Speaker 1: Get a man.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Late Debates.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.
Speaker 1: I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and freyer Leitch. Coming
Speaker 1: up tonight our dope of the day. You won't believe
Speaker 1: this bloke. He threatens to ruin working from home for everyone.
Speaker 1: And he's a police officer, which begs the question why
Speaker 1: is a copper working from home in the first place.
Speaker 3: We'll explain all of that a little later.
Speaker 1: Plus, when we look at the papers, a mother begs
Speaker 1: police to jail her thirteen year old son after he's
Speaker 1: involved in repeated break and enters. And a new study
Speaker 1: shows few of the sunscreens we buy are actually doing
Speaker 1: what they promise. All of that coming up when we
Speaker 1: look at tomorrow's headlines. But first, a school debating competition
Speaker 1: has been thrown into chaos after year nine students were
Speaker 1: asked to debate whether or not the traditional wife movement
Speaker 1: was good for women. Debating South Australia have been inundated
Speaker 1: by angry calls accusing them of setting back women's progress
Speaker 1: by our one hundred years for allowing the topic even
Speaker 1: to be discussed. They're accused of asking teenage girls to
Speaker 1: argue for their own subjugation. The fural was so bad
Speaker 1: that Debating South Australia had to reassure schools throughout the state.
Speaker 3: The debate wasn't about.
Speaker 1: Whether women must submit or subjugate themselves to men. It
Speaker 1: was simply about whether society would be better served by
Speaker 1: women being at home raising kids. Not only that, but
Speaker 1: they also had to explain how debating works. A statement
Speaker 1: from the Debating Society said, these people complaining they were
Speaker 1: outside people have got nothing to do with debating.
Speaker 3: They don't even know how it works.
Speaker 1: Debating is very formal, and not only do we not
Speaker 1: tolerate in civility, it never happens. It's an intellectual, academic
Speaker 1: exercise bound up in civility, politeness and good manners. Before
Speaker 1: we get to or whether we'll even get to the
Speaker 1: demonization of traditional gender norms and whether that's appropriate or not.
Speaker 1: This idea that we should shield children from debating.
Speaker 3: Isn't the point of debating?
Speaker 1: Frey that oftentimes you take on a position you don't
Speaker 1: even agree with, but you learn intellectual flexibility by debating
Speaker 1: and arguing principles.
Speaker 4: But this is the corner the Left have found themselves in.
Speaker 5: They are unable to even comprehend that people think differently
Speaker 5: to them. So the very idea of debating, the idea
Speaker 5: that there could be two different perspectives on an issue
Speaker 5: is so foreign to them, because for them, there is
Speaker 5: only one side. It is their side, and anyone that
Speaker 5: disagrees with them is in this case arguing for women's
Speaker 5: rights to be stripped away, or they're evil, or they're stupid,
Speaker 5: and that's just how they think.
Speaker 6: I think they can comprehend that people disagree with them,
Speaker 6: they can't comprehend why they.
Speaker 2: Disagree with them.
Speaker 6: And so the point is that you have to suppress
Speaker 6: any other version of thought, because of course, if people
Speaker 6: have free thought and they don't agree with you, well
Speaker 6: then you're in a great deal of trouble, right and
Speaker 6: it is an extraordinary part of the left, I mean,
Speaker 6: the turnaround that we have seen in the last fifty
Speaker 6: odd years from once upon a time, you know. I
Speaker 6: like to think of real lefties, many of which I
Speaker 6: would call friends, who are going to university in the
Speaker 6: sixties and the seventies and were campaigning against the establishment
Speaker 6: and wanted to stop censorship and believed you should be
Speaker 6: able to say whatever the hell you wanted, and we're
Speaker 6: standing up for the common man. And oh, that's all
Speaker 6: the things that the right's doing these days.
Speaker 2: Right, So they have turned into the.
Speaker 6: Establishment, and now that they are the establishment, they want
Speaker 6: to protect themselves in the same way that once upon
Speaker 6: a time the right leaning establishment wanted to protect itself
Speaker 6: the idea that you couldn't say certain things because it
Speaker 6: might offend someone. It was against the sensibilities of the times.
Speaker 6: I mean, that is where we are now dealing with
Speaker 6: the left, to the point where you can't even have
Speaker 6: an intellectual argument about something without being told that you're
Speaker 6: somehow subjugating women. And how is it subjugating women anyway
Speaker 6: to have an argument about whether or not there is
Speaker 6: merit in being a stay at home mum. Of course
Speaker 6: there is merit in being a stay at home mum.
Speaker 6: But the idea, of course now is that unless you
Speaker 6: are a salary man and you're paying tax to the government,
Speaker 6: you have no purpose in life whatsoever.
Speaker 1: That The little trick that the left play, it's quite
Speaker 1: smart in the sense that it often works, is that
Speaker 1: they take an idea they disagree with, and they don't
Speaker 1: just say your idea is wrong, They say your idea
Speaker 1: is harmful. Well, no one wants to see anyone harm.
Speaker 1: So then having established that idea is harmful, they say,
Speaker 1: now we must protect people from harm.
Speaker 3: Therefore that subject cannot be discussed.
Speaker 1: But of course, as you pointed out, Fra, it's never
Speaker 1: about protecting anyone from harm. It's about power and it's
Speaker 1: about control.
Speaker 5: And let's also remember the topic they're debating here, the
Speaker 5: triad wife movement. Here's a girl I found on TikTok
Speaker 5: earlier explaining exactly what this radical and dangerous trade work
Speaker 5: I stand for.
Speaker 7: Have you seen these millennial and Gen Z girls. They
Speaker 7: just want to be at home with their kids. They
Speaker 7: want to have husbands and they want to take care
Speaker 7: of their husbands. They want to cook, and they want
Speaker 7: to clean, and they want to wear dresses. It's insane
Speaker 7: when in reality, it's literally like.
Speaker 4: The oldest lifestyle in the book.
Speaker 7: Before this, they were just called stay at home moms,
Speaker 7: and before that they were just called women. But now
Speaker 7: our society has gone so far in the feminist direction
Speaker 7: that anybody who wants to live like a little bit
Speaker 7: old school and a little bit like how women used
Speaker 7: to live is fringe, right, Like in extremist.
Speaker 5: So the radical feminists have completely demonized anyone that wants
Speaker 5: to take on a more traditional role, which I think
Speaker 5: is to be honest, insulting to women's choice because many
Speaker 5: women choose this lifestyle. But also on the evidence, there's
Speaker 5: a survey that shows conservative young women are three times
Speaker 5: more likely to report being happy with their lives than
Speaker 5: their progressive peers. If you look at mental health studies,
Speaker 5: young progressive women are far more likely to experience mental
Speaker 5: illness than young conservative women. Across a whole range of indicators.
Speaker 5: They are less happy, less fulfilled, and less satisfied with
Speaker 5: life because the message the radical feminist movement sends them
Speaker 5: is it's all about you, it's all about your material advancement.
