter
Speaker 4: as you want.
Speaker 1: It's a good joke. But of course one of.
Speaker 4: The award recipient's, Jockson Pillow, who is no longer on
Speaker 4: this earth.
Speaker 1: Complained about it.
Speaker 4: He sent one of his lackeys down to accept the
Speaker 4: award and then posted on Twitter complaining and saying, oh.
Speaker 1: How dare they do that? That's so racist? I mean, honest,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 3: Over when towns Will had their first of a V
Speaker 3: eight supercar race, I was asked by Channel seven to
Speaker 3: stand on the front row of the grid and pray
Speaker 3: before the race. And I'm a fully aware of most
Speaker 3: of the people. They're all drunk by the time the
Speaker 3: race about stuff. They don't want to hear some Christian
Speaker 3: get up and pray. So I time my prayer twenty
Speaker 3: five seconds.
Speaker 2: That's all I pray.
Speaker 3: I'm going to pray along in that no one want
Speaker 3: to hear a prayer long in that. It also made
Speaker 3: a difference because I was told that at thirty seconds
Speaker 3: the cars will start their engines and no one will
Speaker 3: hear a word you say. After that, but I was
Speaker 3: very aware it was a privilege to be invited to
Speaker 3: speak at the beginning of that event, which had really
Speaker 3: nothing to do with the prayer, in the same way
Speaker 3: that most events have nothing to do with a welcome
Speaker 3: to country.
Speaker 2: If you're asked to do it, then I think respect
Speaker 2: the fact that somebody else.
Speaker 5: Was she not told, perhaps even not her faults or
Speaker 5: we all know the extortion money that they're paid for
Speaker 5: these welcome to countries. So maybe she was my cay
Speaker 5: for this ten k. Let's assume for this ten k,
Speaker 5: I'll give them a good ten minutes. Maybe she thought
Speaker 5: she was being generous, But what was gross to me
Speaker 5: about this was just the fact that any other if
Speaker 5: this was the opening of an envelope or some new
Speaker 5: building in the CB to go, I couldn't give a rat.
Speaker 5: But this was about the ANZAC Memorial, the ninetieth anniversary
Speaker 5: in Hyde Park. How dare you make it about anything
Speaker 5: else but that? That is what absolutely makes me live.
Speaker 5: The last ANZAC service I went to, every single speaker
Speaker 5: did acknowledgment of country before they gave their address, and
Speaker 5: I was like, for crying out loud, can we just
Speaker 5: have one at the beginning you've touched the box. No,
Speaker 5: every single one of them felt it. The moment called
Speaker 5: for it. It's perpetuating though, right ceremonies where you're not
Speaker 5: keeping the main thing. The main thing is I was
Speaker 5: about to run up on stage, grab that much and bluff.
Speaker 3: First nine speakers and you're speaking number four and the
Speaker 3: first one does it, the second one does it, the
Speaker 3: third one.
Speaker 2: You can't not do it, otherwise you're resue.
Speaker 1: You should. You should. A made of mine did that.
Speaker 4: He's on a big investment board and he was asked
Speaker 4: to give one at the AGM and he said, no,
Speaker 4: I'm not doing it, And good on. More of us
Speaker 4: need to do stuff like that to some good years
Speaker 4: now and ev manufacturer in Europe has fallen over. Now
Speaker 4: they don't actually manufacture the cars. They manufacture the batteries
Speaker 4: that go into the cars.
Speaker 1: Remember the good old days of top Gear.
Speaker 4: I'm talking the real top gear Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond James,
Speaker 4: if they were still going in their original form. This
Speaker 4: is how top Gear would have responded to that news.
Speaker 3: Oh bad news, What the Dacia Sandero it's delayed?
Speaker 1: Oh no, anyway, last week anyway.
Speaker 4: Indeed, this Swedish manufacturer, north Vault, has filed for bankruptcy
Speaker 4: in the US. They say they've only got a week's
Speaker 4: worth of money left and so they are in rather
Speaker 4: a bit of trouble. Now, this company was thought to
Speaker 4: be the great Dwhite hope for EV manufacturing in Europe.
Speaker 4: It would allow them to take on China, because of
Speaker 4: course China's been going one hundred miles an hour in
Speaker 4: terms of evs. But no, it turns out because people
Speaker 4: actually don't want to buy these things, especially at the
Speaker 4: prices they're trying to sell them for.
Speaker 1: They just can't make enough money to make the batteries.
