Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome Late Bay, Well, thanks for joining us on the
Speaker 2: Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and filling
Speaker 2: in for Caleb Bond Freier leish a lot coming up tonight,
Speaker 2: including a Melbourne council move their meetings.
Speaker 1: Online to avoid ratepayers.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about that a little later, plus when we
Speaker 2: look at what's making news tomorrow, Victorian Premier Dicenta Allen
Speaker 2: accused of corruption over the removal of top cops, and
Speaker 2: the Australian notes that our debt nationally is blowing out
Speaker 2: to be the worst in the developed world.
Speaker 1: We'll get to all of that shortly, but first.
Speaker 2: The Albanezi government continues its move to create a republic
Speaker 2: by stealth with confirmation today that King Charles will be
Speaker 2: removed from the new five dollar note. It means that
Speaker 2: for the first time since nineteen twenty three, no royal
Speaker 2: will feature on any Australian banknotes. The current five dollar note,
Speaker 2: which depicts the now deceased Queen Elizabeth, will be redesigned
Speaker 2: as a tribute to Indigenous people. The Reserve Bank released
Speaker 2: a statement today saying the imagery on the five dollar
Speaker 2: bank note should recognize the enduring connection that first nations
Speaker 2: people have to country as an emotional and spiritual connection
Speaker 2: as much as a physical one. So most of you
Speaker 2: would be familiar with the current five dollar note, not
Speaker 2: that it buys much these days.
Speaker 1: Will show it to you. Here's the five dollar note.
Speaker 2: There it is, and here's a proposal as to what
Speaker 2: the new five dollar note could look like. Now, this change,
Speaker 2: of course, is at the discretion of the Reserve Bank,
Speaker 2: but it must be noted both the Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 2: Albanesi and the Treasurer Jim Chalmers have for the last
Speaker 2: couple of years been hinting very strongly that they would
Speaker 2: like to see a change. Anthony Albanesi was elected to
Speaker 2: government with a mandate to hold a second referendum on
Speaker 2: whether or not we should become a republic. He chose
Speaker 2: not to exercise that after the debacle that was the
Speaker 2: Voice referendum.
Speaker 1: He wasn't given a mandate though, to sort.
Speaker 2: Of unilaterally move us towards a republic minus any vote.
Speaker 2: Roy Morgan Research polled as recently as last October, finding
Speaker 2: the majority of Australians still supported the idea of a
Speaker 2: constitutional monarchy fifty seven percent in fact, which is very
Speaker 2: close to the number who voted.
Speaker 1: Against the Voice.
Speaker 2: Yet Anthony Albanesi looks to impose republican objectives, whether we
Speaker 2: like it or not. I would say that until Australians
Speaker 2: vote to become a republic, we of course are a
Speaker 2: constitutional monarchy. We should not only recognize that, but we
Speaker 2: should celebrate it. And it's not about whether or not
Speaker 2: you like King Charles. We've all got our views on
Speaker 2: the individuals who comprise the royal family, but they personify
Speaker 2: a system of government that is kept as safe and
Speaker 2: secure for the better part of two hundred years and
Speaker 2: that's made.
Speaker 1: Us the envy of the world.
Speaker 2: What Anthony Alberanezi is trying to do and we see
Speaker 2: it in so many areas and now with the five
Speaker 2: dollar note, is a republic by incrementalism. Not only is
Speaker 2: it uncalled for, he has no mandate for it, but ironically, Liz,
Speaker 2: it's hardly democratic.
Speaker 3: I think you're giving him way too much credit here,
Speaker 3: because we've got to be clear, this is the Reserve
Speaker 3: Bank's decisions.
Speaker 1: Oh but there was a lot of press.
Speaker 3: They console the government. The government says yes, we support this.
Speaker 3: I mean, geez, no cigar for getting that one right.
Speaker 3: Of course the government did support it, but at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, the butt stops with the Reserve
Speaker 3: Bank and this is what they've decided to do. So
Speaker 3: the question is more who's pulling the strings at the
Speaker 3: Reserve Bank that thinks, oh, well, we'd rather have something
Speaker 3: indigenous and about their connection to land and country than
Speaker 3: the monarch. But I've got to say, in recent years
Speaker 3: we have seen in this country and I think we're
Speaker 3: going to be seeing it more sooh with young and
Speaker 3: starting to vote more and more coming through the ranks,
Speaker 3: those who have been indoctrinated with this anti colonialist sentiment,
Speaker 3: and a lot more than that, the republic people pushing
Speaker 3: for Australia to become a republic have advanced in leaps
Speaker 3: and bounds.
Speaker 4: They are definitely seeing the numbers.
Speaker 3: The numbers you quoted there from the Ray Morgan Pole
Speaker 3: were actually pretty impressive for them, the fact that fifty
Speaker 3: seven which is a considerable majority, but it's not mahusive
Speaker 3: And I think in the coming years we will eventually
Speaker 3: see Australia become a republic.
Speaker 4: That's just where it's going.
Speaker 3: So you do wonder if the Reserve Bank is just
Speaker 3: a bit like let's save ourselves a bit of a headache,
Speaker 3: because there's no use putting King Charles on the note
Speaker 3: if in five or even ten years we've got to
Speaker 3: swap it out again.
Speaker 1: It just so happens.
Speaker 2: We've got a young and on the desk tonight on
Speaker 2: the Late Debates.
Speaker 1: So Freyer, what's going to happen?
Speaker 2: Is Liz right, Will the younger generation move towards republic?
Speaker 1: Was the five dollar note a good move?
Speaker 5: Controversial opinion here.
Speaker 6: I actually don't think young people will support a republic,
Speaker 6: and we're seeing that in the polling numbers. They're actually
Speaker 6: far more pro monarchy than my parents' generation were at
Speaker 6: the same age. And I think that's partly because so
Speaker 6: many of the institutions and the traditions and the history
Speaker 6: of our country have been stripped away by these anti
Speaker 6: Australian forces that you talked about, and so we want
Speaker 6: to cling on to any last vestige of history and culture.
Speaker 4: That we can.
Speaker 6: And if we've removed the monarchy from Australia, well what
Speaker 6: do we have left?
Speaker 5: Like, what do we have left where a young country?
Speaker 6: The monarchy is foundational to our national identity, our system
Speaker 6: of government, our legal system, everything if we strip that away,
Speaker 6: this is the problem with progressives. What do you replace
Speaker 6: it with? Absolutely nothing? So you lead it ends up
Speaker 6: with this flattening of life. Really, and I think we've
Speaker 6: experienced that in so many areas, the decline of religion,
Speaker 6: broken homes, the decline of meaning, and taking away the
Speaker 6: monarchy is just another one of those stripping away of
Speaker 6: the institutions that give life to our country. So I
Speaker 6: actually don't think young people will opt for a republic.
