Speaker 1: Lately welcome the late base, good evening, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: Son James Macpherson with Liz Staurer and Caleb Bond coming up.
Speaker 1: A Queensland council worker sacked after threatening a punch on
Speaker 1: with his boss is reinstated when a tribunal finds that.
Speaker 2: Was a disproportionate punishment.
Speaker 1: If you threaten to punch up your boss, you should
Speaker 1: get a warning, not the sack.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about that later too. R Plus when we
Speaker 2: should they should look at the news room. I don't
Speaker 2: know how this stuff works.
Speaker 3: Basically, it's a term of endearments I live.
Speaker 1: That's sice'll tell you what anything goes in local government.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that a bit later.
Speaker 1: Plus when we look at the papers, the new South
Speaker 1: Wales Transport minister quit's cabinet over a private use of
Speaker 1: a taxpayer funded chauffeured vehicle. And the front page of
Speaker 1: Tomorrow's Australian has got a big announcement from our government
Speaker 1: about the future of artificial intelligence. We'll bring you that
Speaker 1: a little but first, if you thought things were already
Speaker 1: bad in Victoria, well get a load of this headline
Speaker 1: from today's Herald's Son newspaper The article says staff dealing
Speaker 1: with the new Victorian Treasurer Jacqueline Symes told to stop
Speaker 1: using economic terms. According to government insiders, the woman responsible
Speaker 1: for one of Australia's largest economies simply doesn't understand economic
Speaker 1: terms and so has asked staff please don't use words
Speaker 1: I don't understand. To be honest, while we're having a
Speaker 1: bit of a giggle at this, I don't think she
Speaker 1: should feel that bad because her predecessor, Tim Pallace, who
Speaker 1: left the state with almost one hundred and eighty billion
Speaker 1: dollars worth of debt, he didn't understand basic economic terms either,
Speaker 1: like you know, budget surplus, savings, And it's not as
Speaker 1: hard as Jacqueline Simes probably imagines. I think if she
Speaker 1: just learned three words, she would pretty much have a
Speaker 1: grasp of victorious, finances, bankrupt's, what's the other three.
Speaker 4: James?
Speaker 1: And they were to start with Bee's, Caleb, bankrupt, broke
Speaker 1: and basket case. You understand the situation in Victoria, but
Speaker 1: honestly it's pretty dire straight when you've got the Treasurer
Speaker 1: saying please don't use economic terms, I just don't understand them.
Speaker 1: You know, she had a rough gig from the beginning,
Speaker 1: because when Tim Pallas resigned in December last year, nobody
Speaker 1: really wanted the job. Ben Carroll, who's now the Deputy Premier,
Speaker 1: he had formally touted as wanting the treasurer's job, but
Speaker 1: he said no, no, I don't want to touch it,
Speaker 1: and so it was given to Jacqueline Simes, who has
Speaker 1: a background bereft of any economic experience. She's got a
Speaker 1: law degree, then she went into union management, then went
Speaker 1: into political staffing, and then became a politician, so she's
Speaker 1: got no background at all. But when she was announced
Speaker 1: as the treasurer, they overcame the problem that she really
Speaker 1: has no economic experience with this, Liz, she's the first
Speaker 1: female treasurer.
Speaker 3: Yes, so diversity.
Speaker 2: Is our strength. You don't have to know economics or
Speaker 2: economic terms.
Speaker 1: She's the first woman. Yes, certain thing, it's going to
Speaker 1: be okay.
Speaker 5: So never mind, Victoria that your state debt is set
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty eight, just three and a half short
Speaker 5: years away in June of twenty twenty eight, to exceed
Speaker 5: one hundred and eighty seven billion dollars, which would make
Speaker 5: it the largest state debt in our entire nation's history.
Speaker 5: Don't worry about it. You've got your first female treasurer.
Speaker 5: Well done, you put that gold star on your wall.
Speaker 5: But here's an idea for Jacqueline Sims. Now that your treasurer,
Speaker 5: how about you learn the terms for crying out loud.
Speaker 5: If I were to take this poison Chalice, and I
Speaker 5: were to be so aware of how naturally an ept
Speaker 5: I am in this particular area, I would be desperately
Speaker 5: paddling under water. I would be googling every single one
Speaker 5: of the terms I didn't understand and learning them. How
Speaker 5: on earth is this woman going to do a presser
Speaker 5: in the in financial lingo if you don't understand and
Speaker 5: how sophisticated are these terms that we're talking about? Are
Speaker 5: we talking about deficit surplus? Like which one's a good one?
