Speaker 1: Lateens General, welcome the Late Bay.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening and thanks for joining us on the
Speaker 2: Late Debate James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond
Speaker 2: coming up. You would have heard celebrities always banging on
Speaker 2: about how the use of fossil fuels causes natural disasters,
Speaker 2: you know, like fires. Well, what are we to make
Speaker 2: of Hollywood celebrities fleeing the fires in la in their
Speaker 2: private jets. We'll talk about that a little later. Plus,
Speaker 2: when we look at the papers, rail strike set to
Speaker 2: cause chaos in Sydney tomorrow as they did today, And
Speaker 2: one hundred and eighty million dollars allocated to fight domestic
Speaker 2: violence in the Northern Territory is unspent, In fact, worse
Speaker 2: than unspent. It hasn't even been allocated yet. We'll get
Speaker 2: to all of that when we look at what's making
Speaker 2: news tomorrow. But first, have you ever looked at a
Speaker 2: misbehaving child, someone else's misbehaving child, and thought that kid
Speaker 2: needs a really good smack. Well a Queensland doctor not
Speaker 2: only thought it, he did it and was fined five
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Doctor Arthur de Villiers smacked the misbehaving toddler
Speaker 2: after the two year old ignored repeated requests to stop
Speaker 2: flicking the lights on and off during a medical appointment. Now,
Speaker 2: the doctor had requested the boy's mother control the child,
Speaker 2: but the mother was deaf and by the time the
Speaker 2: interpreter who was present had communicated the message, well, the
Speaker 2: doctor had lost his patience. He got up from behind
Speaker 2: his desk, walked over, picked up the child and gave
Speaker 2: it a good smack on the bum. Now the child
Speaker 2: was out of control. That was agreed, and the doctor
Speaker 2: gave a smack with an open hand on trousers which
Speaker 2: had a nappy underneath. There was no suggestion the child
Speaker 2: was hurt other than, of course, the child's pride. But
Speaker 2: the Queensland Civil and Administrative Administrative Tribunal ruled that the
Speaker 2: doctor's actions were and I quote completely inappropriate and he
Speaker 2: should never have acted as he did. There's no doubt.
Speaker 2: The tribunal said that the little boy's behavior was very
Speaker 2: challenging and it was completely inappropriate for the respondent to
Speaker 2: intervene as he did. I got to say, Caleb, Liz,
Speaker 2: I sympathize with this doctor because I think we've all
Speaker 2: been to shopping centers. Maybe supermarkets where we've seen out
Speaker 2: of controlled toddlers throwing tantrums as parents stand there idly.
Speaker 2: As a parent of two boys, I understand that I
Speaker 2: never had to teach them to be bad, lying, throwing tantrums.
Speaker 2: They had that figured out all by themselves. It was
Speaker 2: my job to teach them to be good. Somehow they
Speaker 2: didn't know how to do that with a little bit
Speaker 2: of intervention. It reminds me of a story of a
Speaker 2: maid of mine. He used to run an organization dealing
Speaker 2: with delinquent teenagers, and he once told me how he
Speaker 2: was at a supermarket and this kid was just throwing
Speaker 2: an absolute mental tantrum, having a meltdown, as mum just
Speaker 2: stood there sort of, you know, trying to coddle him,
Speaker 2: unsuccessful gentle, and he watched for about a minute and
Speaker 2: a half, and then finally he walked over and handed
Speaker 2: this woman one of his business cards he deals with
Speaker 2: the link and she looked at him, like, what's this for?
Speaker 2: And he said, trust me, you'll be calling me in
Speaker 2: about fifteen years from now. I reckon, instead of finding
Speaker 2: this got the five thousand dollars, the state government should
Speaker 2: have given him five thousand dollars for doing his bit
Speaker 2: to try and head off the crime crisis we're currently
Speaker 2: seeing across our nation.
Speaker 3: Or perhaps they should have sentenced the mother to a smack.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's the real problem here, right,
Speaker 3: And you can understand why the doctor who is simply
Speaker 3: trying to do his job and the kids fiddling with
Speaker 3: light switches which were near some other important switches in
Speaker 3: his practice that he did not want touched. He's trying
Speaker 3: to communicate this to the mother. It was difficult because
Speaker 3: she's dere I get all of that, but surely as
Speaker 3: a parent, I mean, you know, I am not a parent,
Speaker 3: though my girlfriend has two kids, so I've had a
Speaker 3: bit of experience with young children of late, but I
Speaker 3: try not to be the parent in that situation for
Speaker 3: obvious reasons. But I would be horrified as a parent
Speaker 3: if my child was running a mark in the doctor's
Speaker 3: surgery while his brother was trying to be attended to
Speaker 3: by the doctor. I'd be so embarrassed that this is
Speaker 3: the show my kid was putting on in front of
Speaker 3: the doctor and others, and I'd have something done about
Speaker 3: it quick, smart the doctor.
Speaker 4: Shame the fact that.
Speaker 3: It got to the point where the doctor himself felt
Speaker 3: like he had to intervene. I would suggest, mean it's gone,
Speaker 3: you know, quite a long way down the line, because
Speaker 3: most people know that in most circumstances, you don't interfere
Speaker 3: with someone else's child. He's only done that because he
Speaker 3: was really frustrated and he felt like nothing was being
Speaker 3: done about it. I totally sympathized with him that five
Speaker 3: thousand dollars should go into a fund to deal with
Speaker 3: these delinquent kids.
Speaker 4: But genuinely bring back shame.
Speaker 5: I remember the days when do you have your child
Speaker 5: behaved like that in public? Was the most humiliating experience
Speaker 5: a person could have, because they knew in society at
Speaker 5: large understood they were being judged as a result. This
Speaker 5: is the product of your parenting or lack thereof. I
Speaker 5: certainly remember when I was a kid, if I had
Speaker 5: done anything to bring dishonor upon the family, the trip
Speaker 5: home was the most that you're just sweating bullets because.
Speaker 4: You know what you're going home to. They have not forgotten.
Speaker 5: You will be disciplined for what you have done, and
Speaker 5: everybody you got to reap the benefits though then of
Speaker 5: well behaved children in public. My parents had seven, so
Speaker 5: they didn't let us get away with anything. Couldn't afford
Speaker 5: to have a bad apple in that bunch. It would
Speaker 5: have become contagious. And let's face it, this guy, for
Speaker 5: a few seconds.
Speaker 4: There lived the dream. Like you say, who among us
Speaker 4: hasn't been in public going.
Speaker 5: Oh my good Anyone who's babysat my niece's for more
Speaker 5: than five seconds.
Speaker 4: Knows the urge to just go oh my goodness.
Speaker 5: And yet parents these days expect you to just put
Speaker 5: up with it. You might be at a fence, restaurant,
Speaker 5: you may be in any number of settings, and they
Speaker 5: just expect you to suck it up like they do.
Speaker 5: And you're like, no, actually, this is not what I
Speaker 5: gave here for all, believe it or not.