Speaker 4: It's all about autonomy.
Speaker 5: You shouldn't be shackled with any responsibility or obligation to
Speaker 5: other people.
Speaker 4: Anything like that is just subjugation.
Speaker 5: But really, the recipe for a happy life is responsibility
Speaker 5: and self sacrifice, and that is what the triad wife
Speaker 5: movement embraces.
Speaker 1: What I liked most about this story, Caleb, was a
Speaker 1: lot of the fueral was instigated by an author in
Speaker 1: Queensland who wrote on Facebook a tirade about how wrong
Speaker 1: it was for year nine students to debate whether or
Speaker 1: not traditional gender roles were appropriate. And then when there
Speaker 1: was some pushback on Facebook, this person who said it
Speaker 1: should not be debated promptly shut down all comments on
Speaker 1: their fast book page. So well, clearly has a problem
Speaker 1: with debate webstop exactly.
Speaker 2: And that is the point.
Speaker 6: They don't want to discuss any They just want to
Speaker 6: tell you it's it's.
Speaker 2: My road or the high road. I mean, no wonder that.
Speaker 6: They struggle so badly with these things, because it's a
Speaker 6: hard life being a victim all the time, the victim mentality.
Speaker 6: Speaking of victims, I'm sure one time or another you've
Speaker 6: been a victim of a screaming child on a plane
Speaker 6: or in a restaurant or something, and you've gone, jeez,
Speaker 6: I wish I could just have a few moments where
Speaker 6: I didn't have to listen to kids.
Speaker 2: You may well be out on a.
Speaker 6: Date night and you've got the kids with a babysitter,
Speaker 6: and it's like, can I just have four hours or
Speaker 6: I don't have to listen to think about.
Speaker 2: Or deal with any children.
Speaker 6: Well, interesting opinion piece I read today in the Sydney
Speaker 6: Morning Herald from the Nine Newspapers. Travel writer Ben Groundwater
Speaker 6: about the fact that in France they're now looking at
Speaker 6: the possibility of banning restaurants and hotels and clubs and
Speaker 6: resorts and whatever else from saying that you cannot bring
Speaker 6: your kids. The reasoning is, of course, that you should
Speaker 6: be able to take your kids anywhere. Apparently this is
Speaker 6: been put up by a Socialist senator in France. That
Speaker 6: probably tells you most of what you need to know.
Speaker 6: But their High Commissioner for Childhood in France is also
Speaker 6: looking into the legalities of this and whether or not
Speaker 6: they would be able to prosecute a hotel or another
Speaker 6: venue for not allowing children in. She goes so far
Speaker 6: as to say that to not allow a child into
Speaker 6: a restaurant is violence against children, which seems.
Speaker 2: A bit ridiculous.
Speaker 6: I mean, honestly, surely this is a decision for the
Speaker 6: owner operator of the venue to make. If you say,
Speaker 6: if you have a restaurant or a cafe, or any
Speaker 6: venue for that matter, and you say I don't want
Speaker 6: children in here, surely that's your prerogative.
Speaker 2: If you say I.
Speaker 6: Don't want people with blue hair in my venue, surely
Speaker 6: that's your prerogative. You should be able to have the
Speaker 6: freedom to make the decision about the atmosphere that you
Speaker 6: want in your place. There are plenty of restaurants, plenty
Speaker 6: of cafes that cater to children, that have family friendly
Speaker 6: and they're great places to go. But why can we
Speaker 6: not have a select number of places where they say
Speaker 6: this is an adult only venue for adults to come
Speaker 6: and hang out with other adults.
Speaker 1: I have to laugh when they say not allowing children
Speaker 1: into certain restaurants or hotels violence against children. Allowing children
Speaker 1: in the front half of an aircraft is violence against
Speaker 1: premium passengers. But this is a builder's being discrimination right.
Speaker 1: You can't discriminate against people on the basis of race
Speaker 1: or on the basis of religion, So why should you
Speaker 1: be allowed to discriminate against children on the basis that
Speaker 1: they are children. The argument is flawed, Freyer, for this reason,
Speaker 1: no one is discriminating against children. You are simply saying
Speaker 1: to parents you can't come with your child, and if
Speaker 1: you have a child, that's a lifestyle choice. We're not
Speaker 1: discriminating against children, We're discriminating against adults with children. Second,
Speaker 1: this travel writer is so hypocritical. He says hotels should
Speaker 1: not be able to discriminate against children, though they should
Speaker 1: be allowed to have some adult only areas within the hotel.
Speaker 3: So he's picking and choosing when he wants to discriminate.
Speaker 1: As the only person on this desk who has children,
Speaker 1: can I just say, love them dearly, but it's nice
Speaker 1: to get away from them just occasionally.
Speaker 5: No, I understand what you're saying, and I think the
Speaker 5: argument at the core of this article makes no sense
Speaker 5: because we do already discriminate against children.
Speaker 4: We don't let them into nightclubs, into.
Speaker 5: Casinos, into bars unattended, so that argument doesn't really stack up.
Speaker 5: But I will say I think that as a culture,
Speaker 5: if we want people to be having more kids, and
Speaker 5: we'll talk later in the show about our depopulation crisis,
Speaker 5: then we need to make our country and our culture
Speaker 5: a place where children and family life are actually valued.
Speaker 5: Kids shouldn't be something we just you know, lock away
Speaker 5: at home and we don't want to see them. They're
Speaker 5: too much of an inconvenience. We've got to shift people's
Speaker 5: mindsets from saying kids are a burden to kids are
Speaker 5: a blessing, and I think they are and families should
Speaker 5: be the center of national life, and when you have
Speaker 5: so many spaces that exclude families, it doesn't send the
Speaker 5: right message.
Speaker 6: But people were having far more children when the prevailing
Speaker 6: attitude was that children should be seen and not heard.
Speaker 6: So I'm not sure that anyone's failing to have kids
Speaker 6: because they can't take into a risk.
Speaker 5: No, But it's the implicit cultural message that's sent, which
Speaker 5: is that children are this annoying burden.
Speaker 4: They impinge on your enjoyment, your ability.
Speaker 5: To live a selfish life, care free, unencumbered by responsibility
Speaker 5: to others, and that is not the message we should
Speaker 5: be sending.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that having kids running around an exclusive
Speaker 1: resort in the middle of the Pacific where people are
Speaker 1: trying to relax after stressful three months is promoting family.
Speaker 3: And child rearing.
Speaker 1: People that the rise of the anti child movement is
Speaker 1: a thing. You make a great point, but I don't
Speaker 1: think this is that where people desire just to get
Speaker 1: away for a little bit, you know, just as a
Speaker 1: couple away from them kids.
Speaker 4: But it can be taken to an extreme.