Speaker 5: I may be proven wrong.
Speaker 6: I hope i'm not, But I just think that this
Speaker 6: is an example of unelected bureaucrats. The elites at the
Speaker 6: RBA in Martin Place sitting there going hmm, how can
Speaker 6: we advance our cultural agenda?
Speaker 5: And that's all this is.
Speaker 2: I agree with you that progressives don't have an alternative.
Speaker 2: They just destroy everything without providing an alternative. The only
Speaker 2: problem is, I think they do have an alternative to
Speaker 2: a constitutional monarchy. Listen, it's President Kevin Rudd or President
Speaker 2: Malcolm Turnbull.
Speaker 1: That's what we're all afraid of.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the biggest fear with a republic.
Speaker 2: But this moved by the RBA, I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: pretty big deal. It really, As I said, it's the
Speaker 2: first time in over one hundred years that we don't
Speaker 2: have a monarch on any of our Australian banknotes. For
Speaker 2: them to do this without public consent, when indeed the
Speaker 2: majority of people still support the monarchy, I think is
Speaker 2: a betrayal of the public.
Speaker 1: They don't have the right to do it.
Speaker 3: Well, in some ways they could argue that they do
Speaker 3: were because their latest opinion poll on this very thing,
Speaker 3: because King Charles became king and there was a real
Speaker 3: boost in the interest around the monarchy, its relevancy in Australia, etc.
Speaker 4: And so on.
Speaker 3: Our helpful friends ran a poll just last year. Thirty
Speaker 3: four percent of ozsi's wanted the King on the five
Speaker 3: dollar note, forty three percent preferred a famous Australian of
Speaker 3: any description, somebody anyone, but not the King, and the
Speaker 3: rest were undecided. We make a point to that and say, well,
Speaker 3: I mean, we've just alluded to several polls throughout the course.
Speaker 4: Of this conversation.
Speaker 3: We do use them to get a gauge on popular
Speaker 3: The only.
Speaker 2: Poll that counts is a referendum. When we changed from
Speaker 2: a constitutional monarchy to a republican you're not.
Speaker 3: Going to have a referendum on who ends up on
Speaker 3: the five dollar hoes, Well, exactly, Indeed, it wouldn't be
Speaker 3: worth half a billion dollars got up for debate.
Speaker 2: We're a constitutional monarchy and until the Australian public votes otherwise,
Speaker 2: that's how it is. They shouldn't be changing our national emblems.
Speaker 3: Well it's certainly not up for debate because we didn't
Speaker 3: get one, thanks RBA. Speaking of unelected bureaucrats just doing
Speaker 3: whatever the heck they want, these nameless, phaseless people. If
Speaker 3: you needed further proof that Biden's presidency was perhaps one
Speaker 3: of the greatest cons ever foisted on the American people,
Speaker 3: look no further than a shocking revelation that we found
Speaker 3: out earlier this month thanks to the Heritage Foundation's Oversight project,
Speaker 3: which was able after a very thorough investigation to reveal
Speaker 3: that every single edict from the Biden administration during those
Speaker 3: entire four years had been signed by an autopen not
Speaker 3: by the man himself, with the exception of one, and
Speaker 3: that was his letter announcing he was no longer contesting
Speaker 3: the presidential race in twenty twenty four. Check out this
Speaker 3: tweet of the Heritage Foundation letting everyone know. They said,
Speaker 3: whoever controlled the autopen controlled the presidency. We gathered every
Speaker 3: document we could find with Biden's signature over the course
Speaker 3: of his presidency. All used the same autopen signature, except
Speaker 3: for the announcement that the former president was dropping out
Speaker 3: of the race last year. Here's the autopen signature, and
Speaker 3: they supply a few examples of that, and.
Speaker 4: Then they say, year is the signature from.
Speaker 3: The letter announcing Biden was dropping out of the race,
Speaker 3: which it looks decidedly difference. Now, of course, this revelation
Speaker 3: now begets the question who was running the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: We asked it very often ourselves, as we noted his
Speaker 3: worsening mental decline over the course of those four years,
Speaker 3: but in particular for the new Trump administration.
Speaker 4: They're saying, well, this calls into question.
Speaker 3: All those eleventh hour pardons that he decided to give
Speaker 3: on his.
Speaker 4: Way out the door. But before we get into that, his.
Speaker 3: Speaker of the House Johnson relaying to everyone a conversation
Speaker 3: that he had with the then President Biden, showing just
Speaker 3: how much this auto pen was used and the gravity
Speaker 3: of the situation, Sir.
Speaker 7: Why did you pause? Llen g exports to Europe, like,
Speaker 7: I don't understand. You know, liquefiedinacial gas is in great
Speaker 7: demand by ourn. Why would you do that because you
Speaker 7: understand we just talked about Ukraine. You understand you're fuel
Speaker 7: in Vladimir Putin's war machine because they got to get
Speaker 7: their gas from the PM, you know. And he looks
Speaker 7: at me, stunned with this, and he said I didn't.
Speaker 7: I didn't do that. And I said, miss President, you yes,
Speaker 7: you did. It was an executive order like you know,
Speaker 7: three weeks ago. And he goes, no, I didn't do that,
Speaker 7: and he's arguing with me. I said, miss President, respectfully,
Speaker 7: can I could I go out here and ask your
Speaker 7: secretary to print it out.
Speaker 1: We'll read it together.
Speaker 7: You definitely did that, and he goes, oh, you talk
Speaker 7: about natural gas. Yes, sir, he said, oh no, I
Speaker 7: did you misunderstand? He said, what I did is I
Speaker 7: signed this thing to We're going to conduct a study
Speaker 7: on the effects of energy. I said, no, you're not, sir,
Speaker 7: you paused it. I know I have the terminal, the
Speaker 7: export terminals in my state. I talked to those people
Speaker 7: this morning. This is doing massive damage to our economy,
Speaker 7: national security. It occurred to me, Barry, he was not
Speaker 7: lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he
Speaker 7: had signed. And I walked out of that meeting with
Speaker 7: fear and loathing because I thought, we're in serious trouble.
Speaker 7: Who is running the country like, I don't know who
Speaker 7: put the paper in from him, but he didn't know.