Speaker 2: And of course people will raise the issue of abuse,
Speaker 2: but all normal functioning people understand the difference between discipline
Speaker 2: and abuse. And by the way, you just reminded me
Speaker 2: when my kids were naughty and we'd drive home and
Speaker 2: I had not yet disciplined them, and they would then
Speaker 2: they would start asking, Dad, are you going to discipline that?
Speaker 2: Because they knew when there was a pause between the
Speaker 2: offense and the discipline, they knew it was going to
Speaker 2: raise for repacked.
Speaker 4: Oh was I smacked?
Speaker 5: My elder brother used to tell everyone, because I'm number
Speaker 5: three in the bunch of seven, used to tell everyone,
Speaker 5: you put mine and Anna's buildings together and you get
Speaker 5: half of Elizabeth's.
Speaker 4: My mom was debately smacked.
Speaker 2: My mom had the biggest biceps from all the time
Speaker 2: she was smacking my mom.
Speaker 3: It. Yeah, I think I sacrificed a few wooden spoons
Speaker 3: over made.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, mine, we had pains. I flip
Speaker 4: Kaynes and look at the backside.
Speaker 1: We all turned out alright. We're running around in doctors
Speaker 1: surgeries fiddling with you.
Speaker 5: All the parents out there with strong worled children, take
Speaker 5: it from a strong willed child.
Speaker 4: Hang in there. We turn out okay in the end.
Speaker 3: Though my mum might now be sending a text message
Speaker 3: in to say, actually you did fiddle with the switches
Speaker 3: in the doctor's surgery. I don't remember, and if I did,
Speaker 3: I'm pleading ignorance on this one. Now you'll remember last
Speaker 3: year Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi announced that he was going
Speaker 3: to appoint a special Envoy on anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: Envoy.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I should say I've been in trouble for this
Speaker 3: one before when I've said envoy, the correspondence I get
Speaker 3: from viewers to remind me that it is envoy, so I.
Speaker 1: Will relearn it. I am sorry. He said he would appoint.
Speaker 3: A special Envoy on anti Semitism, but of course at
Speaker 3: the same time we need a special Envoy on Islamophobia
Speaker 3: as well, because you know that's just as bad as antisemitism.
Speaker 3: But whatever, Jillian Siegel was the woman he appointed. Now
Speaker 3: I said at the time, this is going to do nothing.
Speaker 3: The Prime Minister since October seventh, twenty twenty three, has
Speaker 3: shown little regard for antisemitism in this country. All this
Speaker 3: really is window dressing. I mean as if he needs
Speaker 3: to appoint someone on a public salary to tell him
Speaker 3: that antisemitism is a problem in Australia right now we
Speaker 3: can all see that. But he's done very little about
Speaker 3: it during his Prime ministership. So Julian Siegel has now
Speaker 3: come out and come up with a few suggestions, among
Speaker 3: them that if you attack a synagogue you should face
Speaker 3: mandatory minimum sentencing, that meaning you will have to go
Speaker 3: to jail, and that there ought to be a National
Speaker 3: Cabinet meeting to discuss antisemitism.
Speaker 1: Here she was talking to Chris Kenny earlier tonight.
Speaker 6: Infecting our community with hate and attacking places of worship
Speaker 6: in particular, but other places in order to intimidate the
Speaker 6: Jewish community. They should actually result in jail time. We
Speaker 6: need to make sure as a community that we convey
Speaker 6: to those bringing prosecutions and those assessing the penalty is
Speaker 6: how serious this is for the future of our country.
Speaker 1: Well, what would you know?
Speaker 3: The Prime Minister who appointed someone to tell him what
Speaker 3: to do about anti Semitism now says, no, I'm not
Speaker 3: going to do what the person who I appointed to
Speaker 3: tell me what to do about anti Semitism has told
Speaker 3: me to do.
Speaker 1: He was at a press conference today.
Speaker 7: Well, she spoke with Jillian Siegel, Yes, say a couple
Speaker 7: of times. So we convene into a meeting yesterday with myself,
Speaker 7: the Premier of Victoria, the acting Premier of New South Wales,
Speaker 7: and the AFP Commissioner to coordinate activity. We have Operation
Speaker 7: Abelite that is in place. What I want is to
Speaker 7: ensure that any act of anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: That it stops, that it stops.
Speaker 7: I want people who are responsible for these acts to
Speaker 7: be prosecuted fully because they are a crime and people
Speaker 7: should be held to account with the full force of
Speaker 7: the law.
Speaker 3: Now, I think the Prime Minister does actually have a
Speaker 3: point here, that being that an attack on a synagogue
Speaker 3: having mandatory minimum sentencing would be an extraordinary move, one
Speaker 3: that has to be made by the states, not at
Speaker 3: a federal level, because of course that's where the criminal
Speaker 3: codes lie. But normally mandatory minimum sentencing is applied to
Speaker 3: the worst of the worst crimes, things like murder, rape,
Speaker 3: child abuse, etc. And also, what did national Cabinet ever achieve.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that having another meeting would ever actually
Speaker 3: do anything. But it proves the point, does it not?
Speaker 3: That when he appointed a Special Envoy on anti Semitism,
Speaker 3: it wasn't so that he could actually get any advice
Speaker 3: that he would ever take any notice of, or that
Speaker 3: he particularly cared about. He was simply trying to say
Speaker 3: to the Jewish community, oh look, look, I'm doing something.
Speaker 1: Now, I'm doing something now.
Speaker 3: It was always window dressing. He's proved it today. He
Speaker 3: doesn't want the advisor.
Speaker 5: To say, though, that he won't take future advice or
Speaker 5: he hasn't taken past advice. And like you say, he
Speaker 5: does have a point here.
Speaker 4: There's the matter of jurisdiction.
Speaker 5: National counsel would involve obviously all of the premiers.
Speaker 4: Whereas we know that the hotspots here in.
Speaker 5: Australia are New South Wales, namely Sydney and Victoria, namely Melbourne.
Speaker 4: And he was talking to Min's and Allen.
Speaker 5: Just yesterday, so he really is honing in on those
Speaker 5: troubled spots. As for mandatory sentencing, I mean this, even
Speaker 5: for that heinous crimes that you named. There mandatory sentencing.
Speaker 5: The reason why there isn't many of them is because
Speaker 5: it's so fraught for the uninitiated. That simply means that
Speaker 5: the sentence is already decided. So if and when you
Speaker 5: are convicted of a particular crime, the judge doesn't have
Speaker 5: much to deliberate over, you get the mandatory sentence regardless
Speaker 5: of the circumstances.
Speaker 4: But let's for a second imagine.
Speaker 5: That we have found the person who's burnt down the
Speaker 5: synagogue in Melbourne and it turns.
Speaker 4: Out that they were bribed, they were told that their
Speaker 4: family would be killed, etc. And so on.