Speaker 5: Sure resources and this is why I don't support a
Speaker 5: ban on adults only venues. Resorts are probably an exception
Speaker 5: but when you get to the point of saying no
Speaker 5: kids in restaurants, no kids in cafes, we just don't
Speaker 5: want kids around.
Speaker 4: This is the mentality.
Speaker 3: It's a true blanket thing.
Speaker 1: It's just that there should be some restaurants where you
Speaker 1: know you go and you're not going to be annoyed
Speaker 1: by other people's kids.
Speaker 3: And there's a problem.
Speaker 1: If you could ban bad parenting, well problem would correct.
Speaker 6: Correct, But why should we be able to dictate to
Speaker 6: private venues what they do with their entry rules.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are certain places.
Speaker 6: You cannot go into pubs, clubs, whatever it says on
Speaker 6: the front door, you can't come in if you've got
Speaker 6: visible tattoos. Well, that's simply the rules of entry. You
Speaker 6: cover up your tattoos. If they say you can't bring
Speaker 6: in your kids, you can't bring in your kids. Who
Speaker 6: are waiting to tell a private operator what they can
Speaker 6: and cannot do, Well, that's.
Speaker 5: Why I'm not supporting the legislation. But I think as
Speaker 5: a cultural message, we need to be careful to remain
Speaker 5: pro family.
Speaker 4: And here's why.
Speaker 5: A new study by the UN Population Fund has one
Speaker 5: of collapsing birth rates.
Speaker 4: This is something conservatives have been talking.
Speaker 5: About for a long time, but the prevailing orthodoxy has
Speaker 5: been no, the world is overpopulated, we have too many people.
Speaker 5: But that's actually not the case. In fact, so many
Speaker 5: countries are below replacement rate.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 5: Our birth rate here in Australia is one point five
Speaker 5: births per women.
Speaker 4: Even India now.
Speaker 5: Has a birth rate below replacement rate. Now, this study,
Speaker 5: it surveyed thousands of people across fourteen countries. It was
Speaker 5: representative of people from a low income to high income,
Speaker 5: every category of society, and they found about one in
Speaker 5: five people are having fewer children than they would like.
Speaker 5: That is hundreds of millions of people having fewer children
Speaker 5: than they would like. And the two primary reasons for
Speaker 5: that was one financial which makes sense, but two the
Speaker 5: inner bild to find a partner. Now, this is genuinely
Speaker 5: so sad. South Korea has the lowest birth rate in
Speaker 5: the world at just zero point seven eight children per woman.
Speaker 5: That means in about three or four generations their population
Speaker 5: will more than half the country and its culture and
Speaker 5: its history is literally going extinct. This is the greatest
Speaker 5: crisis the world faces, yet no one seems to be
Speaker 5: talking about it.
Speaker 4: James.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The UN study says the world has begun a quote
Speaker 1: unprecedented decline in fertility rates, and as you said, Freyer,
Speaker 1: so many people lamented the fact that they hadn't been
Speaker 1: able to have more children. Fully, a third of people
Speaker 1: over the age of fifty surveyed said they wish they
Speaker 1: had had more children, but primarily it was because of
Speaker 1: financial issues that they'd been prevented. This is a welcome change,
Speaker 1: by the way, from the United Nations talking about the
Speaker 1: need to have more children, because just last April they
Speaker 1: were promoting their commitment and dedication to advancing and accelerating
Speaker 1: abortion rights. There's seventy three million children aborted every year.
Speaker 1: That's thirty percent of all pregnancies worldwide are aborted. And
Speaker 1: a year ago the United Nations were championing that. Now
Speaker 1: they're saying, look, maybe that's not such.
Speaker 3: A great idea.
Speaker 1: Fertility rates are falling, and obviously that's got massive economic implications.
Speaker 1: It's got massive implications for how we look after our elderly,
Speaker 1: and it's got massive implications for culture as well. And
Speaker 1: I think Caleb, there is a cultural issue here. Yes,
Speaker 1: there's economics, but when you've got a culture, particularly in
Speaker 1: the West, which is nilistic in worldview, we end up
Speaker 1: as nothing. We just return to dust. Life is tough anyway.
Speaker 1: Why would you want to bring more people into a
Speaker 1: world that's already filled with trouble and there's no hope
Speaker 1: for the future. Then you end up with people who
Speaker 1: are living for the here and now with no thought
Speaker 1: for the future. And that actually does have some economic
Speaker 1: implications because we live in a culture where no one
Speaker 1: wants to save, no one wants to sacrifice in order
Speaker 1: to have a surplus. Again, we're happy with deficits as
Speaker 1: far as the eye can see, because we don't actually
Speaker 1: believe in the future, which is one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why we're not having children.
Speaker 6: Well, ironically, the people who campaign on climate change, which
Speaker 6: they say is a threat to the world, call themselves
Speaker 6: extinction rebellion, by which they're implying that they think the
Speaker 6: human race should continue on this planet. And they are
Speaker 6: the same people I suspected would say that the planet
Speaker 6: is being killed by human beings.
Speaker 2: Right, and so it's somewhat of a nonsensical argument.
Speaker 6: The cultural and the economic I think are heavily intertwined
Speaker 6: when it comes.
Speaker 2: To this issue.
Speaker 6: Because, of course, as the survey bears out, one of
Speaker 6: the major causes of this is the cost of having
Speaker 6: children and the cost of living in general, because if
Speaker 6: money was no object, you'd be able to have as
Speaker 6: many children as you wanted. But in the modern world,
Speaker 6: particularly in western nations, the only place that has a
Speaker 6: positive birth rate now is sub Saharan Africa. Literally, the
Speaker 6: rest of the world is not meeting replacement rate. So
Speaker 6: you follow that through to its logical conclusion, and we'll
Speaker 6: go back to the original days of human beings when
Speaker 6: they came from Africa, and they will have to come
Speaker 6: and colonize the rest of.
Speaker 2: The world again.
Speaker 6: But we have ended up with a society where we
Speaker 6: are chasing eternal economic growth, and in order to fund
Speaker 6: that eternal economic growth, everyone has to go to work.
Speaker 6: And we come back to the argument we were having
Speaker 6: before about the validity of.
Speaker 2: Stay at home mothers, etc.
Speaker 6: The moment at which it was decided that women should
Speaker 6: go to work, not just that they should have the
Speaker 6: option to go to work, but it should be the
Speaker 6: fault that women do go to work. That was the
Speaker 6: cultural moment where we all turned around and ended up
Speaker 6: in this position. Because that was great for governments because
Speaker 6: it meant they could generate more tax revenue, which is
Speaker 6: great for them because they can spend more and give
Speaker 6: more things to more people and pump themselves up, etc.
Speaker 6: But in doing so, by having more people in the economy,
Speaker 6: generating more income and paying more tax, it means inflation.