Speaker 3: We're in serious trouble. Indeed, if these allegations prove true,
Speaker 3: it means that every executive order, every pardon, every official
Speaker 3: act of the president over the last four years could
Speaker 3: be constitutionally void. But the first lot of issues the
Speaker 3: Trump administration wants to address is those pardons, because of
Speaker 3: course he pardoned a lot of people that the Trump
Speaker 3: administration would very much like to prosecute. So here's Trump
Speaker 3: addressing that a board Air Force one.
Speaker 8: So I follow up on the line and the autoped
Speaker 8: Are those executive orders those part ins from the former president? Now, Nolan, Well,
Speaker 8: I think, so let's start my decision.
Speaker 1: That'll be up to a court.
Speaker 8: But I would say that there nullin one because I'm
Speaker 8: sure Biden didn't have any idea that it would take
Speaker 8: you place. And somebody who was using an autoped to
Speaker 8: sign off and to give pardons to as an example,
Speaker 8: just one example, but the j six Unselect Committee they.
Speaker 1: Gave think of it, they gave parts with an atopen.
Speaker 1: I don't think Biden knew anything about it.
Speaker 3: He took to truth Social to make this post. The
Speaker 3: pardons that sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee
Speaker 3: of political thugs and many others I hereby declared void, vacant,
Speaker 3: and of no further force or effect because of the
Speaker 3: fact they were done by autopen who knew nothing about them,
Speaker 3: and the people that did may have committed a crime. Therefore,
Speaker 3: those on the Unselect Committee who destroyed and deleted all
Speaker 3: evidence obtained during their two year witch hunt of me
Speaker 3: and many other innocent people should fully understand that they
Speaker 3: are subject to investigation.
Speaker 4: At the highest level.
Speaker 3: And indeed, we have Missouri Attorney General and many others
Speaker 3: now writing into the Department of Justice saying, you guys
Speaker 3: have to do a thorough investigation. We have to get
Speaker 3: to the bottom of this because the implications are unspeakably huge.
Speaker 3: To give you an idea of how rare it is
Speaker 3: for a president to sign off on legislation and executive
Speaker 3: order a pardon anything using an auto pen. The first
Speaker 3: president to do so was Barack Obama, who was on
Speaker 3: holiday at the time in Hawaii, and in order to
Speaker 3: do so, he relied on a thirty page dossi era
Speaker 3: of information that George President George Bush's legal team had
Speaker 3: done up for him to validate the fact that, yes,
Speaker 3: he was signing it, but he wasn't signing it in person.
Speaker 3: That's how rare this is. So to find out that
Speaker 3: this was the prevalence of it during those entire four
Speaker 3: years is to say alarming, is a massive understatement.
Speaker 6: It is absolutely shocking, And I think the worst part
Speaker 6: of all of this is the way that the media
Speaker 6: in America tried to cover up this entire sham of
Speaker 6: a presidency. People were asking questions. Trump was asking questions
Speaker 6: throughout those entire four years, and the left wing media
Speaker 6: continually came out. They would post edited interviews with Biden,
Speaker 6: they would do everything they could to cover up and
Speaker 6: avoid scrutiny.
Speaker 5: But this is the thing. Biden, over his.
Speaker 6: Entire four years as president, only held nine full cabinets
Speaker 6: over four years. So there was an intentional strategy by
Speaker 6: his inner circle, his close aids that had been with
Speaker 6: him for years. They were loyal to him. There was
Speaker 6: an intentional strategy from them to avoid any scrutiny or
Speaker 6: anyone else outside of their little bubble from noticing the
Speaker 6: president's decline in mental state. Now, I just think how
Speaker 6: undemocratic is that you elect a president to represent you,
Speaker 6: and in America even more so because you directly elect
Speaker 6: Joe Biden to be the president of the United States,
Speaker 6: only to now find out that for the last four years,
Speaker 6: we actually have no idea who has been running the
Speaker 6: most powerful country in the world. And not only that,
Speaker 6: there's been a strategy to cover up the fact that
Speaker 6: the president is literally senile. So I just think this
Speaker 6: throws the entire country of the United States into complete
Speaker 6: chaos because what happens to yes, the pardons, but also
Speaker 6: every single executive order, Like where does the law stand
Speaker 6: right now? We need some legal scholars on here now
Speaker 6: to interpret this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the question is not whether or not an
Speaker 2: autopen was used, who was using the auto exactly?
Speaker 1: And I get the idea of an autopen.
Speaker 2: I suppose a president must sign hundreds and hundreds and
Speaker 2: hundreds of documents. It be difficult to do, not to
Speaker 2: mention inefficient, but when you've got problems with mental cognition
Speaker 2: and question marks over that seem to be the height
Speaker 2: of foolishness to use an auto pen when people are
Speaker 2: questioning your mental acuity, because you're going to open yourself
Speaker 2: up to charges such as Trump has made. Now, The
Speaker 2: New York Post wrote a very interesting editorial arguing that
Speaker 2: Trump should leave this alone. They said, Trump's doing so well,
Speaker 2: he's getting the country behind him, and this just reeks
Speaker 2: of Trump trying to settle personal vendettas area. I do
Speaker 2: think that's a bit unwise by the New York Post
Speaker 2: because this isn't a matter of personal vendettas, though I
Speaker 2: don't think Trump is above that. It's a matter of justice,
Speaker 2: it's a matter of accountability, and it's a matter of governance.
Speaker 2: But talk about a can of worms. This isn't just
Speaker 2: about the January sixth committee. This is about every decision
Speaker 2: Joe Biden ever signed off on. As Trump said in
Speaker 2: that grab that we watched, it will end up in
Speaker 2: court because Trump doesn't have the power himself to make
Speaker 2: all of those pardons null and void. It would have
Speaker 2: to go to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they
Speaker 2: want to take that on and open up that can
Speaker 2: of worms be a very interesting thing.
Speaker 6: But my question for that is, if it did end
Speaker 6: up in the Supreme Court, could Joe Biden actually testify
Speaker 6: that he was aware or is he too senile as
Speaker 6: he was found earlier to even be in testifying about
Speaker 6: his own cognitive ability while he was signing.
Speaker 1: These Wait, did he sign off on the US Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices?
Speaker 4: Oh? My god, we don't know anymore.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if they should be there.
Speaker 4: We don't know what anymore.
Speaker 6: Well, look, thankfully some countries do have their head screwed on,
Speaker 6: and one of those seems to be hungry. The Hungarian President,
Speaker 6: Victor Auburn has announced an income tax exemption for mothers
Speaker 6: of two and three children and said he would cap
Speaker 6: interest rates on housing loans at five percent. Now, this
Speaker 6: is they're heading into this national election, but I personally
Speaker 6: think there's a lot of merit in these ideas.