Speaker 4: Reutter's reported that north Vault transformed in a matter of
Speaker 4: months from Europe's best shot at a homegrown electric vehicle
Speaker 4: battery champion to a company struggling to stay afloat by
Speaker 4: slimming down, hobbled by production problems, the loss of a
Speaker 4: major customer and a lack of funding.
Speaker 1: Is it not just more proof.
Speaker 4: That the EV dream we've been sold is a load
Speaker 4: of bunkum and caleb.
Speaker 3: They were so close to making it in business. I
Speaker 3: mean they have thirty million dollars cash in the bank,
Speaker 3: which is enough to pay their six thousand, six hundred
Speaker 3: staff for a week. They've only got five point eight
Speaker 3: billion dollars in debt, so they were absolutely holding out
Speaker 3: of trouble. Eighty five percent of EV batteries come from China,
Speaker 3: and with the collapse of this country, China absolutely have
Speaker 3: a huge share of the market. So our reliance on
Speaker 3: China continues. And that's the problem here. And it's not
Speaker 3: just EV batteries, it's pretty much everything. If China pulled
Speaker 3: the pin, we don't function.
Speaker 5: One China is loving it. Another one down more for
Speaker 5: us to South Australia now where only counsel has decided. Look,
Speaker 5: the cost of living crisis is not hitting our residents
Speaker 5: hard enough. How can we make life more unlivable? I know,
Speaker 5: let's charge people more for parking.
Speaker 1: Get this.
Speaker 5: They have approved a one hundred and fifty five dollar
Speaker 5: permit price hike for residents with no off street parking.
Speaker 5: Can you believe this? Other changes proposed include scrapping hourly
Speaker 5: and daily business parking permits in favor of an annual
Speaker 5: business parking permit at a cost of one thousand and
Speaker 5: forty dollars per year, and increases to time limit exemption permits.
Speaker 5: When are people going to just go This is pure
Speaker 5: revenue raising. We already pay our rates. This is utterly ridiculous.
Speaker 5: I would have thought if you're going to see something
Speaker 5: like this happen, it would be more like in Sydney,
Speaker 5: we're parking anywhere is a blood sport and guess who's
Speaker 5: good at it. But South Australia, this is obviously just
Speaker 5: a revenue raising, money grab to make life more unlivable.
Speaker 3: To park outside your own home. That from forty five
Speaker 3: dollars to two hundred, it's a three hundred and forty
Speaker 3: four percent rise, And the way they've justified it, I
Speaker 3: loved this, Caleb. They said, well, we did a benchmarking exercise,
Speaker 3: which means they went to other councils and had look
Speaker 3: at what they're charging and then use that to justify
Speaker 3: a three hundred and forty four percent rise in the
Speaker 3: middle of a cost of living crisis, which allows them
Speaker 3: to take zero responsibility. So you get every council in
Speaker 3: South Australia all pointing at each other, which means it's
Speaker 3: no one's fault. Residents have no argument. But this is
Speaker 3: the same council that put forty kilometer in our speed
Speaker 3: limits throughout the region, that charges you higher rates if
Speaker 3: you don't have enough trees on your property. It's the
Speaker 3: same council that stopped celebrating Australia Day, only then think oh,
Speaker 3: maybe we should survey residents, after which they decided to
Speaker 3: reinstate Australia Day celebrations. This is a council that don't
Speaker 3: seem to be able to get anything right, but to
Speaker 3: be charged two hundred bucks to park outside your own home.
Speaker 2: Council don't own the streets.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this permit type is specifically for people who
Speaker 4: do not have any parking on their premises. So it's
Speaker 4: actually cheaper to get a parking permit if you have
Speaker 4: a driveway in which to park than if you don't
Speaker 4: actually have a parking space in your house. It is
Speaker 4: just insane, and quickly before we go, while we're talking
Speaker 4: about nonsense decisions from councils, the Sunshine Coast Council have
Speaker 4: to get the nay for the day along with anley
Speaker 4: up in Queensland.
Speaker 1: This mob.
Speaker 4: Of course, they've canceled their midnight fireworks on New Year's Eve.
Speaker 4: It saves them a pidly fifty three thousand dollars right.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a council with a budget of
Speaker 4: about six hundred odd million dollars and they can't spend
Speaker 4: fifty three thousand dollars on their New Year's Eve fireworks
Speaker 4: because they say it is neither a prude nor financially
Speaker 4: responsible use of rate payers funds. So you get the
Speaker 4: nine pm ones for them.
Speaker 1: Oh, ain't even better, But they can't have the midnight fight.
Speaker 4: It's not you easy fireworks if you don't have the
Speaker 4: fireworks at midnight when it actually becomes.
Speaker 5: The New Year.