Speaker 6: And then inflation means that you have to pay more
Speaker 6: for things, and so you can't afford to be a
Speaker 6: one income family anymore. I mean, my brother and I
Speaker 6: and we're both in our twenties, were raised by my
Speaker 6: parents on one and a quarter incomes. My father worked
Speaker 6: as a laborer and still works as a council gardener,
Speaker 6: and my mom did a shift on Saturdays and one
Speaker 6: on a Thursday night in retail. They weren't making a
Speaker 6: lot of money. But you know, twenty five years ago
Speaker 6: you could raise two kids on an income like that.
Speaker 6: It is impossible today. And I go back to the
Speaker 6: words of John Howard in two thousand when he said
Speaker 6: it a speech in London, and these words are in
Speaker 6: true today. It is important for all of us, whether
Speaker 6: we are in business or in pos all of us
Speaker 6: who are concerned about the future of our society, in
Speaker 6: the cohesion of our society, whether it be in Australia
Speaker 6: or here in Britain to remember that economic policy, however
Speaker 6: you define it and however you pursue it, is never
Speaker 6: some end in itself. That the purpose of economic policy
Speaker 6: is to produce a social dividend, to achieve social goals.
Speaker 6: Personal contentment and human fulfillment and the stability and cohesion
Speaker 6: of society are the ultimate goals of sound economic policy.
Speaker 6: And he echoed this again in four at his campaign
Speaker 6: launch when he said that running the economy well only
Speaker 6: has a purpose if it delivers a human dividend, if
Speaker 6: it delivers things for the Australian people. That is what
Speaker 6: we have lost. Sight of the economy no longer serves us.
Speaker 2: We serve the economy and that's why people don't have kids.
Speaker 5: And it is important to note that the only country,
Speaker 5: the only developed country with a birth rate above replacement
Speaker 5: rate is Israel. Why because there's a cultural imperative, a
Speaker 5: security imperative to have children, survival of the Jewish group,
Speaker 5: but also culturally the first commandment in the Bible is
Speaker 5: be fruitful and multiply and they take that very seriously.
Speaker 5: So part of what we need to do as a
Speaker 5: country is yes, shift the economic policy to make it
Speaker 5: possible to have children, but also we just need leaders
Speaker 5: in the public square to talk about how great families are.
Speaker 4: That'll do a lot to change the culture.
Speaker 1: It's funny that point, because I remember Richard Dawkins and
Speaker 1: some of the new atheists talking about how religion would
Speaker 1: eventually die out. What they didn't count on was birth rates,
Speaker 1: because typically it's religious people who have children. Someone who's
Speaker 1: doing his best to repopulate the earth is Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: What skept is it ten children, twelve or in the
Speaker 1: day's twelve. He's doing his bit, that's for sure. But
Speaker 1: on the other side of things, his relationship with Trump,
Speaker 1: which has been kind of frosty to say the least,
Speaker 1: looks like it may be starting to thaw out. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk tweeted today, I regret some of my posts about
Speaker 1: President Trump last week.
Speaker 3: They went too far.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: He didn't specify of his posts, whether it was the
Speaker 1: ones calling for Trump to be what's.
Speaker 3: The word I'm looking for to be.
Speaker 1: Pitched, Yes, impeached, I was gonna say impinged, impeached, or
Speaker 1: whether it was those tweets linking him with Epstein. But
Speaker 1: Elon Musk clearly has decided he needs to patch things up,
Speaker 1: and he found Donald Trump to be quite conciliatory. Trump,
Speaker 1: when asked about his relationship with Elon Musk and how
Speaker 1: he was feeling about Musk after Musk had panned him
Speaker 1: on social media, Listen, look, I wish him well.
Speaker 6: You understand, we had a good relationship, and I just
Speaker 6: wish him well, very well.
Speaker 1: Actually, And that little message from Trump was posted on
Speaker 1: x and one of the first people to comment was
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, who posted a love heart in reply.
Speaker 3: So that's quite nice.
Speaker 1: Fascinatingly, Eryl Musk, Elon's dad was in Russia, of all places,
Speaker 1: in the last couple of days, where he was speaking
Speaker 1: at a public event, and he said that Elon acknowledged
Speaker 1: he had gone too far. Politics wasn't really his thing.
Speaker 1: He's a great business person, not so good at politics,
Speaker 1: and he realizes he needs to patch things up. But
Speaker 1: I mean, the big point of this story is how
Speaker 1: confused is everybody in the world right now? Do do
Speaker 1: I buy a cyber truck or do I not buy
Speaker 1: a cyber truck? The left to confused, the right confused.
Speaker 2: What do we do?
Speaker 6: I mean, this is like a full blown romantic relationship
Speaker 6: where you know they have an argument after they've been
Speaker 6: on the piece on a Friday night and they're like, no,
Speaker 6: it's all over. I never want to see you again
Speaker 6: after all, never come back, it's all done. And then
Speaker 6: you come back the next day and they've thrown all
Speaker 6: your belongings out on the footpath and you trudge and
Speaker 6: have to go and find a motel to go and
Speaker 6: stay in.
Speaker 2: Then a few days later you both go.
Speaker 6: Oh, gee, I think we're better together, aren't we.
Speaker 2: We miss that up.
Speaker 3: And then you're very modern because you slowly media.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly, and then he isn't a slowly start. I mean,
Speaker 6: that is exactly what is happening here. I want to
Speaker 6: know what was going on with Elon Musk last week
Speaker 6: when he decided to go off his nut, because of
Speaker 6: course there have been all these all these rumors online
Speaker 6: that he's into drugs and whatever else. I mean, what
Speaker 6: on earth possessed him to go off like he did
Speaker 6: last week and then so quickly realized I overstepped the mark.
Speaker 1: Trump was asked about the whole drug thing, and Trump said,
Speaker 1: I've never seen it then, and I certainly hope not.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't have thought so.
Speaker 1: But Elon Musk's dad when asked what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on with your son, he just said he's been
Speaker 1: under a lot of stress. Obviously working the Trump administration
Speaker 1: with the DOGE program was pretty hectic, and his son
Speaker 1: basically just flipped out, that's dad's tape.
Speaker 4: I'm not so sure about that, you know, just stress.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Stress doesn't really make you tweet to your two hundred
Speaker 5: million plus X followers that Donald Trump is involved in
Speaker 5: the Epstein files, Like that's a pretty calculated targeted attack.
Speaker 5: But look, I think regardless, Elon has woken up to
Speaker 5: the fact that he is coming off worse in this conflict.
Speaker 5: Look at the value of It's been wiped off, Tesla,
Speaker 5: off his businesses. It's not a good path for him
Speaker 5: to go down.
Speaker 4: He is losing more.
Speaker 5: He also has about twenty two billion dollars of SpaceX
Speaker 5: contracts with NASA that Donald Trump seems to have threatened
Speaker 5: a pool. He threatened a pool. So no one is
Speaker 5: winning from this conflict. It's like when we talked about
Speaker 5: the Liberal and National Coalition break up a couple weeks ago.