Speaker 5: Which is the one that we want? Isn't that deficit
Speaker 5: or the surplus? But this is what exactly as you said,
Speaker 5: this is what DEEI does you mean to tell me?
Speaker 5: In the parliamentary party, the Labor parliamentary Party in Victoria,
Speaker 5: they didn't have someone with just a bit more of
Speaker 5: a background in economics, or not even a background in economics,
Speaker 5: but someone who's familiar with the terms and to be honest.
Speaker 5: For someone who's been an MP for a decade, I
Speaker 5: don't think there's an excuse to not be across a
Speaker 5: bit of economic lingo of the.
Speaker 1: Problem is if you had a background in economics, you
Speaker 1: would know this is not a.
Speaker 2: Job that I want right away.
Speaker 4: That's a very good point because being the treasurer of
Speaker 4: Victoria is much like being the health minister in any
Speaker 4: other state. Right It's like, Okay, we'll put someone in
Speaker 4: there who we're willing to sacrifice because we know that
Speaker 4: at some point they're going to come acropper. Much the
Speaker 4: same with child protection. If you'll made the child protection minister,
Speaker 4: there is a target on your back because something is
Speaker 4: going to go wrong at some point and you're going
Speaker 4: to have to pay the price for it. And so
Speaker 4: it is being the treasurer of Victoria. But when you
Speaker 4: gave us her employment history before, you missed out one
Speaker 4: vital thing, which was that when she got out of
Speaker 4: university she didn't do anything with her law degree. She
Speaker 4: became a career for people with intellectual disabilities. And that's
Speaker 4: not to make fun of the fact she did the work.
Speaker 4: It's very worthy work, but there is at no point
Speaker 4: in her employment history anything that suggests she's ever a
Speaker 4: balanced to budget or had to look after a budget,
Speaker 4: or has looked at after anything to do with the business.
Speaker 4: To be perfectly frank, as you said, she got the degree,
Speaker 4: she didn't use it, She went off and became a unionist.
Speaker 4: Then she became an advisor, first to the Deputy Premier
Speaker 4: Rob Hulls at the time. And then and this is
Speaker 4: where it all went really wrong. Sorry, she became a
Speaker 4: senior advisor to Daniel Andrews when he was the leader
Speaker 4: of the old position. So you know she has come
Speaker 4: from the school of Daniel Andrews and she still doesn't
Speaker 4: understand economics. That the fact that you can get a
Speaker 4: position like that in politics with no background, no expertise,
Speaker 4: no knowledge, to the point where you don't even understand
Speaker 4: the basic terms that come with the portfolio, and we
Speaker 4: don't see anything wrong with that is insane. Like we
Speaker 4: are in a position where we find probably the most
Speaker 4: unqualified people to do some of the most difficult and
Speaker 4: important jobs in the country and we go it's all good,
Speaker 4: all good, nothing to worry about.
Speaker 1: I should have mentioned there two terms that she evidently
Speaker 1: is very familiar with tax and spend.
Speaker 5: Well as the basics down, what are we complaining about? Genuinely,
Speaker 5: what are Victorians paying for when you've got a treasurer
Speaker 5: who can't treasury?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well I think they paying for someone to sit
Speaker 4: around and make a lot of money, cause the terms.
Speaker 5: And learn the meanings and just be like, well now
Speaker 5: I'm across the lingo.
Speaker 4: I mean, learning on the job is actually genuinely good
Speaker 4: for a lot of people when they come in university, right,
Speaker 4: they go, hell, why did I do four years of
Speaker 4: that degree. I've learned more in my six months on
Speaker 4: the job than I did in the degree.
Speaker 2: But I reckon.
Speaker 4: One exception to that is probably being the treasurer of Victoria.
Speaker 4: And while we're talking about Victoria, you might remember last
Speaker 4: year the Allen government decided they were going to beef
Speaker 4: up quote unquote their anti vilification laws. Now, what they
Speaker 4: actually are going to do is watered down their anti
Speaker 4: vilification laws. By that, I mean not that they make
Speaker 4: it harder for you to be vilified. They make it
Speaker 4: much easier for you to say that you have been vilified,
Speaker 4: because the rules as they are at the moment, is
Speaker 4: that if you are to prove that hatred has been
Speaker 4: incited that you actually need concrete proof. If you are
Speaker 4: saying this person has incited hatred against a certain group,
Speaker 4: you actually have to bring the proof that they have
Speaker 4: done that. The new laws that the Allen government want
Speaker 4: to pass get rid of all of that. There's no
Speaker 4: burden of proof whatsoever. It is simply that you have
Speaker 4: incited hatred, serious contempt, revulsion, or serious ridicule of a
Speaker 4: protected group. And of course the protected group used to
Speaker 4: be racial, religious. Now they include gender identity, they include
Speaker 4: transgender people, they include gay people, on and on it
Speaker 4: goes the laws. If they get their way, it would
Speaker 4: be expanded significantly to basically everyone, and no proof required
Speaker 4: to show that you have actually incited any hatred whatsoever.