Speaker 4: I mean, imagine being such an enemy of joy that
Speaker 4: you save fifty three k on the fireworks.
Speaker 5: And in a party town like the Gold Coast without
Speaker 5: Sunshine not sorry, well both of them. This is where
Speaker 5: people actually go to spend their Christmas holidays to see
Speaker 5: the New year in. Sorry guys, it's in keeping with.
Speaker 2: The Sunshine Coast.
Speaker 3: If you can try and get a meal on the
Speaker 3: Sunshine Coast beach strip after nine o'clock, you can't find
Speaker 3: a kitchen that's open. So I'm not surprised about the
Speaker 3: fireworks on New Years ZF. We're going to go to
Speaker 3: a break when we come back. Well, look at what's
Speaker 3: making news tomorrow, including a convicted murderer let out of
Speaker 3: maximum security so she can undergo IVF treatment that's coming
Speaker 3: up in this moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Well, we've got all tomorrow's front pages and there are
Speaker 3: some crap stories tomorrow. Caleb, you've got The Herald's Son.
Speaker 3: It's a really interesting front page.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, take a look at this one. And
Speaker 4: before I read you this story, you have a look
Speaker 4: at the bird that we're talking about here. She's the
Speaker 4: sort of one you'd want to take home to your mother,
Speaker 4: isn't she?
Speaker 1: Murderer let out for I the.
Speaker 4: F A convicted murderer who stabbed a mother to death
Speaker 4: over fifty dollars, has been given the green light to
Speaker 4: be released from a Victorian maximum security prison to undergo
Speaker 4: IVF treatment. I can't believe I'm reading this. Alicia Schiller
Speaker 4: has been approved by authorities to receive the self funded
Speaker 4: fertility treatment while an inmate at Dame Phyllis Frost Center
Speaker 4: in Melbourne's West. A great exclusive from Brook, Rubert Craig
Speaker 4: and Mark Butler. There to my old colleagues at The
Speaker 4: Herald's Son.
Speaker 1: As you can imagine, the father of the woman who.
Speaker 4: Was killed ain't happy about this. He says, I don't
Speaker 4: think it's the right thing.
Speaker 1: To give her a child.
Speaker 4: It's not fair, which I would say is the understatement
Speaker 4: of the scene. I mean, I thought there was the
Speaker 4: idea of being sent to prison is that you lose
Speaker 4: some of your rights because you're repaying your debts to
Speaker 4: society and we're punishing you for the things that you
Speaker 4: have done, and so that involves you not having the
Speaker 4: same rights as someone who is walking freely around Australia
Speaker 4: or Victoria in this case apparently not. You decide, as
Speaker 4: someone who's killed a mother that you want to become
Speaker 4: a mother now worries, you can go to the hospital
Speaker 4: get IVF serious.
Speaker 3: The president for this decision comes from twenty ten where
Speaker 3: a woman named Kimberly Castles, who was serving in a
Speaker 3: minimum security prison in Victoria for fraud. She wanted the
Speaker 3: same thing, wanted IVF treatment and it went to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled IVF
Speaker 3: is a legitimate medical treatment for a legitimate medical condition,
Speaker 3: the same as any other condition, and therefore, on that
Speaker 3: basis she was allowed to go from minimum security back
Speaker 3: and forwards to have IVF treatment. So that's the precedent
Speaker 3: that has allowed this one.
Speaker 5: It's seen as it's totally different cases. This is the
Speaker 5: woman who has stabbed another woman to death.
Speaker 3: But they're saying, if she had cancer, she'd be allowed
Speaker 3: to go and get chemo.
Speaker 5: Oh every cancer pation.
Speaker 2: I know, but that's what the Supreme claimers IVF. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying, that's what the Supreme Court decided back in twelve.
Speaker 5: Eyes to nonsense. This is the kind of person you
Speaker 5: want to withdraw from the gene, Paul, we do not
Speaker 5: want you to procreate. For crying out loud, I mean,
Speaker 5: this is this This boggles my mind because if she
Speaker 5: had been a mother, say she had a newborn at
Speaker 5: the time she committed this crime and was sentenced to jail.
Speaker 5: I don't know how long her sentence is, but it
Speaker 5: better be bloody long. I know this is Victoria we're
Speaker 5: speaking about. Talk about her only in Victoria's story. But
Speaker 5: so let's say that she had a child, got sent
Speaker 5: to prison for crime. What you're going to be in
Speaker 5: there for Let's say at least ten years. I'm just
Speaker 5: making that up off the top of my head. By
Speaker 5: the way, for at least ten years. So why would
Speaker 5: be co implicate matters when you would have been locked
Speaker 5: up away from that child anyway, and you will be
Speaker 5: again depending on how long your sentence is. You're going
Speaker 5: to be pregnant for nine months. If the IVF succeeds,
Speaker 5: then you're going to have a baby in prison. And
Speaker 5: then what the baby stays in prison with you?