Speaker 5: It's like, no one wins from this breakup, Like, let's
Speaker 5: just get back together, guys.
Speaker 3: Well, The other.
Speaker 1: Interesting part of this story is the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: have leaked that Elon Musk was being monitored by Homeland
Speaker 1: Security and the Justice Department. This is prior to him
Speaker 1: working with Trump, but spy agencies in the US were
Speaker 1: monitoring who was coming and going from his place of residence,
Speaker 1: particularly foreign contacts. Now, of course, Elon Musk, with SpaceX,
Speaker 1: has access to highly sensitive government information, so I guess
Speaker 1: it's no surprise that the White House would be monitoring
Speaker 1: who's coming and going, or at least spy agencies would be.
Speaker 1: As I said, this was before his association with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and before this Trump administration. Trump's administration was asked
Speaker 1: about this and they said, we don't know anything about it.
Speaker 1: But it's just interesting that in the middle of this
Speaker 1: whole feud with Trump, that this story is now doing
Speaker 1: the rounds that spy agencies have been watching Elon and
Speaker 1: who he associates with.
Speaker 6: Indeed, but they started monitoring him in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 6: and twenty twenty two was when he bought Twitter, which
Speaker 6: is now X. So yes, you can say, oh, you know,
Speaker 6: they were keeping an eye on who he was dealing
Speaker 6: with because it might have some implications for government information, etc.
Speaker 6: But you do have to wonder how much of it was.
Speaker 6: Oh God, this guy has just bought one of the
Speaker 6: biggest social media platforms in the world. We've got a
Speaker 6: presidential election coming up in two years.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should keep.
Speaker 6: An eye on who the guy is dealing with because
Speaker 6: it might tell us what he's about to do. And
Speaker 6: they had good reason to do so. I suppose in
Speaker 6: that case, because there is a very fair argument to
Speaker 6: be made that if it weren't for Elon Musk and X,
Speaker 6: that Trump would have had a much harder job of
Speaker 6: being re elected.
Speaker 3: Wait, so are you saying that Dems were using US
Speaker 3: spy agencies for their own political purpose?
Speaker 6: I'm suggesting that, yes, James, I've who would have thought.
Speaker 6: It's not like they did that to Donald Trump. Isn't
Speaker 6: it like they used the DOJ to go after Trump
Speaker 6: to try and prevent him from running. No, it happened
Speaker 6: when he bought Twitter. What is that to about what's
Speaker 6: going on? While we're talking about potential foreign infiltration, China
Speaker 6: seems to be doing a pretty good job of it
Speaker 6: at the moment, particularly when it comes to the US.
Speaker 6: We told you on Thursday night about the case of
Speaker 6: two researchers who'd been trying to smuggle a fungus into
Speaker 6: the United States that they're going to take to the
Speaker 6: University of Michigan to work on a project. And this
Speaker 6: was a crop killing fungus. And you have to ask,
Speaker 6: why do you need to take a crop killing fungus
Speaker 6: from China, particularly when one of these researchers is linked
Speaker 6: to the CCP, one's been arrested, one is currently on
Speaker 6: the run. Why do you need to take it from
Speaker 6: China into the US to do research on it? Unless
Speaker 6: you know, perhaps you were hoping it might get out
Speaker 6: somewhere a La covid in Wuhan. He could just research
Speaker 6: it in China, wouldn't you where it was a risk
Speaker 6: to Chinese crops and not US crops. Well, now they
Speaker 6: picked up another person, another Chinese national, trying to get
Speaker 6: into the United States to do research at the University
Speaker 6: of Michigan after trying to smuggle through biological material. This
Speaker 6: time they picked up a woman, shin Uan Han, who
Speaker 6: flew into Detroit just the other day and on at
Speaker 6: least four occasions she'd been trying to smuggle in round
Speaker 6: worms or material relating to round worms for some reason
Speaker 6: or another.
Speaker 2: She says she was going to do research on the University.
Speaker 6: Of Michigan, including between the pages of books.
Speaker 2: Right, so this all has.
Speaker 6: To be declared and you need permission to bring any
Speaker 6: of this kind of thing into the United States. But
Speaker 6: it turns out that people in China, including those with
Speaker 6: links to the CCP, don't have any regard for these
Speaker 6: rules for some reason, and are trying.
Speaker 2: To get things into the US in books.
Speaker 6: I just cannot, for the life of me work out
Speaker 6: why they might be doing this.
Speaker 4: It's not suspicious at all.
Speaker 5: It's also not suspicious at all that they're both at
Speaker 5: the University of Michigan, both dealing in biological sciences and
Speaker 5: earth matter.
Speaker 4: But there's nothing suspicious about this at all. I'm completely joking,
Speaker 4: of course.
Speaker 5: But agro terrorism, which is what this is attacks on
Speaker 5: agriculture and the food supply, has been identified as a
Speaker 5: serious era of weakness for the United States. They have
Speaker 5: a very centralized agricultural sector, so it's something like fifty
Speaker 5: meat processing plants ninety eight percent of US beef. Their
Speaker 5: farmland is largely unguarded and open to the public, and
Speaker 5: when these diseases actually take a root in agriculture. They
Speaker 5: often can spread very rapidly without being detected. So while
Speaker 5: we laugh about the mysterious fungus and the worm, this
Speaker 5: is a very serious threat to the US. Farming is
Speaker 5: five point five percent of US GDP twenty million jobs.
Speaker 4: A successful attack on US.
Speaker 5: Farmland would debilitate the food supply but also the economy
Speaker 5: and wreak havoc on the country. So it's very concerning,
Speaker 5: and it is just another front in the multi dimensional
Speaker 5: Cold war we're already in with China.
Speaker 3: You mentioned multidimensional.
Speaker 1: This has been going on for some years with Chinese
Speaker 1: students in the US linked to.
Speaker 3: The Communist Party.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Chinese students whore arrested for filming
Speaker 1: a naval base in Florida. In twenty twenty two, a
Speaker 1: student from China was sentenced to eight years jail for
Speaker 1: trying to steal classified information from me US defense contractor.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, speaking of the University of Michigan,
Speaker 1: five Chinese students from that university indicted by theba FBI
Speaker 1: for filming joint US Taiwan military exercises.
Speaker 3: Don't forget we had the spy.
Speaker 1: Balloons just drifting over mainland United States when Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was president, and it was at last month that they
Speaker 1: found transmitters Chinese transmitters in solar batteries that had been
Speaker 1: sent to the United States. So this is a very
Speaker 1: real threat and little wonder the Trump administration has talked
Speaker 1: tough on Chinese students, and of course this is about
Speaker 1: Chinese people, it's about the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 3: But clearly there is a.
Speaker 1: Problem with students linked to the Chinese Communist Party in
Speaker 1: America operating in Clandestein.
Speaker 5: Exactly, and it definitely adds to the impetus for the
Speaker 5: Western world to really ramp up expenditure on military. But
Speaker 5: one of the common problems seems like every defense force
Speaker 5: is running.