Speaker 5: Let's check it out.
Speaker 9: Actually, we are launching the largest tax cut in Europe
Speaker 9: and indeed the entire Western world. With this, we are
Speaker 9: opening a new chapter in the history of the Hungarian economy.
Speaker 9: We are creating the world's first family centered economy. Mothers
Speaker 9: with one child will be exempt from income tax until
Speaker 9: the age of thirty, while mothers with two or more
Speaker 9: children will never pay income tax again. Even by the
Speaker 9: modest standards, this is a global sensation. With this, we
Speaker 9: are securing the future of Hungarian families for decades to come.
Speaker 6: In early twenty twenty two, the global fertility rate fell
Speaker 6: below replacement rate. That means around the world we are
Speaker 6: not having enough children to replace ourselves. In developed countries,
Speaker 6: it's even worse. Every single developed country has a fertility
Speaker 6: rate below replacement rate except for Israel. Even India is
Speaker 6: now at a sub replacement rate fertility level. Now, the
Speaker 6: problem with this is that when you have a declining
Speaker 6: word population, the age dependency ratio shifts, so more young
Speaker 6: people have to support a whole lot more old people.
Speaker 6: A lot of countries like Australia will look to migration
Speaker 6: to fix this. Well, let's just bring in more people
Speaker 6: and we can boost our population that way. But those
Speaker 6: migrants also get old and after one or two generations
Speaker 6: they tend to have the same amount of children as
Speaker 6: the country that they're now in, so sub replacement level
Speaker 6: fertility again. One country that is taking this into their
Speaker 6: own hands is Hungry, and I think this is exactly
Speaker 6: this sort of thing we need to be looking at
Speaker 6: in Australia because the challenge for women, particularly and all
Speaker 6: families in Australia is that one it is extremely expensive
Speaker 6: to have children, but two it's not something that is
Speaker 6: valued by our society. The extent of family policy is
Speaker 6: childcare subsidies, which effectively says to women, pump out a baby,
Speaker 6: ship them off to institutional care and get that to work.
Speaker 6: That is not what a lot of women want. They
Speaker 6: want choice in how they raise their children. So I
Speaker 6: think this is something we need to be looking at.
Speaker 6: What do you guys think.
Speaker 2: Well, the Prime Minister of Hungary said, we want to
Speaker 2: leave our country to our children, not to foreigners. And
Speaker 2: as you said, if you're not going to produce your
Speaker 2: own children, then you've got to import other people. Because
Speaker 2: the welfare state is premised on the fact that you
Speaker 2: will have enough young to support the old. Hungry have
Speaker 2: tried various measures. They've offered interest free loans to families
Speaker 2: with children, housing subsidies, they offered tax exemptions to mothers
Speaker 2: with four or more children. Now it's mothers of two
Speaker 2: or three children will get all one child.
Speaker 3: Also until you're thirty If you have one child, your
Speaker 3: tax exempt.
Speaker 1: It's for the rest of your life. If it's two
Speaker 1: or three children.
Speaker 2: I should point out the Prime Minister of Hungary's got
Speaker 2: five children himself, so he's leading by example. Their birth
Speaker 2: rate's been falling since the nineteen seventies. As mark Stein says,
Speaker 2: demography is destiny. If you don't address this one way,
Speaker 2: then your country disappears. And this is probably the biggest
Speaker 2: story I think of our time, that what's happening in Europe.
Speaker 1: You're not allowed that. You've got to be very careful
Speaker 1: talking about it because it's such a fraught subject.
Speaker 2: But it is the big story because Europe will cease
Speaker 2: to be Europe if it's just full of different people.
Speaker 2: So whether it's Italy or Hungary or Austria, they need
Speaker 2: to produce their own children if they want to keep
Speaker 2: their own culture as we know it, otherwise it will
Speaker 2: become something different. Hungry have decided we want to leave
Speaker 2: our country to our children, so we'll offer incentives. I
Speaker 2: think it's a great move, but.
Speaker 3: Isn't it sad that this is being heralded as the
Speaker 3: world first, family first economy. Shouldn't every economy, especially in
Speaker 3: the Western world, which is fighting for survival. As we
Speaker 3: know it, shouldn't every economy be family first. It doesn't
Speaker 3: take a rocket scientist to know. We've always known the
Speaker 3: new clear family is the building block of any functioning,
Speaker 3: certainly flourishing society. You prioritize healthy families and the state
Speaker 3: becomes less and less depended on because families meet their
Speaker 3: own needs as people look after people, and that translates
Speaker 3: to childcare, that translates to elderly care when the grandparents
Speaker 3: are too old to look after themselves and maybe require
Speaker 3: someone around the house. If you prioritize families a lot
Speaker 3: of things. Just take care of themselves as they did
Speaker 3: previous decades when the state didn't look after half of that,
Speaker 3: and we're all perfectly fine. I absolutely love this move.
Speaker 3: It should be this is so simple. Yeah, And it
Speaker 3: should also be said that this is on top of
Speaker 3: his government already announcing a doubling of income tax benefits
Speaker 3: to families, and not only that, he's capped housing low
Speaker 3: the interest rate on housing loans in Hungary at five percent.
Speaker 3: If you make life affordable, people will have children. Healthy
Speaker 3: flourishing couples one to have children. It is simply in
Speaker 3: societies like ours, where everyone's like, heck, we're renting, we
Speaker 3: can We'll.
Speaker 4: Never scrape together enough for a deposit. They're scared to
Speaker 4: have children.
Speaker 3: If they had the money, they'd be like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: let's go. But it's the fact that no governments have
Speaker 3: prioritized this to the extent that they ought that we
Speaker 3: see this is like, oh, this is just revolutionary. This
Speaker 3: ought to be the ABC's of government.
Speaker 2: What you've just said comports with studies that have been
Speaker 2: done in Europe as to why our birth rates so low,
Speaker 2: and the number one reason is economic pressure. People are
Speaker 2: concerned if we have children, how are we going to
Speaker 2: be able to afford them.
Speaker 1: The other three were interesting.
Speaker 2: Environmental concerns was a reason why the birth rates are
Speaker 2: so low in Europe, And of course we've been bother
Speaker 2: we don't mind if I.
Speaker 3: Don't have children about you know, relive yourselves from the
Speaker 3: gene pool.
Speaker 4: If that's how you're going to raise.