Speaker 5: So when we're talking about mandatory sentencing, we're talking about
Speaker 5: an instance in which any of those situations, any other
Speaker 5: extenuating circumstances are thrown out the window, and someone is
Speaker 5: simply given a cut, copy paste every single time, the
Speaker 5: same sentence. And I do think that it would be
Speaker 5: a curious thing to have a special sentence for the
Speaker 5: burning down of a synagogue as opposed to somebody's church,
Speaker 5: somebody's mosque, or any other person's place of worship.
Speaker 2: I think that what the envoy is trying to say
Speaker 2: is that there's a distinction between a church being set
Speaker 2: on fire right now or a mosque as compared to
Speaker 2: a synagogue. A church fire right now would be an
Speaker 2: isolated incident. But we've had.
Speaker 5: That's called knee jerk legislation, and it's always about it.
Speaker 2: Well, I would say fifteen months of anti Semitic attacks
Speaker 2: without any action maybe requires a bit of knee jerking,
Speaker 2: and that must be the.
Speaker 5: Is the special operation Adelite that he's talked about.
Speaker 2: And we've had a fire in a mosque. What a
Speaker 2: month ago they initially said we've got three suspects where
Speaker 2: afraid they might flee the country. We've heard nothing since
Speaker 2: nothing has happened. And this is the frustration that must
Speaker 2: be being felt by the Jewish community. You said mandatory
Speaker 2: sentencing would be an extraordinary move, agreed, but are we
Speaker 2: not living in extraordinary times? And as for jurisdiction, well,
Speaker 2: she said, that's why we need to have a national cabinet.
Speaker 2: They had a national cabinet meeting about social media, for
Speaker 2: goodness sake, but won't have one about anti Semitism. This
Speaker 2: is an insult to the Jewish community if you're going
Speaker 2: to ignore their advice, and her advice is could we
Speaker 2: have a discussion from the premiers?
Speaker 5: So would you if he doesn't take all of the
Speaker 5: envoyage guys.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, I'm saying that this advice that she has
Speaker 2: given is pretty innocuous. Get the premiers together have a
Speaker 2: national coordinated response to antisemitism so we're all on the
Speaker 2: same page. That would be the least I reckon that
Speaker 2: we could do to address a subject that's been allowed
Speaker 2: to go on and on and on for fifteen months.
Speaker 2: And while you're at it, talk about mandatory sentencing. And
Speaker 2: it would be nice if someone got arrested in the
Speaker 2: first place.
Speaker 1: But I think I think we're.
Speaker 5: Rather misakes, which is why National council never works.
Speaker 4: We saw this during COVID.
Speaker 2: Even if they have.
Speaker 5: Their meetings and then they walk away and they say,
Speaker 5: I've got.
Speaker 4: My own feet.
Speaker 2: Say to the Jewish community that social media was important
Speaker 2: enough to call everybody together, but apparently antisemitism isn't important enough.
Speaker 4: Why are you sucked the elbow?
Speaker 5: Isn't changing his tune after all this time?
Speaker 3: Issunity one weeds here of you know, why is he
Speaker 3: not doing something now about what the antisemity some invoices
Speaker 3: he should do. He's failed to do anything for fifteen months.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's not going to change now because someone
Speaker 3: else has told him what to do. We know the
Speaker 3: stripes of the Prime Minister as if we would expect
Speaker 3: him to change now. I'm not saying that's right, but
Speaker 3: but we can jump up and down now and say, oh, well,
Speaker 3: he hasn't taken the advice.
Speaker 1: He didn't want the advice.
Speaker 2: But what I would say is he would have been
Speaker 2: better off not appointing any anti antisemit because it was token.
Speaker 2: When he appointed that, it was injury.
Speaker 1: It was pure token.
Speaker 5: The applause, much like now sending the Attorney General to
Speaker 5: Israel and we're all like, oh yeah, golf, clap buddy, amazing.
Speaker 5: Everyone's convinced you've done a complete one eighty not now
Speaker 5: to a very important issue that before today I did
Speaker 5: not even know was a thing. Let's say you are
Speaker 5: hospitalized here in Australia. You have nothing to do. Like
Speaker 5: most people who are bed ridden in hosts hospital, you
Speaker 5: get to stare at the.
Speaker 4: Ceiling all day, every day.
Speaker 5: I didn't know you have to pay ten dollars to
Speaker 5: watch free to air tea V. This story today absolutely
Speaker 5: rendered my heart hearing people tell these stories of Oh,
Speaker 5: I went to visit my brother. He's laid up with
Speaker 5: filling the blank of what he's suffering from. And I
Speaker 5: asked him, why are you just lying here in silence,
Speaker 5: staring at the wall, And he said, well, it's ten
Speaker 5: bucks a day to watch free to air TV and
Speaker 5: I simply can't afford it, which, of course then the
Speaker 5: brother went sorted it out paid for it himself. But
Speaker 5: this is the case across the nation and it's come
Speaker 5: to our attention thanks to a group in Perth taking
Speaker 5: this on.
Speaker 4: They're called the Health Consumer's Council.
Speaker 5: The article says in eight of the city's metropolitan hospitals.
Speaker 5: We're talking about Perth in this instance, although it's the
Speaker 5: same across the nation, access to bedside TV showing free
Speaker 5: to air channels and a movie channel, but not streaming
Speaker 5: services is provided by a third party, Hills Health Solutions.
Speaker 5: The company takes responsibility for the purchase, installation, and maintenance
Speaker 5: of the TVs and charges patients ten dollars a day
Speaker 5: or fifty four a week nine dollars per day if
Speaker 5: you're a cacession card holder. I just find this utterly miserable.
Speaker 5: And the premiere WA Roger Cook has come out and says, yeah,
Speaker 5: so I backed this one hundred percent. That people should
Speaker 5: just be sitting in hospital bored, lonely, probably their mind's
Speaker 5: full of the tragedy that they are living through, or
Speaker 5: if they've been through an accident.
Speaker 4: I mean, do you.
Speaker 5: Ever need trash TV, which is what freeware TV is.
Speaker 4: Let's be honest, do.
Speaker 5: You ever need trash TV more than when you just
Speaker 5: need to be completely distracted. It gives you a bit
Speaker 5: of company, It takes your mind off things. And here
Speaker 5: we have people in hospital beds unable to afford ten
Speaker 5: bucks a day.
Speaker 4: Genuinely, this made my blood run coal.
Speaker 2: I would pay ten dollars a day to not have
Speaker 2: free to air, making my miserable care in a hospital
Speaker 2: bed in a hospital, the credit book will be far
Speaker 2: better off than getting free TV. And at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, someone's got to pay for it. So
Speaker 2: if the user is not paying for it, the rest
Speaker 2: of us pay for it.
Speaker 4: I just want to pay for with hospital care.
Speaker 3: You know, it seems a bit miserable, doesn't it to
Speaker 3: force someone to pay ten dollars a day to watch
Speaker 3: the garbage that they put on free to air TV.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you were.