Speaker 4: Into is slow recruitment.
Speaker 5: We've had our issues here in Australia where about four
Speaker 5: three hundred people short of our authorized defense force capacity.
Speaker 4: But over in the UK.
Speaker 5: They're also experiencing a similar issue, and now a leaked
Speaker 5: memo designed to head to Downing Street has shown that
Speaker 5: they're actually planning to expand who can fill defense force
Speaker 5: jobs to other people in the Commonwealth. So currently fifteen
Speaker 5: percent of the trained strength of the regular Army, which
Speaker 5: is about seventy thousand people can be from Commonwealth countries.
Speaker 5: They want to apply that fifteen percent cap to the
Speaker 5: target goal, so that would open up about three hundred
Speaker 5: and thirty jobs in the Defense Force to applicants who
Speaker 5: are not British citizens but who are from other Commonwealth countries.
Speaker 5: Now this seems a little radical, why would you have
Speaker 5: non citizens in your army. But we've done the same
Speaker 5: thing in Australia, So now we're kind of in this
Speaker 5: weird position where we're all competing for the same people
Speaker 5: because none of us have big enough populations who are
Speaker 5: willing to sacrifice or who can meet the health requirements
Speaker 5: or the fitness requirements to actually get into the army.
Speaker 1: You know what I thought when I saw this story,
Speaker 1: I thought it totally makes sense for the British Army
Speaker 1: to open up recruitment to the wider Commonwealth because from
Speaker 1: what I've seen of much of the population of the UK,
Speaker 1: I reckon they might get more loyalty from outside of
Speaker 1: England around the Commonwealth from people inside the UK.
Speaker 6: Right, Well, yes, unless, of course it's the Islamic forces
Speaker 6: that are going off to war. But I mean there's
Speaker 6: seventy three odd thousand people in the United Kingdom military
Speaker 6: right now. That is the smallest it's been in three
Speaker 6: hundred years. I mean, I'm not sure what the population
Speaker 6: was three hundred years ago, but you can be damned
Speaker 6: sure it's a lot less than the sixty five seventy
Speaker 6: million people who live in the UK today, and it
Speaker 6: is the lowest it's been in three hundred years. I mean,
Speaker 6: we are sitting ducks. And I say we, the Royal
Speaker 6: we the West are sitting ducks when it comes.
Speaker 2: To this stuff. And the reason they've kept.
Speaker 6: Commonwealth entrance to a minimum is because, of course, you know,
Speaker 6: other countries may at some point say well, actually we
Speaker 6: want our soldiers back, or we don't want you deploying
Speaker 6: them to X, y Z. So they've tried to keep
Speaker 6: the number as small as possible so they can have
Speaker 6: as much control of the military as possible. But if
Speaker 6: you can't get people to enlist, you have a serious problem.
Speaker 6: And that's why, you know, I made a lax joke
Speaker 6: about Islam before, but this is a major problem for
Speaker 6: Western countries now when you have cultural disconnects between people
Speaker 6: who have emigrated to Western nations and haven't been fully
Speaker 6: integrated into them. You're never going to convince them to
Speaker 6: go to war for that country. So hence you have
Speaker 6: a situation now where children are told that the countries
Speaker 6: they live in are illegitimate. Countries are being filled with
Speaker 6: people who have no real connection to thee they have
Speaker 6: moved to. Is it any wonder you can't get people
Speaker 6: to sign up for the military.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great point. Just quickly before we go
Speaker 1: to a break. Just something regarding energy policy in this
Speaker 1: country that I haven't heard many people talk about, but
Speaker 1: it prompted my thinking when I read about Amazon spending
Speaker 1: twenty billion dollars building data centers, a couple of new
Speaker 1: data centers in Pennsylvania. What was intriguing is that one
Speaker 1: of their new data centers will be built directly adjacent
Speaker 1: to a nuclear power plant. Now, these data centers, there's
Speaker 1: about one hundred and fifty one hundred and seventy currently
Speaker 1: in Australia, it might be over two hundred. Actually, they
Speaker 1: use an inordinate amount of power each data center, equivalent
Speaker 1: to about the power that will be required to light
Speaker 1: up fifty thousand homes. Currently in Australia, data centers used
Speaker 1: five percent of our grid. They predict but by twenty thirty,
Speaker 1: data centers could be using fifteen percent of the power
Speaker 1: generated in this country.
Speaker 3: With AI and data.
Speaker 1: Being the new growth area right around the world, it
Speaker 1: just struck me that Australia is ill equipped for this.
Speaker 1: If data centers are going to continue propagating around the
Speaker 1: country so we can keep up economically and technologically with
Speaker 1: other nations, gee, we need to think about that regarding
Speaker 1: the energy grid, because data centers will be competing with
Speaker 1: industry with households, and it seems to me we are
Speaker 1: very ill prepared for that.
Speaker 2: Well, we won't be able to keep up.
Speaker 6: Meanwhile, down in Victoria, you've got twenty five percent of
Speaker 6: the Lawn coal five power station's gone offline because of
Speaker 6: course we don't need coal anymore. Right, So here we
Speaker 6: are in a situation where in the middle of winter
Speaker 6: or at the start of winter, you know, we could
Speaker 6: have people in Victoria not being able to turn the
Speaker 6: lights on.
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, in the rest of.
Speaker 6: The world they're ramping up nuclear and saying this is
Speaker 6: the future because it's the only way we can get
Speaker 6: enough power to do the things of the future. I mean,
Speaker 6: we look, our military is as bad as the UK
Speaker 6: we may as well just tell Jijing Pinca and take
Speaker 6: the jo because we're not doing anything with it.
Speaker 2: It's serious.
Speaker 3: Let's hope Jijiping is not watching the program. We're going
Speaker 3: to go to a break.
Speaker 1: When we come back, a mother begs police lock up
Speaker 1: my thirteen year old boy. I can't control him. It's
Speaker 1: in the papers. We'll look at it in just a moment.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow, so
Speaker 1: you hear it here. First, The Canberra Times has got
Speaker 1: an interesting Bob cattarant on the front page. Kata slams
Speaker 1: public holiday. Apparently it's a holiday in Canberra territory.
Speaker 3: Tokenism, he says.
Speaker 1: MP Bob Kat has unleashed on the Act government for
Speaker 1: observing Reconciliation Day, describing the public holiday, which is unique
Speaker 1: to the territory, as a disgraceful display of backslapping tokenism.
Speaker 1: He says, while Indigenous people are dying at an average
Speaker 1: age of forty nine, Canberra takes a day off. Instead
Speaker 1: of closing the gap, they're closing the office. He says,
Speaker 1: it's an insult dressed up as empathy. Reconciliation Day was
Speaker 1: first initiated in the Act back in twenty eighteen as
Speaker 1: a celebration of the nineteen sixty seven referendum where Indigenous
Speaker 1: people were included in the census. Bob kattamakes the point
Speaker 1: that that referendum gave Canbra the ability to overrule states
Speaker 1: when it came to dealing with Indigenous people, and having
Speaker 1: gotten that power.