Speaker 2: Your well, I mean, people seriously believe if you have
Speaker 2: a child, you are contributing to global warming, so we're
Speaker 2: better off not having children. Evolving social norms was another
Speaker 2: one where you've got the demonization of the family unit.
Speaker 2: In favor of other models. And the final one was
Speaker 2: the intense focus on individual autonomy, that it's transformed from
Speaker 2: not about family or the future, but all about the
Speaker 2: here and now, what I.
Speaker 1: Want for my life.
Speaker 2: I don't want to make any sacrifices, so there's a
Speaker 2: bit to overcome.
Speaker 3: I love the prevalence of that third one, though, these
Speaker 3: social norms that a lot of people are like, I
Speaker 3: don't think I want my kids subjected to all the
Speaker 3: stuff that I'm currently struggling to deal with in a
Speaker 3: modern day society that we're pummeled with every single day.
Speaker 3: Because Victor Auburn, this guy is so based. If you
Speaker 3: get a chance, check him out, because this guy outwardly
Speaker 3: overtly talks about the fact that for fifteen years his
Speaker 3: government has been slammed by what he refers to as
Speaker 3: the Soros Empire, the liberal globalists, the Brussels bureaucrats. He's like,
Speaker 3: they've thrown money at us, they've thrown threads at us,
Speaker 3: they've thrown blackmail at us. But we have prevailed in
Speaker 3: keeping Hungry to Hungary, and this is how it's done.
Speaker 3: He says that quote, this is the battle for the
Speaker 3: soul of the Western world quote, and they're seeking to
Speaker 3: replace Europe's people and raise our Christian values. Would in
Speaker 3: you trade your two front teeth for a leader in
Speaker 3: Australia who talks like that.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk about leadership in Australia. Because Peter Dutton
Speaker 2: announced a new well I'm not sure if he announced
Speaker 2: the new policy or not.
Speaker 1: He was a little bit sort of wishy washy on it.
Speaker 2: It sounds good if he's going to do it, but
Speaker 2: who would know. The idea is that he would hold
Speaker 2: a referendum like we need another one to change the
Speaker 2: constitution giving politicians the power to revoke Australian citizenship for
Speaker 2: criminals who have dual citizenship. Here he is on morning
Speaker 2: television sort of proposing what might be a policy.
Speaker 10: We can do as much as we can by legislation,
Speaker 10: but as they say, you can't out legislate the constitution.
Speaker 10: What we're proposing here is a discussion about whether we've
Speaker 10: got adequate laws, whether the constitution is restrictive. If you
Speaker 10: want to keep your kids safe, and we want to
Speaker 10: keep kids safe in our community, then I don't think
Speaker 10: you can put a.
Speaker 1: Price on that.
Speaker 2: Now, current laws do allow someone's citizenship to be revoked
Speaker 2: if they commit a serious crime. The problem is that
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two the High Court rule that a
Speaker 2: minister can't revoke someone's Australian citizenship because that would be
Speaker 2: seen as punitive or as punishment, and that's a role
Speaker 2: for courts, not for politicians. Hence Peter Dutton is starting
Speaker 2: a conversation. I'm not sure why you start a conversation
Speaker 2: six weeks out from an election.
Speaker 1: You either do it or you don't.
Speaker 2: But he's started a conversation about whether or not we
Speaker 2: should change the constitution to deal with this issue. As
Speaker 2: you can imagine, Anthony Albaneze had a field day.
Speaker 11: Well, this is another thought bubble from Peter Dutton that
Speaker 11: hasn't made it to lunchtime. This morning you had Peter
Speaker 11: Dutton on one TV channel calling for a referendum, Mecaalia
Speaker 11: Cash on another TV channel ruling it out. This has
Speaker 11: not been thought through. There is not clear where this
Speaker 11: has come from. Peter Dutton wants to talk about anything
Speaker 11: but cost of living.
Speaker 2: Can I just say it's a little bit rich of
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanesi and his Treasurer Jim Chalmers to say Peter
Speaker 2: Dutton wants to talk about anything except cost of living
Speaker 2: when they spent most of last week talking about a wombat.
Speaker 1: So good on you for that.
Speaker 2: As for a thought bubble, well at least it's a thought.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure Elbaneze he's had one of those bubble
Speaker 2: or not for a long time.
Speaker 1: He went on to say Liz that Peter Dutton's trying
Speaker 1: to divide public. Well, exactly, that's the point.
Speaker 2: Of deporting people who keepit crimes. You divide them from
Speaker 2: the rest of the Australian population. And again for Anthony Albernezi,
Speaker 2: who proposed a referendum to divide Australians by race, to
Speaker 2: now accuse Peter Dutton of dividing Australians because he wants
Speaker 2: to remove criminal elements from our country is a little
Speaker 2: bit rich.
Speaker 1: I actually think it's a good idea. I'm in favor
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: I just wish Peter Dutton would nail his colors to
Speaker 2: the mast and say this is what we will do,
Speaker 2: or don't talk about it. But to start, what does
Speaker 2: it even mean to start a conversation?
Speaker 3: I mean, look, I think he hit the nail on
Speaker 3: the head unwittingly in contradicting himself when he said in
Speaker 3: that crab we.
Speaker 4: Can do as much as we can using legislation. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but you haven't.
Speaker 3: You haven't look at the detainee debarcle. You guys can't
Speaker 3: even deport people who came here illegally committed crimes.
Speaker 4: Got released about.
Speaker 3: Rapists and murderers, not low level like oh they robbed
Speaker 3: a granny of her coffee money. No, no, you won't
Speaker 3: send those people back to their country of origin. I
Speaker 3: think this is a nothing burger because when we see
Speaker 3: those headlines of people committing these heinous crimes here in Australia,
Speaker 3: they're not dual citizenships anyway, They're not well citizens.
Speaker 4: We just own them like they're our citizens. They go
Speaker 4: in our jails, end of story.
Speaker 3: That's our problem, that is our circus, that is our monkeys.
Speaker 4: But these dual citizenships, who's he talking about?
Speaker 3: When we read those headlines on a weekly basis and
Speaker 3: discuss in detail this person should be sent home. We're
Speaker 3: not talking about duel citizens. So I don't even know
Speaker 3: who he's talking about in this dual citizen category that
Speaker 3: we'd spend half a billion dollars to have a referendum on.
Speaker 3: And when you talk about, oh you can only do
Speaker 3: so much with legislation. How about you exhaust that first,
Speaker 3: because right now none of the legislation around this is
Speaker 3: working for us as a nation. It desperately needs to
Speaker 3: be amended. You guys haven't even tried that on. It
Speaker 3: ought to be exhausted before you spend half a billion
Speaker 3: dollars sending us to the polls for a referendum.