Speaker 3: In hospital over summer, I'd want to watch the cricket, right,
Speaker 3: So that's that's especially when you want to tell you.
Speaker 3: But see, it's fine for any of us three, Right,
Speaker 3: we'd take in an iPad or our iPhone or whatever.
Speaker 2: Everyone's and you can stream all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: But the people that this affects the most, as is
Speaker 3: often the case when we talk about these things, whether
Speaker 3: it's going cash lists, et cetera, is elderly people, right
Speaker 3: who maybe don't have a device, I don't know how
Speaker 3: to work a device, they don't have a smartphone whatever,
Speaker 3: and mere people who are more likely to spend long
Speaker 3: periods of time in hospital and for the pleasure of
Speaker 3: being a pensioner.
Speaker 1: They knock off am easily. One dollar a day the price.
Speaker 3: Even if I have to pay, because I earn a
Speaker 3: reasonable some of that whatever, I can copy it. But
Speaker 3: it's pensioners that I worry about, who might be in
Speaker 3: hospital for long periods of time and they've got to
Speaker 3: pony up ten bucks a day to watch the Telly.
Speaker 1: I mean, just let them have some simple pleasures.
Speaker 3: They want to watch Jerry Springer, they want to watch
Speaker 3: doctor film for heaven's sake. You might call it trash TV.
Speaker 3: I call it Hella vision. But just let them have
Speaker 3: some joy.
Speaker 2: In their lives. Imagine the whole working life. Taxes to
Speaker 2: fund the ABC watch ABC Horrible. Staying on the theme
Speaker 2: of hospitals, I'll tell you if it's bad in Australia,
Speaker 2: try a hospital in the UK. Radiographers in UK hospitals
Speaker 2: have been told to ask men if they might be
Speaker 2: pregnant before performing X rays. Now this comes about because
Speaker 2: a transgendered man that's a woman who was identifying as
Speaker 2: a man, underwent an X ray unaware that she was
Speaker 2: pregnant at the time, and of course staff never thought
Speaker 2: to ask because this person was presenting as a man
Speaker 2: and they didn't want to offend by misgendering the person.
Speaker 2: So now, in order to avoid that happening again, there
Speaker 2: are signs. I'll show you the sign when you go
Speaker 2: for an X ray at NHS hospitals in the UK
Speaker 2: saying this and I quote, please be aware. All patients
Speaker 2: aged twelve to fifty five being X rayed will be
Speaker 2: asked whether there is any chance of them being pregnant,
Speaker 2: regardless of gender. Now this is not inclusive. This is
Speaker 2: absolutely insane. More than insane, it's abuse. Imagine asking a
Speaker 2: twelve year old boy if he might be pregnant before
Speaker 2: he's given an X ray. If you did that with
Speaker 2: the parents absent, that is abuse. If you did that
Speaker 2: with the parent present, you should probably get a punch
Speaker 2: in the face and it would be well deserved.
Speaker 1: You find five grand for that, It would be five
Speaker 1: grand well.
Speaker 2: Spent for a smack on the bottom of that person's reality.
Speaker 2: Think about this. You've got vulnerable people, right, they've been
Speaker 2: denied free to air TV.
Speaker 5: You can't afford that seven pounds in the UK freaking
Speaker 5: out about ten days back.
Speaker 4: Try seven pounds.
Speaker 2: You're already feeling miserable and vulnerable, and then to add
Speaker 2: insult to injury before you get an X ray to
Speaker 2: find out just how bad your situation is. They ask you,
Speaker 2: as a bloke, do you reckon you might be pregnant? Seriously,
Speaker 2: if a doctor asked me if I was pregnant before
Speaker 2: getting an X ray, I would ask if I could
Speaker 2: have a doctor who was competent to treat me, please.
Speaker 3: I'd say, Look, I might have put on a few
Speaker 3: kegs over summer, wiggle of the wine and obecu't.
Speaker 1: Mean I'm pregnant. Maybe it's a food baby. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I also want to know. I mean. They say they're
Speaker 1: only asking patients.
Speaker 3: Between the ages of twelve and fifty five, presumably because
Speaker 3: they assume that every woman biological or otherwise, by the
Speaker 3: age of fifty five has gone through menopause. But what
Speaker 3: if you haven't gone through menopause by the age of
Speaker 3: fifty five. They are making assumptions on this side, just
Speaker 3: as they were previously making assumptions about whether or not
Speaker 3: you were a female.
Speaker 1: And I reckon, that's a discretion.
Speaker 2: Men don't have menopause, so they could still be pregnant.
Speaker 2: Though the whole thing goes wrong.
Speaker 1: The one point, do we just use our brains? Right?
Speaker 3: Like if a transgender man who is actually a woman
Speaker 3: comes in to see you.
Speaker 1: Like, unless they've had extraordinary.
Speaker 3: Surgery, it's probably reasonably obvious that this person is a
Speaker 3: biological woman.
Speaker 5: As you are to be obvious, because these days it
Speaker 5: can be quite confusing. I mean, we've all been there
Speaker 5: once or twice these days. But we're talking about medical
Speaker 5: professional to have their medical records. If I'm about to
Speaker 5: X ray you, surely I know enough about you from
Speaker 5: your medical forms to know whether or not there is
Speaker 5: any possibility that you could be pregnant. Maybe they are
Speaker 5: legitimately doing it just to avoid all liability and to
Speaker 5: ensure because it's sadly hospitals can't be too careful.
Speaker 2: That's okay, So why not have a sign that simply says,
Speaker 2: please notify us if there's a chance you could be pregnant.
Speaker 5: That would again, that could leave them open to liability.
Speaker 5: I can easily say, oh, I didn't see that sign,
Speaker 5: and now you've X rayed me, and yes, I was pregnant.
Speaker 1: Fair.
Speaker 5: So they're just like, you know what we are asking
Speaker 5: every Tom Dick and Harry.
Speaker 8: Literally literally can you imagine some bulky bricklayer or something
Speaker 8: going in for some sort of X ray and as
Speaker 8: they're about you, they're like, you're pregnant.
Speaker 2: That question would put radiographers in danger. So forget the patient.
Speaker 2: What about your life alility to protect your staff from
Speaker 2: angry men.
Speaker 5: Just imagine some pommy bloke being like, are you ka mate?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Matte, drop the kids off at the pool this morning.
Speaker 3: While we're over in the UK, let's talk about Wales. Now,
Speaker 3: you would have heard recently about the grooming gangs in
Speaker 3: the UK.
Speaker 1: Now this dates back more than a decade ago.
Speaker 3: This odded coming to light in about twenty thirteen, and
Speaker 3: it had been going on for at least a decade
Speaker 3: before that, particularly in Rottenham in England, but certainly other
Speaker 3: parts of the UK as well, where Pakistani in particular
Speaker 3: grooming gangs were systematically taking and abusing young British girls.