Speaker 4: Heaven's the opposition in Victoria has now said that they
Speaker 4: will oppose these laws. But never mind. This is how
Speaker 4: Jacinda Allen says it will actually go.
Speaker 2: We're just looking after everybody.
Speaker 3: Let's be clear.
Speaker 6: This is about sending a very clear message that in Victoria,
Speaker 6: you can be who you are, you can love who
Speaker 6: you love, you can pray to who you wish to
Speaker 6: pray to, and that we will make hate against you
Speaker 6: a crime.
Speaker 4: We will make a hate against you a crime, because
Speaker 4: of course it is the most important thing for Victoria
Speaker 4: to be doing right now, to say, oh my god,
Speaker 4: there might be a gay person down there who's been
Speaker 4: allowed to marry for the last eight years who could
Speaker 4: be offended by some form of hate. So we've going
Speaker 4: to change the laws.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: I'm glad at least that the opposition hasn't taken the
Speaker 4: bait here that they have said, yes, we are going
Speaker 4: to oppose it, because of course the concern would have been,
Speaker 4: and the reason that they've tried to do this is
Speaker 4: we have an anti semitism problem at the moment, and
Speaker 4: you use that as the vanguard to push through these
Speaker 4: laws that are far more expansive than just anti semitism.
Speaker 4: It includes everything you could possibly find in the grab bag.
Speaker 4: It makes the burden of proof much lower than it
Speaker 4: ever was. So you get all that through and hope
Speaker 4: no one notices what you've done. The opposition have said no,
Speaker 4: we're not actually going to let you do that, and
Speaker 4: good on them.
Speaker 5: But the numbers so we're thankful for the opposition, but
Speaker 5: it's gonna get up well.
Speaker 1: Well, it depends on the cross point out though the
Speaker 1: Victorian premiere, there is a complete liar when she says,
Speaker 1: in Victoria, you can love who you want to love,
Speaker 1: marry you want to marry, pray to who you want
Speaker 1: to pray to.
Speaker 2: You can't. They made a.
Speaker 1: Law that says if you pray for a gay person
Speaker 1: to become straight, or if you pray for a gender
Speaker 1: confused person to you know, come to their senses, if
Speaker 1: you like, comfortable with their own gender, then.
Speaker 2: You can be prosecuted.
Speaker 1: So for her to say that in Victoria you can
Speaker 1: pray to who you want to pray to, well, I
Speaker 1: guess you can pray to who you want to pray to,
Speaker 1: but the Victorian government will censor the prayers as you
Speaker 1: pray them to make sure they are government compliant.
Speaker 5: She didn't say you can pray about whatever you want.
Speaker 1: Exactly the point. And that's one of the things that
Speaker 1: governments are doing. They've stopped talking, if you listen to them,
Speaker 1: about religious freedom. They now talk about the freedom to
Speaker 1: practice your religion, which is very different. They have redefined
Speaker 1: religion to something that happens for sixty minutes on a
Speaker 1: Sunday morning in a mosque or in a synagogue or
Speaker 1: in a temple but once you're outside of that, now
Speaker 1: the government controls what you say, what you think, and
Speaker 1: even the way that you pray.
Speaker 2: So always be on guard.
Speaker 1: When the government talk about protecting people's rights to practice religion,
Speaker 1: that's very different to having religious freedom to say what
Speaker 1: you believe and to think the thoughts that you want
Speaker 1: to think. Speaking of which, the transgender CEO of Victoria
Speaker 1: Son Vivian said about these new laws that he hopes
Speaker 1: they will quote make people consider how their words land
Speaker 1: and how ideas can cause harm.
Speaker 2: And this is the problem with these hate speech laws.
Speaker 1: Once you start dictating what people can and can't say,
Speaker 1: you're effectively dictating what they can and can't think. And
Speaker 1: so this is where religious freedom goes completely to the toilet,
Speaker 1: because now you're being legislated as to what you is
Speaker 1: permissible to think about the big issues of life and
Speaker 1: what is not permissible. And so these laws are quite pernicious.