Speaker 6: I have a few thoughts on that, Liz. I mean, firstly,
Speaker 6: there are ways you can do referendums that don't cost
Speaker 6: half a billion dollars. You could just add this as
Speaker 6: a question to a normal election and you could do.
Speaker 4: It that way.
Speaker 3: You'd have to have bipartisan support for that, which is
Speaker 3: never going.
Speaker 5: To guess so well, that is one way you could
Speaker 5: do it. I mean, secondly, I think it's good that.
Speaker 6: Dutton is even putting forward ways to deal with our
Speaker 6: immigration crisis.
Speaker 5: It's better than Albo.
Speaker 6: It's under their watch that we saw over one hundred
Speaker 6: hardened criminals released into the community because the High Court
Speaker 6: decided that it was unconstitutional to indefinitely hold people into tention.
Speaker 5: And in that case that you're referring, it's.
Speaker 4: Not dules but not or nothing.
Speaker 6: But that's the thing that was not a case of
Speaker 6: legislation failing. That was a case of legislation falling afoul
Speaker 6: of the Constitution because you can't indefinitely detain people. This
Speaker 6: is the problem you come up against with migration. With
Speaker 6: ministerial power. There are a lot of guard rails that
Speaker 6: the Constitution has on what ministers can actually do.
Speaker 5: I think the smartest way.
Speaker 6: I totally see the problem that Dutton is trying to solve,
Speaker 6: which is that we do have criminals in this country
Speaker 6: that are deal citizens committing crimes. Why should we spend
Speaker 6: hundreds of thousands of dollars a year housing them in
Speaker 6: our first world prisons when they should just frankly get
Speaker 6: sent back to where they've come from. That is a
Speaker 6: very fair point. I think the probably the more strategic
Speaker 6: way he could handle this is by amending the legislation
Speaker 6: in the Citizenship Act so that it's not the minister
Speaker 6: that deports or cancels the citizenship of these criminals, but
Speaker 6: you lower the threshold at which the High Court, which
Speaker 6: the Court could do that. So you say, for any
Speaker 6: offense which involves you know, a prison term of over
Speaker 6: one year, for example, which is significantly lower than what
Speaker 6: it currently is. The Core could decide to strip you
Speaker 6: your citizenship. We don't need a referendum for that. I
Speaker 6: do think maybe this was just a media sort of moment,
Speaker 6: but there are ways you could do this, and I
Speaker 6: think he's onto something and most Australians would support tougher action.
Speaker 2: I was going to ask you, do you think people
Speaker 2: would be warm totally? I think they would be. People
Speaker 2: recognize the problems and as you pointed out this, look,
Speaker 2: you've had sorts of stuff ups from this current government
Speaker 2: with regards to people who aren't citizens.
Speaker 4: And he's capitalizing on that.
Speaker 2: Everyone's sick of that. He's capitalizing on that. I just
Speaker 2: wish you'd be strong on it. Don't make a thought bubble,
Speaker 2: make a policy.
Speaker 3: Well, the fact that it was a thought bubble was
Speaker 3: made abundantly clear when, as Elbow pointed out in that
Speaker 3: video we just showed you, Dunn's own Attorney General, Makalia Cash,
Speaker 3: was minutes later being like, yeah, no, this isn't a thing.
Speaker 3: So if this was a grab for votes, may it
Speaker 3: sound like something's awesome?
Speaker 4: Then that fell over really really quickly.
Speaker 3: It sounded like he hadn't even discussed it with the
Speaker 3: party room, mate, try it on with legislation first. You
Speaker 3: can do better by us as a nation without sending.
Speaker 4: Us off to a referendum.
Speaker 3: To another issue that we're seeing grow in greater and
Speaker 3: greater prevalence here in Australia, and that is the question
Speaker 3: of over diagnoses of children, whether it's with autism adhd
Speaker 3: add The numbers in Australia have shot through the roof
Speaker 3: in recent years, prompting experts to now say, look, are
Speaker 3: these conditions as prevalent as the money we're out putting
Speaker 3: into these, especially by the NDAs, into these issues. Are
Speaker 3: they growing more prevalent or are people simply more aware
Speaker 3: of them and taking the government for a ride in
Speaker 3: terms of becoming a cash cow. Some of the latest
Speaker 3: stat out of the ABS, which is a little bit
Speaker 3: old now but will still be absolutely hair raising. It's
Speaker 3: the first time you've heard of it. According to the ABS,
Speaker 3: there were two hundred and ninety thousand, nine hundred all
Speaker 3: these with autism back in twenty twenty two, which was
Speaker 3: a forty one point eight percent rise on the numbers
Speaker 3: from the latest ABS statistics back in just twenty and eighteen.
Speaker 4: I mean, that is mind blowing. How on Earth.
Speaker 3: Do we get an over forty percent increase in just
Speaker 3: four years time.
Speaker 4: It's unthinkable.
Speaker 3: The same goes with adhd add The numbers are hair
Speaker 3: curling and according to a really comprehensive study done by
Speaker 3: A and U just last year, Australia's autism rates are
Speaker 3: among the highest in the world. So for me personally,
Speaker 3: I look at stats like this, I look at numbers
Speaker 3: like this, I look at the concerns being expressed by
Speaker 3: these experts and I say, look whether people are taking
Speaker 3: the government for a ride? And I do find it
Speaker 3: hard to believe that that many parents would be doing
Speaker 3: so knowing that their kid isn't unwell, but just heading
Speaker 3: up the government for some cash. Where are the studies
Speaker 3: being done on why these numbers are going through the roof?
Speaker 3: In America, we have the Make Australia, Make America Healthy
Speaker 3: Again movement vowed to look into this. Is that if
Speaker 3: we win the election, we are going to look into
Speaker 3: why these rates are also rising exponentially in our populations.
Speaker 3: We just don't seem to have anyone remotely interested here.
Speaker 2: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare have said that
Speaker 2: one in seven Australian children aged four to seventeen have
Speaker 2: experienced a mental health issue, which is quite extraordinary, and
Speaker 2: as a parent of kids, it's a difficult time to
Speaker 2: raise kids. I think the world is far more complicated
Speaker 2: now mainly because of this then when I grew up,
Speaker 2: So I can understand that kids would be having challenges,
Speaker 2: but not to the extent that we're seeing. And at
Speaker 2: the same time, you've got parenting which has undergone a
Speaker 2: transformation which is more child centered, where we try and
Speaker 2: empower the child, and with that goes the whole trying
Speaker 2: to protect them from every ill and every ailment. And
Speaker 2: so instead of teaching resilience and teaching them you know what,
Speaker 2: you can fall over, you can skin, you know you're
Speaker 2: going to be all right, we're trying to protect them
Speaker 2: from everything, and we assume it must be a pathological
Speaker 2: problem rather than just a behavioral exactly.