Speaker 3: So let's fast forward teen years on from that and
Speaker 3: we are starting to talk about this, or a bit
Speaker 3: more than ten years on, we're actually starting to talk
Speaker 3: about this again.
Speaker 1: It's getting the publicity it deserves.
Speaker 3: There are suggestions now that there should be an inquiry
Speaker 3: into this, though of course the Sarma government has k
Speaker 3: not that on the head and guests who was the
Speaker 3: DPP at the time and all this was going on.
Speaker 1: It was Sirkar Starmer.
Speaker 3: But in twenty twenty three a school in Wales twelve
Speaker 3: year old girls we're talking about here, put together a
Speaker 3: video encouraging refugees to come to Wales and saying you
Speaker 3: will be well treated here, etc. That was then shared
Speaker 3: by the Welsh Refugee Council. Now this has come back
Speaker 3: to light in recent days after there has been more
Speaker 3: publicity about what happened ten odd years ago and all
Speaker 3: the years before that. But you have to ask the question,
Speaker 3: what on earth was this school thinking and what was
Speaker 3: the wealth the Welsh Sorry Refugee Council thinking when a
Speaker 3: year ago, just a decade after Pakistani men had been
Speaker 3: found to be systematically abusing girls of about this age,
Speaker 3: What were they thinking putting out a video saying come
Speaker 3: to Wales, We're going to treat you well.
Speaker 1: Take a look.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to ours. We understand being a refugee
Speaker 2: isn't easy. They go through so much cleaning.
Speaker 3: Your country is difficult for Wales as to help you
Speaker 3: feel welcome.
Speaker 5: As a nation of country who welcome anyone and everyone.
Speaker 4: We recognize your skills and talent.
Speaker 2: Not only that, but Whales office free education unhealthy.
Speaker 3: We understand that you're feel a lot and that is
Speaker 3: why the Wild Refugee Council is here to help you.
Speaker 3: I mean it's almost like they're enticing these men to
Speaker 3: come to Wales. Look what you can have here. Chris Philp,
Speaker 3: the UK Shadow Home Secretary, said it was deeply irresponsible
Speaker 3: for the Welsh Refugee Council to share a video featuring
Speaker 3: only young girls in the first place, especially in light
Speaker 3: of the long standing grooming gang's scandal. I mean, you
Speaker 3: look at that now. I can't believe they didn't look
Speaker 3: at it then and what the elder but you look
Speaker 3: at that now and go, honestly, who ever thought that
Speaker 3: was a good idea?
Speaker 2: We should point out we blurred the girls, correct, The
Speaker 2: Welsh Refugee Council did not. This is wrong on two levels. Firstly,
Speaker 2: while we involving twelve year old girls in the immigration debate,
Speaker 2: what does a twelve year old kid have to say
Speaker 2: of value about all the nuances of immigration policy. And second,
Speaker 2: of course for the Welsh Refugee Council to share that
Speaker 2: video and they said, oh we weren't promoting you know,
Speaker 2: for refugees to come. We just thought it was nice
Speaker 2: that they had said something about the Refugee Council. Well,
Speaker 2: that's absolute rubbish. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Speaker 2: It's wrong. The school took it down after they realized
Speaker 2: the Refugee Council should never have done that. And now
Speaker 2: Kirs Starmer is saying that this video, it's been shared
Speaker 2: by Elon Musk, he's promoted it, and Kios Starmer says
Speaker 2: it's more right wing.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: What's the word I'm looking for, ohsterio, the right hysteria.
Speaker 2: It's highlight highlighting one of the greatest failures in the
Speaker 2: history of England, at which he was at the forefront
Speaker 2: of it. No wonder he doesn't like this video now resurfacing.
Speaker 5: There are genuinely no words. We would not be allowed
Speaker 5: to share the words that judges have uttered regarding these
Speaker 5: particular cases describing what was done to the girls in England,
Speaker 5: especially in certain parts like Rotterdam. Like you mentioned, it
Speaker 5: is unspeakable. It is beyond animalistic, it is demonic.
Speaker 4: It is disgusting.
Speaker 5: And the fact that anyone thought this was a good idea.
Speaker 5: I often say that negligence, this bad doesn't exist. This
Speaker 5: is when I start looking at was this deliberate? Because
Speaker 5: for crying out loud, you're telling me no one at
Speaker 5: the Welsh Refugee Council thought, oh actually this isn't This
Speaker 5: isn't going to fly.
Speaker 4: This is very distasteful.
Speaker 5: Even if you didn't have the background of what's been
Speaker 5: happening over the last decade or so, even if that
Speaker 5: wasn't there, this is extremely unwise, Like you say, to
Speaker 5: involve children in essentially talking about something that they have
Speaker 5: absolutely no idea what they're saying, using them as political pawns.
Speaker 5: You do wonder where their parents were. My goodness, I'd
Speaker 5: want these people's guts for garters back home to Australia now,
Speaker 5: where citizenship test failure rates have been revealed.
Speaker 4: For last year in twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: Four, as migration and social cohesion shape up to be
Speaker 5: key battle grounds at the next election, the Herald Son
Speaker 5: can reveal that while more than one hundred and eighty
Speaker 5: three thousand citizenship tests were taken last year, only one
Speaker 5: hundred and twenty two thousand people pass.
Speaker 4: The Opposition, which.
Speaker 5: Has previously acclused accused Labor of neglecting to teach new
Speaker 5: citizens what it means to be Australian, says the new
Speaker 5: data is of deep concern.
Speaker 4: What's of deep.
Speaker 5: Concern to me is that you are already living here. Okay,
Speaker 5: you're not visiting. You are living here. You have emigrated here.
Speaker 5: Now you're applying for citizenship, which means that you've been
Speaker 5: here for quite some years already. And you can't pass
Speaker 5: a twenty question multi choice.
Speaker 4: So you've got the answer in front of you.
Speaker 5: You just have to pick out of three choices which
Speaker 5: is the right answer. You can't pass that test.
Speaker 4: You're allowed to get a quarter of.
Speaker 5: Them wrong and still pass any more of that than
Speaker 5: you've failed. Then if you fail, you get to come
Speaker 5: back three more times and just.
Speaker 4: Try it on again.
Speaker 5: I find it disturbing that the failure rates of this high,
Speaker 5: simply because we're talking about people who already live here
Speaker 5: and haven't even cared enough about their new home country
Speaker 5: and the culture and the people therein to learn basic
Speaker 5: stuff like what's the capital of Australia.
Speaker 1: Well, there's two important points here.
Speaker 3: One of them is that the failure rate went through
Speaker 3: the roof after twenty twenty, when the Morrison government put
Speaker 3: in questions about Australian values, Right, that's the hurdle that
Speaker 3: they're falling down at. So these people are being asked
Speaker 3: what are Australian values and they can't tell you this.
Speaker 2: It's like a freedom of speech, the mocracy, these kinds of.
Speaker 1: That is extremely traveling.