Speaker 3: What do they do with it?
Speaker 1: They give themselves a public holiday while Indigenous people's conditions
Speaker 1: continue to get worse. What they do on this day,
Speaker 1: Freyer is it's all about truth telling, knowledge sharing and healing,
Speaker 1: and so Canberians ll get a day off. As I said,
Speaker 1: it's the only place in the country, but does nothing
Speaker 1: to help even a single Indigenous person.
Speaker 5: All those bureaucrats, they've just got a lot of healing
Speaker 5: to do in their souls.
Speaker 4: I really do believe that did so.
Speaker 2: It was truth telling, healing, knowledge sharing.
Speaker 6: Now, yeah, and I'm sure the public holiday has nothing
Speaker 6: about getting on the turp side.
Speaker 2: That doesn't.
Speaker 6: I mean, like, what do you think people do with
Speaker 6: public holidays? For heaven say, no one's getting around Canberra
Speaker 6: on Reconciliation Day during the truth tilling and healing. They're
Speaker 6: drinking lots of grog, like anyone does in the public holidays.
Speaker 5: So ridiculous. Moving on to the Daily Telly. Now the
Speaker 5: headline is lock up my kid. A mother has pleaded
Speaker 5: for police to discipline her teenage son after he broke
Speaker 5: into a local business twice.
Speaker 4: On the state's mid North coast.
Speaker 5: The woman said she was stunned to discover there were
Speaker 5: no consequences when her thirteen year old was arrested for
Speaker 5: the second time, saying I even said, surely you need
Speaker 5: to put him in the watchhouse for a few hours.
Speaker 5: It comes as the Men's government reviews Dolly incapacts the
Speaker 5: legal presumption that children age ten to fourteen do not
Speaker 5: sufficiently understand right and wrong. Now this is really interesting
Speaker 5: because the left is on this issue. Try to argue,
Speaker 5: oh no, but the children have no idea what they're doing. Okay,
Speaker 5: broke it into a store twice the mother. The mother says,
Speaker 5: please discipline my son, and the courts are going, nah,
Speaker 5: let him out, Like this is how a youth crime
Speaker 5: crisis starts New South Wales.
Speaker 1: Exactly that there's a lot of experts giving parenting advice,
Speaker 1: and you just wonder whether many of those experts are
Speaker 1: actually parents themselves, because parents know what's going on.
Speaker 3: This story actually reminded me that I'm making light.
Speaker 1: I'm sure this instance looks very serious, but I remember
Speaker 1: one of my mates when we were all kids. He
Speaker 1: stole something from a shop and the shop owner set
Speaker 1: the kid down, rang his mum and said, can you
Speaker 1: come and collect your kid? And she said, no, no,
Speaker 1: I won't come and collect him if he stolen property.
Speaker 3: Why would you ring me? Wouldn't you ring the police?
Speaker 1: And she allowed the police to go down to the shop,
Speaker 1: absolutely refurking.
Speaker 3: It was my mate. He was scared witless. I don't
Speaker 3: think he ever stole anything ever.
Speaker 2: Again, I'm not surprised by that.
Speaker 6: And that's sort of what we've lost in the world
Speaker 6: these days, as is proper discipline and community, you know,
Speaker 6: where you could actually pick up the phone to some
Speaker 6: kid's parent and say, oh, what's his son doing. But
Speaker 6: we've lost discipline. We've lost it from classrooms in many cases,
Speaker 6: not entirely, but in many cases we've lost it from homes.
Speaker 6: And look, you would have to be pretty desperate as
Speaker 6: a parent to be pleading with the court to discipline
Speaker 6: your child, like you know, often we talk about why
Speaker 6: what are these kids doing, where are the parents, etc.
Speaker 6: But if you've got a mum saying like I need
Speaker 6: the court to do something about it, clearly he is
Speaker 6: behaving beyond her capacity to discipline him, or he's just
Speaker 6: not responding to discipline and she is saying he needs
Speaker 6: something serious. Let's go to the courier mail speaking of
Speaker 6: places where, of course they've had problems with youth crime Queensland,
Speaker 6: but this is a problem of a different kind, doesn't
Speaker 6: just apply to Queensland. I suspect this is a story
Speaker 6: that will be talked about a great deal tomorrow. Slip slop,
Speaker 6: slap in the face is the headline. Australians are buying
Speaker 6: big brand sunscreens fifty plus but are actually getting products
Speaker 6: with alarmingly lower levels of protection, sparking an urgent call
Speaker 6: for a government probe into product compliance. But total of
Speaker 6: sixteen out of twenty products an las by consumer group
Speaker 6: Choice did not meet the SBA fifty claims, with some
Speaker 6: testing as low as four. Even sunscreen sold by the
Speaker 6: Cancer Council did not offer the level of protection promise,
Speaker 6: with a spokesman saying they were very concerned and you
Speaker 6: would be very concerned because you'd think when you're putting
Speaker 6: on your fifty plus sunscreen that you are doing everything
Speaker 6: to protect yourself. But in many you were probably getting
Speaker 6: a level of protection. But in many cases, if not
Speaker 6: most cases, it would seem you're not getting the protection
Speaker 6: you were promised or you thought you were getting.
Speaker 1: It's a big story for the career mail when you
Speaker 1: look at the rates of skin cancers cap alte Bit Queensland,
Speaker 1: where it's taken very very seriously for this sort of
Speaker 1: news about what's going on with these products is pretty shocking.
Speaker 2: Proof that subscreen does work.
Speaker 6: During this summer, I went to the beach and I
Speaker 6: was supid enough to put the sunscreen on myself. I
Speaker 6: didn't get it put on my back, and I was
Speaker 6: sitting at dinner that night and I'm like, bloody hell, I'm.
Speaker 2: All burning up my back.
Speaker 6: So I took my shirt off and had a look
Speaker 6: in the mirror and there was dead set the handpreat
Speaker 6: where my hand had been able to get to with
Speaker 6: the sunscreen. So it does work, but maybe just not
Speaker 6: as well as you.
Speaker 5: You can always tell the groups of young single men
Speaker 5: at the beach because they they're all covered everywhere, And
Speaker 5: then you see their bags and they're completely lovest. It
Speaker 5: I particularly poor form coming from the Cancer Council, but yeah, wow.
Speaker 5: Moving on to the Herald Sun now the headline is
Speaker 5: cruel cop out. Victoria Police is refusing a state coroner's
Speaker 5: request for battered women to be warned when their violent
Speaker 5: partners are getting out of jail, claiming it does not
Speaker 5: have the resources to alert them. Now, this is really
Speaker 5: concerning because I totally understand if your partner has been
Speaker 5: locked away for domestic violence or something of that sort, you,
Speaker 5: as the partner that's been abused, would want and I
Speaker 5: think have every right to know when they're getting out
Speaker 5: of jail. And I can't understand, in the world of
Speaker 5: AI and technology, I don't understand how hard it is
Speaker 5: to just automatically alert close affiliates of these people when
Speaker 5: they're getting out, Like, how hard is it?