Speaker 6: And I think there are a lot of incentives to
Speaker 6: find a diagnosis for your child. In fact, in so
Speaker 6: many areas we've pathologized behavior, so that if my child's
Speaker 6: playing up, oh no, it can't be because they're a
Speaker 6: naughty kid. It's definitely because they've got something else.
Speaker 1: And that because of your parenting.
Speaker 5: Well, that's the thing.
Speaker 6: If you're a parent, it is much easier to live
Speaker 6: with yourself if you just tell yourself that your child
Speaker 6: has some sort of disorder, rather than some sort of
Speaker 6: disorder parenting.
Speaker 2: Which makes parenting incredibly complicated because you're trying to work out, honestly,
Speaker 2: is this an issue that I need to go and
Speaker 2: seek professional help or is a behavioral issue that I've
Speaker 2: got to address with discipline and that can be a
Speaker 2: real nightmare for appearents.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a break.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 2: including the Victorian Premier just sent to Allen in all
Speaker 2: sorts of trouble over allegations regarding the sacking of top police.
Speaker 2: And we'll look at that and more in just a moment. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's take a look what's making headlines tomorrow. Liz will
Speaker 2: start with the Canberra Times.
Speaker 3: What a rarity the Canberra Times recruitment rates wholly deficient,
Speaker 3: says minister. We're talking about the ADF tell us something.
Speaker 4: We don't know.
Speaker 3: The company in charge of turning around Australia's moribund defense
Speaker 3: recruitment rates was told by the responsible Minister, its performance
Speaker 3: was quote not satisfactory end quote, and targeted recruitment rates
Speaker 3: were wholly deficient. Less than a year from taking on
Speaker 3: the one point four billion dollar contract, The Camera Times
Speaker 3: has obtained correspondence between Defense Personnel Minister Matt Keoh and
Speaker 3: Swiss recruitment giant a Deco, exposing the depths to which
Speaker 3: the relationship had sunk. Now we know that the ADF
Speaker 3: actually did receive sixty four thousand applications just last year.
Speaker 3: That sounds incredibly impressive, doesn't it. But less than one
Speaker 3: in ten is getting accepted, and so obviously applicants are like, well,
Speaker 3: excuse me. Now Australians, much to their shock, are reminded
Speaker 3: that this really really important job. Hello, we need to
Speaker 3: get our numbers up. Times are perilous. Nobody's joining Our
Speaker 3: defense force was outsourced to a Swiss company, And then
Speaker 3: we wonder why maybe they didn't care enough to do
Speaker 3: a good enough job.
Speaker 2: The Swiss company basically had two KPIs. They said they
Speaker 2: would recruit ten thousand or thereabouts new soldiers. They say,
Speaker 2: now it'll be about seven thousand. So they've only met
Speaker 2: seventy percent of their target and the other KPI was
Speaker 2: they would within one hundred days take someone from application
Speaker 2: to enlistment. They're now saying, oo, it'll be more like
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty days. But what really gets me is,
Speaker 2: as you pointed out, they've been told their performance is
Speaker 2: not satisfactory and wholly deficient, and then their contract's been
Speaker 2: extended by another six months.
Speaker 6: Indeed, peak government bureaucery exactly right there. I mean, we
Speaker 6: have not hit a single defense force recruitment target since
Speaker 6: I think about nineteen ninety six, and the average time
Speaker 6: it takes to process and application is over a year.
Speaker 5: People have moved on with.
Speaker 6: Their lives in over a year, so it's no wonder
Speaker 6: people are applying, but they're not actually joining the defense
Speaker 6: force because who would wait around for that long. But
Speaker 6: in the Herald Sun, we've also got some interesting headlines.
Speaker 6: Corruption bombshell. Acted deputy police chief accuses premier, minister and
Speaker 6: new top cop of conspiracy, misconduct and retribution in explosive
Speaker 6: iback claim. Premier just sin to Allen and Police Minister
Speaker 6: Anthony Carmines and Acting Chief Commissioner Rick Nugget have been
Speaker 6: accused of corruption and misconduct in public office over the
Speaker 6: acting of the states to top cops, at what point
Speaker 6: will Victorian labor reach a point of no return? How
Speaker 6: many more corruption scandals can they possibly have? The CFMU
Speaker 6: earlier this week, Now the top cops go and iback like,
Speaker 6: is this just it's reaching fast levels?
Speaker 2: And this is bad for sin to Ellen of course,
Speaker 2: because the crime crisis is the number one issue in
Speaker 2: Victoria and she has been like an Olympic gymnastream backflip
Speaker 2: after backflip with tougher bail laws, banning machettes. For her
Speaker 2: now to be accused of having dealt wrongly with the
Speaker 2: former Commissioner Shane Patton, especially when it was revealed the
Speaker 2: other week that Shane Patten, shortly before he was removed,
Speaker 2: had proposed tougher bail laws and been told can't afford it,
Speaker 2: not enough room in prisons. Then he's out the door,
Speaker 2: presumably because there was a vote of no confidence by
Speaker 2: police officers. That was the reason given by the premier.
Speaker 2: But now of course you've got the former deputy commissioner
Speaker 2: saying no, no, no, there was something else going on.
Speaker 2: This is just bad on every level for Jacinta Allen.
Speaker 2: But one quick thing is before we get to the Australian.
Speaker 2: I remember last night we're talking about Brad Batten, the
Speaker 2: Victorian Liberal leader who was making the front page because
Speaker 2: he said he was visiting family in Queensland went on
Speaker 2: a cruise talk about the Liberal This is the headlines
Speaker 2: that the Liberals want on the front page, not their
Speaker 2: own stupid squabbles.
Speaker 4: So they glad to have the spotlight back on the Alan.
Speaker 1: Government where it should be, Yeah, should be.
Speaker 3: Yeah. They're like, yep, please keep magging us look good.