Speaker 3: And the largest failures were people on humanitarian visas, those
Speaker 3: who should be the most grateful that Australia has given
Speaker 3: them the opportunity not only to live somewhere safer and
Speaker 3: have another go at their life, but now a shot
Speaker 3: at actually being an Australian, and these are the people
Speaker 3: who fail most often. It makes a mockery of what
Speaker 3: we have offered them.
Speaker 2: But the mockery really is the people have put together
Speaker 2: this test. I mean one of the questions that we're
Speaker 2: currently asking people who want to be citizens of this country.
Speaker 2: We're asking them who is authorized to perform a welcome country.
Speaker 2: That now, apparently is the very important thing to know
Speaker 2: if you're going to be a citizen. What a lot
Speaker 2: of a rubbish. That's the last thing we need them
Speaker 2: to worry about. But a government spokesperson who was talking
Speaker 2: about the high failure rate said that it's very important
Speaker 2: that those doing the tests are given a fair go
Speaker 2: and that the test one of the Australian values and
Speaker 2: that the test does not quote create barriers to citizenship.
Speaker 2: I would have thought the purpose of the test was
Speaker 2: to create barriers, barrier out understand our values. The Refugee
Speaker 2: Council of Australia was just recently lobbying for the test
Speaker 2: to be offered in languages other than English. Is a
Speaker 2: little bit sort of counter productive, but there you go.
Speaker 2: That's the state of our country under the current government.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about an interesting decision by Cole's
Speaker 2: Supermarkets in light of a horrific attack on one of
Speaker 2: their staff members in Ipswich, Queensland on Monday. A sixty
Speaker 2: three year old staff member was stocking the shelves when
Speaker 2: a third teen year old boy grabbed a knife that
Speaker 2: was on the shelf for sale and stabbed her in
Speaker 2: the back allegedly. Allegedly. She is now in hospital, allegedly
Speaker 2: recovering alleged, but the kids being charged.
Speaker 1: The kids being charged, we have he's alleged that he's committed.
Speaker 2: This was pretty clear what happened. Knife didn't end up
Speaker 2: there by accident. As a strong as a response to this,
Speaker 2: alleged incident, Coles have now made the decision they will
Speaker 2: not stock kitchen knives at all. I would argue that
Speaker 2: while this is a horrific attack, it's also incredibly incredibly rare.
Speaker 2: It seems to me, and I don't want to sound heartless,
Speaker 2: but it does seem like a bit of an overreaction
Speaker 2: to now say we will not sell kitchen knives at all.
Speaker 2: It means your average Ozsie has got to find a
Speaker 2: specialist knife shop to buy basic kitchen utensils. And it
Speaker 2: begs the question what sort of security now do knife
Speaker 2: shops overreaction.
Speaker 5: Or if they behind the counter with smokes or something
Speaker 5: something like that where you can be seen to do
Speaker 5: something to respond to the incident.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a massive overreaction.
Speaker 5: Especially because if you shop.
Speaker 4: At Cole's, browsers are down.
Speaker 5: If you're want of those people they have recently, like
Speaker 5: literally they are locking up their smeag knives that you
Speaker 5: were in line to get as loyal customers that were
Speaker 5: literally handing out free knives, and now they're chucking them
Speaker 5: out by the bus load. This is utter nonsense, and
Speaker 5: they could have managed this so much more easily by
Speaker 5: being like, hey, if you want to buy knives, they're
Speaker 5: in this cabinet, you have to go up to the
Speaker 5: customer service desk. I mean, not many people are buying
Speaker 5: knives on a daily average, so it's not like.
Speaker 4: They're going to be like, oh, the desk can't handle it.
Speaker 4: That would have been perfectly fine.
Speaker 2: The other thing that annoys me with stuff like this
Speaker 2: is we all know it's just much easy to say, well,
Speaker 2: we just won't stop knives, and they have a conversation
Speaker 2: about what the hell is wrong? Yes, with our culture
Speaker 2: where we've got thirteen year old kids stabbing strangers in
Speaker 2: the back in the middle of a Coles supermarket, that
Speaker 2: is a conversation we should be having, but no one
Speaker 2: wants to have it, much less should you smack your children.
Speaker 2: Let's put all of that together. There's something we don't
Speaker 2: want to talk about, so instead let's just hide the knife.
Speaker 3: Well is brought up earlier the idea of knee jerk policy, right,
Speaker 3: and this is the ultimate example of kneejerk policy.
Speaker 1: Now I've written about this for news.
Speaker 3: Dot com dot Au you can read it tomorrow, an
Speaker 3: excellent column. But I'll tell you all the stuff that
Speaker 3: I'm going to write in it anyway, but I suggest
Speaker 3: you do go and read it nevertheless.
Speaker 1: But the thing that annoys me about this is.
Speaker 3: You know, I get that Cole's wants to be seen
Speaker 3: to be doing something. Just as last year when we
Speaker 3: had a spate of knife incidents in New South Wales,
Speaker 3: the Men's government wanted to be seen to be doing something,
Speaker 3: so they brought in these laws that meant that you
Speaker 3: could be searched for a knife at a place where
Speaker 3: there had been another knife incident without a warranty.
Speaker 4: US.
Speaker 3: It doesn't do anything to stop knife I mean, if
Speaker 3: a thirteen year old kid wants to stab someone, they
Speaker 3: can get a kitchen knife from any house in the
Speaker 3: country or any workplace in the country. We're not talking
Speaker 3: about something that is hard to get your hands on.
Speaker 3: A kitchen knife is not designed to be a weapon.
Speaker 3: It's designed to do a job in the same way
Speaker 3: that a car is not designed to be a weapon,
Speaker 3: but it is also incredibly dangerous and kills thousands of people.
Speaker 3: Get cars at a supermarket, well no, but you can
Speaker 3: get a car at a car dealership. But you wouldn't say, oh,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to sell that because we've had an
Speaker 3: incident with a car right.
Speaker 1: And the problem here is so often we say.
Speaker 3: Look, okay, we'll give up a little bit of liberty
Speaker 3: in order to make people safer, until one day we
Speaker 3: will wake up having given away every bit of liberty
Speaker 3: we have to achieve ultimate safety, and we still won't
Speaker 3: be safe. Then that's what annoys me about this. It
Speaker 3: doesn't actually fix anything. It doesn't stop knife crime. And
Speaker 3: by the way, knife crime in New South Wales anyway
Speaker 3: is lower than it was ten years ago, lower than
Speaker 3: it was twenty years ago. We don't have a big
Speaker 3: problem with knife crime. We have a problem with youth crime.
Speaker 3: And you don't treat that by banning the sale of kitchen.
Speaker 2: You know, after that our apply be in America. I'm
Speaker 2: rushing out to buy the paper to Maria, real that
Speaker 2: that was very very good. Speaking of papers. Will be
Speaker 2: back in just a moment with what's making news in
Speaker 2: tomorrow's papers? Stick around, welcome back. Let's take a look
Speaker 2: at what's making news in tomorrow's papers. Caleb, you've got
Speaker 2: the Australian some great stories on tomorrow's front paper.