Speaker 1: And for police to say, look, we're so sorry, but
Speaker 1: we just don't have time to ensure the protection of
Speaker 1: women who've already been victims of domestic violence just beggars belief.
Speaker 1: If you can't protect women in your society, you must
Speaker 1: us give up the game.
Speaker 3: What are they doing?
Speaker 2: How much of a failed staate can you be.
Speaker 6: I mean, Victoria is texting people up the wazoo with
Speaker 6: the land text and in this emergency services.
Speaker 2: Levy that they've just put on.
Speaker 6: They've got nearly two hundred billion dollars in debt and
Speaker 6: they can't find a few bucks to come up with
Speaker 6: a system to alert victims of domestic violence that the
Speaker 6: offenders have been released from prison.
Speaker 2: Just a disgrace.
Speaker 1: They've got money millions actually for truth telling and for treaty. However,
Speaker 1: so that shows where the priorities are. Let's go to Tasmania.
Speaker 1: The front page of the Mercury says, now it's on.
Speaker 1: That is another election for Tasmanians. They'll be thrilled going
Speaker 1: back to the polls in less than what was it,
Speaker 1: seventeen months since they were last there. Tasmania will have
Speaker 1: its second election within sixteen months. After two days of
Speaker 1: talks failed to break a political deadlock. Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe
Speaker 1: visited Governor Barbara Baker shortly.
Speaker 3: After six pm last night.
Speaker 1: This is of course tomorrow's paper, so for you watching
Speaker 1: right now at six pm this afternoon, and a statement
Speaker 1: was issued shortly afterwards on behalf of the Governor revealing
Speaker 1: the election date so the Liberal Party, unable to sort themselves,
Speaker 1: the Tasmanian public will go back to the polls.
Speaker 6: I'm sure that's what people in Tasmania really want to.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, like a hole in the head on the
Speaker 6: front of the odds tomorrow, says Liberals. Pursuito reject Deeming's ultimatum,
Speaker 6: a dramatic offer from more redeeming to diffuse the crisis
Speaker 6: engulfing the Victorian Liberal Party in John Pursuto, but defering
Speaker 6: most of his legal debt for two years in return
Speaker 6: for guaranteeing her pre selection and receiving an official party
Speaker 6: apology has collapsed. She offered this up to the party
Speaker 6: and they have failed to get back to her in time,
Speaker 6: so it's now done for. And you know, I get
Speaker 6: what she's trying to do, but pre selection should be
Speaker 6: a decision of the members, So I'm not sure you
Speaker 6: can demand that. But on the other hand, is the
Speaker 6: Liberal Party really in any position to be dealing with
Speaker 6: this at the moment?
Speaker 2: Just get it off the books.
Speaker 5: They need to come to some sort of a deal.
Speaker 5: They cannot have a by election because Perzuto's forced out.
Speaker 4: Of parliament because he's bankrupt. That is the worst outcome
Speaker 4: for everyone.
Speaker 3: Are we to go to a break, but stick around.
Speaker 1: You've got to hear about our Dope of the day.
Speaker 1: This guy, a police officer, threatens to ruin work from
Speaker 1: home for everybody. We'll tell you what he's beat up to,
Speaker 1: or rather not up.
Speaker 3: To in just a moment. Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: But we're going to begin with one of our favorite segments,
Speaker 1: our Dope of the Day. Tonight's ward goes to a
Speaker 1: UK copper, Constable Liam Reeks, who's been found guilty of
Speaker 1: gross misconduct and banned from ever walking working for the
Speaker 1: police force for the rest of his life.
Speaker 3: The guy was working from home.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why a copper works from home, but
Speaker 1: the police decided to do an audit of key strokes
Speaker 1: for all those officers working from home, and what they
Speaker 1: found was Constable Reeks, well, his activity was significantly higher
Speaker 1: than all of his colleagues. So they investigated and they
Speaker 1: found what he'd done was opened a blank word document
Speaker 1: and then used a weight to depress the character z
Speaker 1: and do this for four to five hours every day
Speaker 1: to make it look like he was working.
Speaker 3: In fact, over the space of.
Speaker 1: Four months, he did this for one hundred and three hours.
Speaker 1: During the tribunal hearing, he complained that he was stressed.
Speaker 1: I just thought he should have said he was indicating
Speaker 1: that he was sleeping by pressing these the button. Here
Speaker 1: at the late debate, we've managed to get hold of
Speaker 1: an apology letter he wrote to the police force.
Speaker 3: Here it is. We can just get it up on screen.
Speaker 3: There there it is. That's the app to the police force.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're joking, but of course all of this was
Speaker 1: as most world events are prefigured by the Simpsons.
Speaker 6: Couldn't you be working?
Speaker 2: I've got someone to cover for me, hey, quest because
Speaker 2: you're down manually, stupid bird. I never should have put
Speaker 2: you a joge my old job.
Speaker 3: There you go, Fred, that's our dope of the day.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he really does ruin? What king from Home for everyone.
Speaker 5: I've heard about people doing this, but he really did it.
Speaker 4: What an idiot.
Speaker 5: There's a singer though that I.
Speaker 4: Kind of like.
Speaker 5: He's released some very popular songs over the years. His
Speaker 5: name is Pitbull. He's this bold guy. He's middle aged man.
Speaker 5: But there's this new trend where people show up at
Speaker 5: his concerts dressed.
Speaker 4: As Pitbull in the bold caps.
Speaker 5: It's so funny, but people, Rifle is really moved by
Speaker 5: this show of solidarity and support that he's receiving from
Speaker 5: his fans.
Speaker 8: Music is being as powerful it is, and given that outlet,
Speaker 8: that escapism, it's like therapy. You know, you don't know
Speaker 8: what a person's going through in their life, and for
Speaker 8: me to see it, it's an honor. It makes me very,
Speaker 8: very happy. And every time that I'm at the shows,
Speaker 8: I let him know it. When you'll put on those
Speaker 8: ball caps, I hope you are ready to have the
Speaker 8: time in your life.
Speaker 5: Putting on bold caps and dressing up as a middle
Speaker 5: aged man. That is the therapy young people need.
Speaker 3: I don't get it at all.
Speaker 6: I'm not a great fan of Pitbull, but I've been
Speaker 6: reading some of his lyrics in the ad break and
Speaker 6: what's this name? I'll check your pipes. Oh you the
Speaker 6: healthy type. I don't think I can read the rest
Speaker 6: of it, but there you go.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, now I get it.
Speaker 1: That's all from us stick around coming up because the
Speaker 1: read a penny show, good Night