Speaker 3: No more of those front pages about us, Thank you
Speaker 3: very much to the Australia Now where the biggest splash
Speaker 3: reads keeping coal state seas Light. One of Australia's biggest
Speaker 3: coal power stations in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, is set to
Speaker 3: stay open for four more years, amid fears of devastating
Speaker 3: electricity shortages. In an extraordinary u turn for the State
Speaker 3: Labor Government's renewable energy only blueprint, a decision to keep
Speaker 3: coal in the power system for longer underscores Australia's volatile
Speaker 3: transmission from fossil fuels to green power, Even as Federal
Speaker 3: Minister Federal Energy Minister rather Chris Bowen insisted a move
Speaker 3: to double the amount of renewable energy by the end
Speaker 3: of the decade remained on track. Mate, when you're going
Speaker 3: to give up on that line, nobody is agreeing with you,
Speaker 3: and they're the ones running the energy companies, so nobody's
Speaker 3: listening to you anymore. And when Victor, the most devoted
Speaker 3: state in the country to your renewable energy's dream, dominated
Speaker 3: by labor left, is actually turning around and saying, so
Speaker 3: we're going to have to keep the call up and
Speaker 3: running for an extra four years.
Speaker 4: Watch that drag out.
Speaker 3: By the way, let's replay this clip in four years
Speaker 3: and see if it's been closed by then. You can
Speaker 3: beat your bottom dollar. They'll be extending it once more.
Speaker 2: I love this call is unreliable and unaffordable and we're
Speaker 2: going to need it for a lot longer.
Speaker 1: And then put those two things together.
Speaker 2: The other thing in Tomorrow's Australian there's a story hidden
Speaker 2: away that five solar farms in regional Victoria have been
Speaker 2: told to shut down because of bushfire risks.
Speaker 1: So you've got these two stories in the paper Tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Coal extended for at least another two three four years
Speaker 2: in Victoria, while solar farms, which are supposed to be
Speaker 2: supplying all the power are ordered to be switched off
Speaker 2: because of bushfire Risksen just would be loving this.
Speaker 4: I know. And to make matters worse for labor.
Speaker 3: We read also on the front page of the Australian
Speaker 3: debt blowout worst in developed world. Australia has recorded the
Speaker 3: sharpest increase in public debt in the developed world, with
Speaker 3: government liabilities as a proportion of national output growing almost
Speaker 3: fourfold over the past two decades. Of course, we can't
Speaker 3: blame them for a fourfold increase after that many decades,
Speaker 3: but they're the ones holding the corn shell while.
Speaker 4: This is making the news.
Speaker 3: It's not a good look when you're looking at an
Speaker 3: election in just a matter of months.
Speaker 6: Now, yeah, well, that's what happens when you spend an
Speaker 6: extra three hundred and forty seven billion dollars.
Speaker 5: What do you know? The budget blows out.
Speaker 6: But over in the bulletin, a council puts a pin
Speaker 6: in jumping castles. There is a ban on bouncing. Townsville
Speaker 6: Council has taken the extraordinary step of banning jumping castles
Speaker 6: in council hearts and venues in response to changes made
Speaker 6: by the state's Safety Watchdog, but Townsville amusement rides operator
Speaker 6: says local businesses were blindsided by the move, labeling it
Speaker 6: un Australian. I cannot tell you how many birthday parties
Speaker 6: I had on a jumping parcel. I think it is
Speaker 6: outrageous that the kids in Townsville will not get to
Speaker 6: experience that.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: I mean, there was one terrible accident some years ago
Speaker 2: which is an absolute tragedy.
Speaker 1: But surely the answer is not to ban it.
Speaker 2: As it appears the Townshill Council have done in response.
Speaker 2: The answer is to have good safety regulations and make
Speaker 2: sure people do the right thing.
Speaker 1: Let the kids bounce. We're going to go to a commercial.
Speaker 2: Break, but when we come back a Melbourne council bans
Speaker 2: people from attending. Of course, they're the people that are
Speaker 2: paying the rates. Talk about that in the moment.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: Last month the Melbourne Council in Casey had to have
Speaker 2: police escort councilors from the chamber after local residents boom,
Speaker 2: shouted and swore at them over land permits, which require
Speaker 2: people to pay to store their own vehicles on their
Speaker 2: own properties. Here's what happened at that meeting last month.
Speaker 8: The council meeting.
Speaker 12: Will resume at seven point thirty five. We'll all councilors
Speaker 12: and staff vacate the council chamber for ten minutes under
Speaker 12: Clause seventy nine of the City of Casey Governance Rules.
Speaker 12: I'm adjourning this meeting tonight and it will resume at
Speaker 12: a date to be determined. We'll all counselors and staff
Speaker 12: vacate the council chamber.
Speaker 2: So what do you do when local ratepayers aren't happy
Speaker 2: and they behave like that at a council meeting? Where
Speaker 2: you move the next council meeting online so ratepayers don't
Speaker 2: get to attend at all. These councilors list have completely
Speaker 2: forgotten the ratepayers are paying their salari sool then and
Speaker 2: they're hiding from.
Speaker 3: Just get rid of the people you were unhappy with
Speaker 3: your performance.
Speaker 4: It's that easy.
Speaker 3: Well, today, Carolyn Levitt, Press Secretary for the White House,
Speaker 3: was asked what she was going to do about a
Speaker 3: request from a random French MP to return the Statue
Speaker 3: of Liberty.
Speaker 7: There is now a member of the European Parliament from
Speaker 7: France who does not think the US represents the values
Speaker 7: of the Statue of Liberty anymore.
Speaker 10: They want the Statue of Liberty back.
Speaker 7: So is President Trump going to send the Statute of Liberty.
Speaker 1: Back to France?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not.
Speaker 13: And my advice to that unnamed, low level French politician
Speaker 13: would be to remind them that it's only because of
Speaker 13: the United States of America that the French are not
Speaker 13: speaking German right now, so they should be very grateful
Speaker 13: to our great country.
Speaker 3: She clearly hasn't read New York Times bestseller church Hill
Speaker 3: Hitler and the Unnecessary War How Britain Lost its Empire
Speaker 3: and the West Lost the World. Highly recommend it. But
Speaker 3: you thought it was a cool comeback, didn't your mack?
Speaker 2: I thought it was a great burn I haven't read
Speaker 2: guy edition. I mean, you'd hate to be that guy
Speaker 2: who absolutely got burned.
Speaker 1: She does a great job. She's a good White House secretary.
Speaker 5: She's so good.
Speaker 6: But that's just the Europeans for you at the moment,
Speaker 6: always complaining, always winging, and then requesting America to rescue them.
Speaker 4: Iconic friend, that's.
Speaker 1: All we've got time for stick around. Coming up is
Speaker 1: Therena Penny Show. Good Night