Speaker 4: I don't think so well, it's probably what you'll appoint
Speaker 4: the poor the poor kid in this That's who I
Speaker 4: really feel for, is that is the potential kid in
Speaker 4: this situation, having to be brought to the world in
Speaker 4: that circumstance. The whole thing is just disgustingly insane. Another
Speaker 4: story on the front of the Herald Sun tomorrow. Dad
Speaker 4: question will not count. Of course, we were telling you
Speaker 4: last week about at least touchy exams in Victoria where
Speaker 4: the answers to questions have been leaked. A compromise question
Speaker 4: in the VCE Economics exam is not expected to be counted,
Speaker 4: triggering the prospect that answers in many more exams could
Speaker 4: also not be marked. The three six hundred students who
Speaker 4: sat the twenty twenty four economics exam we left confused
Speaker 4: by the first multiple choice question.
Speaker 1: Now, I think this is exactly what I.
Speaker 4: Said last week is probably what they would do, which
Speaker 4: is to just strike out the question and say, okay,
Speaker 4: well that one doesn't count.
Speaker 1: But as I pointed out at the time, that.
Speaker 4: Also you could say that's the fairest option, but it
Speaker 4: also disadvantage as a student who had not previously read
Speaker 4: these leaked answers and got the question right. And perhaps
Speaker 4: that was one of the few questions they actually got
Speaker 4: right in the exam, and the difference between a past
Speaker 4: mark or not was that question, and now it's been removed.
Speaker 3: The crazy thing about this dud question is that originally
Speaker 3: the question was leaked and so they rewrote the question,
Speaker 3: and so this question that is now being scrapped was
Speaker 3: the rewritten question to replace the linked question.
Speaker 2: But it was rewritten so badly they can't included.
Speaker 3: And it's not the first time that the Economics Examine
Speaker 3: Victoria has been compromised with questions that were.
Speaker 2: So bad they had to discount them. But it happened. It's
Speaker 2: twenty twenty and twenty eighteen as well.
Speaker 4: Just look at the government books in Victoria. No running
Speaker 4: the example.
Speaker 5: This is a stalling system. They've all come through, So yeah, no,
Speaker 5: it makes sense to the front page of the odds Now,
Speaker 5: Serpent and a total croc emails expose collusion that this
Speaker 5: is one of those truth is Stranger than Fiction stories. Academic,
Speaker 5: legal and activist figures in the Feld Environmental Defenders Office
Speaker 5: bid to suttle a five point eight billion dollar gas
Speaker 5: field near the Tewe Islands, concocted a rainbow, serpent and
Speaker 5: crocodile man songline map based on guesswork and minimal consultation
Speaker 5: with indigenous leaders. According to court documents, The article goes
Speaker 5: on to denote several of these bullet points. I won't
Speaker 5: read you the more, but some of them are genuinely hilarious.
Speaker 5: The federal court documents reveal University of Western Australia marine
Speaker 5: geoscientists Michael O'Leary send his expert report to the IDIO
Speaker 5: lawyers for edits to ensure it quote meets your expectations
Speaker 5: end quote. Doctor O'Leary, who described himself as quote just
Speaker 5: a white fella end quote, was open to moving the
Speaker 5: rainbow serpent where it seems most culturally appropriate. These these
Speaker 5: bullet points go on and on and on. It is
Speaker 5: absolutely unbelievable. What has been uncovered about this, Like we
Speaker 5: weren't already very sus when major projects get booted because
Speaker 5: someone in the indigenous community is like, well, excuse me,
Speaker 5: this is this is sacred land for these reasons, et cetera,
Speaker 5: and so on. Now we've got the environmental devendors offers
Speaker 5: caught in the act.
Speaker 3: Doesn't it just show how confident they are though, that
Speaker 3: they can say whatever they like and everyone will be
Speaker 3: reticent to criticize lest you're accused of, you know, being
Speaker 3: insensitive to Indigenous people or.
Speaker 2: Racist or whatever.
Speaker 3: The fact they were prepared to put forward such bald
Speaker 3: face lies and did it with a straight face says
Speaker 3: a lot about the environment we're currently living in.
Speaker 2: It's got to the.
Speaker 3: Front page of the Daily Telegraph. I cannot believe this story.