Speaker 1: They're not designed to protect religious freedom. They are designed
Speaker 1: to give the government more control over which narratives will
Speaker 1: be permitted. And one final thing, when you talk about, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to outlaw hatred, and as you said, these
Speaker 1: laws over whether something is likely to cause hatred, not
Speaker 1: whether in fact it actually causes objective harm. Remember the
Speaker 1: CEO of the Essendon Football Club, Andrew Thorburn, who was
Speaker 1: sacked as the CEO because they found out he was
Speaker 1: going to a church that happened to believe two things
Speaker 1: that Christians believe for two thousand years, abortion is wrong
Speaker 1: and marriages between a man and a woman. And the
Speaker 1: premier at the time, Daniel Andrews, described those beliefs as
Speaker 1: quote a kind of intolerance that is hateful and wrong. So,
Speaker 1: according to Dan Andrews, hate speech is saying abortion is
Speaker 1: wrong and marriage is between a man.
Speaker 2: And the woman. That's why these laws make no sense.
Speaker 2: No one should support them.
Speaker 5: And it's not the business of government, this group of
Speaker 5: people that we elect. You look after a major infrastructure projects,
Speaker 5: the budget of the state, make sure transport's running well, etc.
Speaker 5: And so on. Not quite getting together to be like,
Speaker 5: let's say what people can and can't speak for crying
Speaker 5: out loud. He's a really really hard pill for some
Speaker 5: people to swallow. Free speech is hate speech. Hate speech
Speaker 5: is free speech. They are interconnected in such a way.
Speaker 5: You either have both of them or you have neither
Speaker 5: of them.
Speaker 3: That's it. That's the bottom line.
Speaker 5: There's no if, butts or maybes. And as a free
Speaker 5: speech absolutist, the minute government starts telling me, oh, by
Speaker 5: the way, how do you measure hatred? What equals incitement?
Speaker 5: Some flog could listen to something that I've said, take
Speaker 5: it completely out of context. Maybe they're mentally unwell, maybe
Speaker 5: they've got other underlying issues, take it completely out of context,
Speaker 5: and say, oh, well, I did what I did because
Speaker 5: Liz Storer said fill in the gap. Did I say
Speaker 5: that thing? Yes? Absolutely?
Speaker 3: Did it mean what they took it to mean?
Speaker 5: No, But somehow I am now responsible for what some
Speaker 5: whack job has done because they were in earshot of
Speaker 5: my voice at some particular time and took me out
Speaker 5: of context. The whole concept of incitement is very, very muddy.
Speaker 5: The whole concept of hatred is extreme, seemly what even
Speaker 5: is that?
Speaker 3: Nowadays? We know that facts facts are hateful.
Speaker 5: Nowadays, if you say a man can't be a woman, well,
Speaker 5: according to some people, you're an extremely hateful person for
Speaker 5: saying that very thing. But here's an interesting case for
Speaker 5: you which happened just today Peter LaLore, which you may
Speaker 5: be very familiar with. He's a sports commentator but also
Speaker 5: a journal He's been around the traps for a very
Speaker 5: long time. He's been dumped by the Sports Entertainment Network
Speaker 5: in the middle of commentating the cricket because he's been
Speaker 5: posting regarding Gaza. Now, I've been on the guy's twitter
Speaker 5: feed and he posts about all manner of things, all
Speaker 5: and sundry. He had been told that this wasn't much
Speaker 5: of an issue, and then all of a sudden, it
Speaker 5: really really was.
Speaker 3: He said, Let's be clear here.
Speaker 5: I think the actions of the Israeli government and also
Speaker 5: Hamasa crimes against humanity. I retweet a lot of the
Speaker 5: stuff I see on social media because it needs to
Speaker 5: be seen. I received two calls from senior management at
Speaker 5: sen on the third day of the test and was
Speaker 5: informed on the fourth morning that I could no longer
Speaker 5: work for them. I was told there were accusations I
Speaker 5: was anti Semitic, which I strongly objected to. I was
Speaker 5: asked by station boss Pray Cutchison, who was civil, if
Speaker 5: I didn't care that my retweeting of events in Gaza
Speaker 5: made Jewish people in Melbourne feel unsafe. I said, I
Speaker 5: didn't want anyone to feel unsafe, to which I would
Speaker 5: simply ask, are you tweeting facts? Peter? If you're tweeting facts,
Speaker 5: I don't have a problem. I don't have a problem.
Speaker 5: We do well. We say we have free speech in
Speaker 5: this country. He's a journo sharing news articles, many of
Speaker 5: them from Haretz, Israel's own longest running newspaper. It's been
Speaker 5: running since nineteen eighteen. Now, Usman Kwawaja, have i Kwaja?