Speaker 3: They certainly are hardly a chain saw is the headline
Speaker 3: lives guardrails no guarantee of fiscal prudence, and this one's
Speaker 3: a ripper. The coalition self imposed expenditure limits would allow
Speaker 3: for higher spending than what is being for us by labor,
Speaker 3: prompting economists to accuse Angus Taylor of failing to outline
Speaker 3: a credible pathway towards a lower spending and lower taxing
Speaker 3: future if there is a change in government.
Speaker 1: So The Australian has.
Speaker 3: Done some analysis of the numbers that the Coalition have
Speaker 3: put together and found that they would permit sixteen point
Speaker 3: eight billion dollars more spending than what was forecast by
Speaker 3: the Albanese government in December.
Speaker 1: I think you couldn't script this stuff.
Speaker 5: And Albo's literally out there saying they're going to take
Speaker 5: a sledgehammer, They're going to take a chain sawter services.
Speaker 5: You guys are going to be living in caves. Now
Speaker 5: that's my paraphrase, but basically threatening people saying, you know,
Speaker 5: the quality of service with a.
Speaker 4: Health, education, you name it.
Speaker 5: These guys are going to absolutely slash It's simply not true.
Speaker 2: More well, I mean, it doesn't mean that they're going
Speaker 2: to spend that extra sixteen billion dollars more than the
Speaker 2: government at spend if re elected. But it does mean
Speaker 2: they can make some mockrob they have promised. I mean,
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I know, you give some flexibility.
Speaker 4: We all love a bit of flat you know.
Speaker 3: I just love to see and then you know, I
Speaker 3: hate to praise the guy given his latter day pursuits,
Speaker 3: but you know the days of Bob Hawk and Paul
Speaker 3: Keating as a treasurer, who in their day Keating as
Speaker 3: a treasurer and later as a Prime minister, who were
Speaker 3: unafraid to pursue economic reform, who were unafraid to shake
Speaker 3: things up and say no, this is what I mean.
Speaker 3: The reformer was instituted by labor governments that you wouldn't
Speaker 3: get from any labor government.
Speaker 1: Today. I just everyone seems.
Speaker 3: Afraid to actually say, yes, we're going to have major
Speaker 3: tax reform, We're going to have major spending reform. We're
Speaker 3: going to change the way the government works in this country.
Speaker 1: No one has the balls to do.
Speaker 2: It any You're saying free everything is not a reform.
Speaker 1: Oh well, funny about that.
Speaker 2: I thought it was an economic refer in the way our.
Speaker 1: Government good way to get votes, isn't it.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: The story on the front of the elves tomorrow. This
Speaker 3: one is truly extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Judge Lash's egregious breach.
Speaker 3: A district court judge has lashed a decision by Western
Speaker 3: Australian minister Don Punch to return awarded the state into
Speaker 3: the home of a child sex predator as utterly extraordinary
Speaker 3: and suggested the state rethink fighting a sex abuse compensation
Speaker 3: against it. Mister Punch was in a senior role with
Speaker 3: the Department of Communities in nineteen ninety eight when he
Speaker 3: helped return an eighty year old to his mother and
Speaker 3: her de facto partner. Now, this is far from the
Speaker 3: only example of these things across the country. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is just one case in Western Australia. But if
Speaker 3: you want to delve into the foster system, there are
Speaker 3: so many stories I've heard I could tell you about
Speaker 3: that will make your skin crawl. But it's amazing to
Speaker 3: think that the government would now try to defend itself
Speaker 3: against that.
Speaker 1: Just put your hands out and say, yep, that was bad. Well.
Speaker 2: The admission came during a court case. The boy who
Speaker 2: now I guess older, who has allegedly been abused, is
Speaker 2: claiming not just the de facto but other members of
Speaker 2: the family also abused him and is blaming the government
Speaker 2: for it. So the government have admitted that, on the
Speaker 2: balance of probabilities, they knew the de facto was abusing
Speaker 2: this boy, and yet they return him to the de facto. Anyway,
Speaker 2: what the government are disagreeing with is that other members
Speaker 2: of the family were abusing and that they knew about that.
Speaker 2: The point that's being made by the judge is, well,
Speaker 2: if you're going to admit you knew about the de facto, indeed,
Speaker 2: are you seriously going to continue with this court case?
Speaker 2: Why don't you just stop now while you're ahead, pay
Speaker 2: whatever compensation is due, and let this kid not have
Speaker 2: to give evidence. He's been violated enough, not just by terrible,
Speaker 2: evil people, but by the government themselves in pursuing this
Speaker 2: court case.
Speaker 5: One hundred percent, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Speaker 5: By the sounds and whenever a hear of a case
Speaker 5: like this, this is something that tax payers would be
Speaker 5: more than happy for the government to fit the bill for.
Speaker 1: Just own up.
Speaker 4: It is your fault.
Speaker 5: Oh I just well, these kind of cases just they
Speaker 5: boggle the mind that that could ever happen.
Speaker 4: And yet here we are.
Speaker 3: Just going on a lighter angle. Another story on the
Speaker 3: front of the Ears tomorrow. This one is hilarious. I
Speaker 3: have to say in the top right hand call of
Speaker 3: the paper that you'll see it's his wife band India's
Speaker 3: response to Ossie tour drubbing.
Speaker 1: And of course you would know that.
Speaker 3: The Indians came out here to play against Australia in
Speaker 3: the Test.
Speaker 1: Series the Border Gabasca.
Speaker 3: Trophy and we demolished them and rightly so, getting the
Speaker 3: trophy back for the first time in a decade. But
Speaker 3: India has now said the BCCI, which runs Indian Cricket
Speaker 3: and also runs World Cricket, but we don't.
Speaker 1: Talk about that. But they have said that the wives.
Speaker 3: And partners of the players now because you know they
Speaker 3: think they played badly in Australia, that they must have
Speaker 3: been a distraction.
Speaker 1: That was the problem. That's what caused.
Speaker 2: It wasn't that catching.
Speaker 3: It wasn't the fact that the women, wasn't the fact
Speaker 3: that Virat Cooley should have retired a year ago and
Speaker 3: that the captain should have retired a year ago, hence
Speaker 3: why he didn't play in the last match. But they've
Speaker 3: now said that wives and partners will only be able
Speaker 3: to join for two weeks on six week tours and
Speaker 3: one week on shorter tours. That's what's going to turn
Speaker 3: the Indian cricket team around, is to deprive them of
Speaker 3: access to their wives and parties.
Speaker 2: Call this one up, all right, let's go to the
Speaker 2: front page of the Daily Telegraph. Obviously, people in Sydney
Speaker 2: suffering today badly with trained strikes that's set to continue tomorrow.
Speaker 2: The headline says commuter fury over one thousand canceled trains
Speaker 2: as strikes stop Sydney dead in its tracks. It's getting ridiculous.