Speaker 3: Rates for Rising Tide is the headline. Lord Mayor Clovermore's
Speaker 3: City of Sydney Council will donate twenty two thousand dollars
Speaker 3: of ratepayers money, as if the council have any other
Speaker 3: kind of money to Rising Tide. That's an environmental group
Speaker 3: that broke the law over the weekend blocking shipping lanes
Speaker 3: in Newcastle. Rate Payers in the city of city are
Speaker 3: going to give twenty two grand to help rising tide
Speaker 3: cover costs for more than one hundred and seventy people
Speaker 3: who were arrested at the Port of Newcastle protest.
Speaker 2: This is absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 3: This has got nothing to do with you know, Serve
Speaker 3: seeing the ratepayers of the City of Sydney.
Speaker 2: This is purely the city.
Speaker 3: Council using ratepayers money to pay for their own ideological fetish.
Speaker 3: And what's more interesting is you've got a couple of
Speaker 3: Labor council members going against the men's government who tried
Speaker 3: to block the protest. They're going to spend money getting
Speaker 3: protesters out on bail.
Speaker 4: I presume reason six and forty seven to abolish councils,
Speaker 4: right right, We're.
Speaker 2: Going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, there's a museum in this country
Speaker 3: teaching people that rocks can have sexual preferences and genders.
Speaker 2: That's coming up at a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Well, of all the stories we've done tonight, Kayla Ericon,
Speaker 3: this one is the strangest.
Speaker 1: It's amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 4: This comes thanks to later bade viewer Emily Shipway, who
Speaker 4: emailed this one in she took her little kiddlywink down
Speaker 4: to the South Australian Museum and thought they'd have a
Speaker 4: look at some of the rocks and crystals, et cetera,
Speaker 4: and came along something quite strange. Now, I'm going to
Speaker 4: be down in Adelaide next week for the cricket, so
Speaker 4: I'm going to go and check this out for myself.
Speaker 4: But you can see here the display. In this case,
Speaker 4: you've got Chien and rose courts up the top. It's
Speaker 4: got bisexual written next to it. For some reason, amethys
Speaker 4: geode says asexual whatever.
Speaker 1: That's about.
Speaker 4: The corresponding flag, the flag for it flu right says
Speaker 4: non binary. You've got what's the one above it, a
Speaker 4: tormalne that says gender fluid. With the gender fluid flag there,
Speaker 4: you've got courts and amethysts that's apparently transgender. You've got
Speaker 4: boulder Opal from Andermouka that's got the Progress Pride flag there.
Speaker 1: And if you read the little.
Speaker 4: Scripts underneath each gem, all it explains is what the
Speaker 4: stone is. It doesn't tell you any reason that there's
Speaker 4: a bloody gender queer, transgender whatever.
Speaker 1: Flag next to it. What on earth is this about?
Speaker 2: I have heard absolutely everything. Now I cannot understand that
Speaker 2: even go.
Speaker 5: To a museum and look at rocks without being indoctrinated
Speaker 5: by the rainbow MafA. She's trying to take good on you, Emily,
Speaker 5: trying to take the kids in to show them, like, oh,
Speaker 5: look at these opals from Australia. Yes they come from Australia.
Speaker 5: How exciting even that you can't do nowadays without having ideology,
Speaker 5: not ideology, rammed down your throat. These rocks have nothing
Speaker 5: to do with sexual anything.
Speaker 4: They've turned the rocks a gay, turn the rocks gay.
Speaker 3: Really quickly before we go. There's a Formula one race
Speaker 3: in Las Vegas over the weekend. You had to have
Speaker 3: a ticket in order to watch the race. There were
Speaker 3: some vantage points outside the fence, but it's illegal to stand.
Speaker 2: Still and watch if you don't have a ticket.
Speaker 3: But there was this escalator which is closer to the
Speaker 3: circuit than any of the seats.
Speaker 2: It's on the best corner.
Speaker 3: There were security guards at the top and bottom, issuing
Speaker 3: fines if anyone stopped and watched, but as long as
Speaker 3: you were moving, you didn't get a ticket. So these
Speaker 3: guys I spent the entire race going up and down
Speaker 3: up and down to watch the Formula One cast.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I would do if I was in
Speaker 2: Las Vegas. What a brilliant way to.
Speaker 1: Watch I'm not even mad. You've got to give a
Speaker 1: nod to the ingenuity of these right, I mean, they
Speaker 1: just found a loophole.
Speaker 2: Good on them, well done.
Speaker 3: That's it from us stick around. Coming up is the
Speaker 3: Rida Penney Show.
Speaker 2: Good Night,