Speaker 2: The article reads commuters will abandon the CBD and their
Speaker 2: workplaces today. That's speaking, of course, of Thursday, after rail
Speaker 2: strikes caused a thousand train cancelations and a complete meltdown
Speaker 2: of the system. Crammed carriages sat still for hours, infuriating
Speaker 2: commuters as the union boss at the center of a
Speaker 2: bit of wage fight with the state government sensationally claimed
Speaker 2: he had the support of the public. I'm not about that.
Speaker 2: I got to say that is a sensational lane, quite presumptuous.
Speaker 2: They've just knocked back a fifteen percent. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: about the support of the public. One train today, Liz
Speaker 2: was running at this you know how late it was.
Speaker 2: It was eight hours late. When your train is eight.
Speaker 5: Hours nobody's waiting, nobody waiting.
Speaker 2: And Uber chargers just you know how Uber surge is
Speaker 2: at periods. Yes, De Mardin, of course you were trying
Speaker 2: to get an Uber in the Sydney CBD today. You
Speaker 2: were paying an absolute fortune.
Speaker 3: The union needs to be absolutely reamed over this like
Speaker 3: it is a disgrace and to think that they would
Speaker 3: have the support of the public after that.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned Uber.
Speaker 3: I saw in all the like Facebook community groups today
Speaker 3: people are like, are you trying to go home?
Speaker 1: Can we share an Uber? Because it was so expensive?
Speaker 5: Friends will be made over this to the front page
Speaker 5: of the Northern Territory News now dv cash stuck in
Speaker 5: limbo promised one hundred and eighty million dollars you have.
Speaker 4: To be allocated.
Speaker 5: The CLP has been accused of backtracking from a critical
Speaker 5: domestic violence funding promise and playing politics with WI women's
Speaker 5: and children's lives. We don't have access to the full
Speaker 5: article yet, but we know the Northern Territory has the
Speaker 5: worst domestic violet rates in the nation, with intimate partner
Speaker 5: homicides seven times the national average. Why on earth would
Speaker 5: you hold up something like this. The government has some
Speaker 5: serious answers to give.
Speaker 2: This is typical of our politicians now, and they do
Speaker 2: it on all sides. They make an announcement and then
Speaker 2: think they've done their job. They tell you how much
Speaker 2: money's been allocated. Then they walk away and forget all
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 4: And they don't forget.
Speaker 2: It's not a fix, It doesn't change anything. You've actually
Speaker 2: got to follow through. There's a distinct lack of that.
Speaker 1: But how hard can it be? I mean, you've got
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty million.
Speaker 3: That's a sizeable sum of money to deal with what
Speaker 3: is a sizeable problem. And it won't even touch the sides,
Speaker 3: to be perfectly honest, But you've got that money sitting there.
Speaker 3: How can you not do something with it? I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, we talk about what's going on in our
Speaker 3: springs all the time. Sometimes I think if we weren't
Speaker 3: talking about it, no one would talk about it. This
Speaker 3: is what people are living through every day.
Speaker 1: One hundred and eighty million dollars is sitting there. Just
Speaker 1: get the hell on with it.
Speaker 3: Ye.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we're going to go to a break when we
Speaker 2: come back a celebrities are always telling us that fossil
Speaker 2: fuels cause natural disasters. So why are celebrities fleeing the
Speaker 2: La fires in private jets. It's coming up in just
Speaker 2: a moment. Welcome back, well, celebrity hypocrisy, You say, surely
Speaker 2: there can't be such a thing, Caleb, Oh.
Speaker 1: Never heard of it, But I'm about to tell you
Speaker 1: about it. Though.
Speaker 3: Leonardo DiCaprio, who would you believe it, in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 3: was able to get this right.
Speaker 1: He was a messenger of peace.
Speaker 3: To the UN on climate change. For heaven's sake, you
Speaker 3: would have seen these wildfires going on in La at
Speaker 3: the moment. They've basically raised the Pacific Palisades, and lots
Speaker 3: of celebrities, including Megan Markle, have been out there on
Speaker 3: the ground hugging people or more importantly, donating money to
Speaker 3: help people who've been affected by these fires. Not Leonardo Decao,
Speaker 3: the man who has lectured us on climate change, and
Speaker 3: of course we are told that these fires are at
Speaker 3: least in part caused by climate change.
Speaker 1: What did he do about it?
Speaker 3: He got on a private jet, packed on his wife
Speaker 3: and her family and flew to Mexico.
Speaker 1: Because that is exactly what you do when you.
Speaker 3: See fires caused by climate change, you make the situation
Speaker 3: just a little bit worse.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know they can talk the talk. Where
Speaker 1: are we going to see these people walk the walk?
Speaker 3: The elites once again telling us how to live our
Speaker 3: lives while people suffer in la He says, bugger, you
Speaker 3: got mine.
Speaker 1: It's just typical.
Speaker 2: I agree. Now, let's talk about pizza for a moment.
Speaker 2: Everyone watching at home. If you're a smart person and
Speaker 2: I know who you are, you like barbecue meat lovers.
Speaker 2: It's the only way to have pizza, and all the
Speaker 2: important people that.
Speaker 1: What about a pepperoni?
Speaker 2: True pepperoni is fine Hawaiian? Hawaiian that divides people. There's
Speaker 2: a pizza store in the UK. They sell their pizzas
Speaker 2: from between ten and seventeen pairs. But if you want
Speaker 2: to buy a Hawaiian, they're going to charge you one
Speaker 2: hundred pounds for the privilege. They call it a tropical menace,
Speaker 2: and so they're charging one hundred pounds as a way
Speaker 2: of trying to deter people from ordering this. On the
Speaker 2: menu they've written get this Hawaiian. Yeah, for one hundred
Speaker 2: pounds you can have it. Order the Champagne to go
Speaker 2: on your monster one hundred pounds. Now they say they
Speaker 2: haven't had any orders yet. Funny about it, but I reckon,
Speaker 2: if you're stupid enough to like, stupid enough to pay pizza,
Speaker 2: not just for the prize, but once you've seen.
Speaker 5: That visual that's you most discussed.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't he take it?
Speaker 3: When the moon eats a eye like a big pizza pie,
Speaker 3: that's more money you've got to pay for it.
Speaker 2: I got to say I don't mind it, to be honest.
Speaker 3: Well, you know I'll eat it if it's in front
Speaker 3: of me. I know the purists will say you can't
Speaker 3: do that. But the thing I judge Italian restaurants on
Speaker 3: is if I go into a restaurant and they've got
Speaker 3: cream in the carbonara, I won't touch it. Cream does
Speaker 3: not belong in carbon and more important than pineapple on pizza.
Speaker 2: I reckon, There you go, well, we're hungry, we're gonna
Speaker 2: go get something to eat, but you stay in front
Speaker 2: of your TV. Read A penny is up in just
Speaker 2: a moment