Speaker 5: I'm not a cricket fan. Can you tell he's a
Speaker 5: veteran Aussie opener. He's come into bat Do you like that?
Speaker 5: Very behind Peter Lalo, He said standing up for the
Speaker 5: people of Gaza is not andy Semitic, nor does it
Speaker 5: have anything to do with my Jewish brothers and sisters
Speaker 5: in Australia, but everything to do with the Israeli government
Speaker 5: and their deplorable actions. It has everything to do with
Speaker 5: justice and human rights. Unfortunately, hatred towards the Jewish and
Speaker 5: Muslim community will always exist. Peter is a good guy
Speaker 5: with a good heart. He deserves better. I got to
Speaker 5: say I agree with Kuwaja name I whose name I
Speaker 5: pronounced properly.
Speaker 1: Of course, Usman Kowaja would say that, for one, he's
Speaker 1: a Musliman for two usman Kouwaja famously had a fight
Speaker 1: with the Australian Cricket Board over whether or not he
Speaker 1: could wear the Palestinian flag on his Australian uniform to
Speaker 1: show support for Palestine.
Speaker 2: So it's no surprising.
Speaker 5: I think that's a good statement. It's a clear delineation
Speaker 5: of terms to say. Look, just because you're not a
Speaker 5: fan of forty seven thousand people being killed in Gaza, now.
Speaker 3: You can argue it was necessary.
Speaker 5: That's fine. But all Peter LaLore has done is share images,
Speaker 5: share articles from Israeli papers, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 5: Nothing he has done because we need to be very
Speaker 5: clear about what constitutes anti semitism, otherwise it runs the
Speaker 5: risk of becoming the new racism, the new bigoted, if
Speaker 5: everything's racist, if everything's bigoted, Like, let's be clear, this
Speaker 5: guy has done nothing to say he hates.
Speaker 1: He's not been sacked for anti semitism. He's been sacked
Speaker 1: because sen have had so many complaints about his Twitter
Speaker 1: feed and about his stance on what's happening in the
Speaker 1: Middle East that people have said, we don't want to
Speaker 1: listen to you guys anymore because of this person, and
Speaker 1: so seen have made a commercial decision. If we've got
Speaker 1: a presenter who a significant number of listeners are saying,
Speaker 1: we will not listen to your sports podcast if he's presenting,
Speaker 1: they've said, you know what, on balance, we're better off
Speaker 1: getting rid of him and keeping our listeners.
Speaker 5: Because in every CLI you guys condemn, cancel culture, but
Speaker 5: become platform. And then every time it comes to someone to.
Speaker 4: No, no, no no. But but let's be clear, I will
Speaker 4: admit here that ESI in did not do their do
Speaker 4: their due diligence before they hired Peter Lawler, because you
Speaker 4: only have to know who the bloke is and have
Speaker 4: followed his work for some time to know that he
Speaker 4: is an out and out lefty and has been tweeting
Speaker 4: this sort of stuff for a very long time on Twitter.
Speaker 4: This is not a new sorry, new occurrence for him.
Speaker 4: He was at News Corp for a very long time
Speaker 4: as the senior cricket writer at The Australian, most of
Speaker 4: which he spent on Twitter bagging his News Corp colleagues,
Speaker 4: particularly conservative ones, and carrying on about that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, he bit bring that into the.
Speaker 4: He bit the he and that fed him for a
Speaker 4: very long time, and if you're going to live by
Speaker 4: the sword, you've got to die by the sword. When
Speaker 4: it came to Israel Falao, he said, if Falao had
Speaker 4: kept a respectful silence instead of spouting secondhand hate at homosexuals,
Speaker 4: he would still be playing footy and we could all
Speaker 4: move on. And of course we know what happened with
Speaker 4: Israel for Lao is that he got punted from the
Speaker 4: Wallabies because he dared to talk about his religion and
Speaker 4: post Bible tracks online. So he's saying if Falao just
Speaker 4: kept his mouth shut and didn't talk about his religion openly,
Speaker 4: then it's fine. He wouldn't have been sacked from playing
Speaker 4: footy and he'd still have a job. So why did
Speaker 4: Peter Lawler, as a cricket writer not just go I'll
Speaker 4: leave my politics at the door and do my job
Speaker 4: as a cricket writer. It's the prerogative of the employer
Speaker 4: to say that he give everything, but he is a
Speaker 4: highly political person online and if the job, but it's
Speaker 4: the prerogative of the employer to decide if they Much
Speaker 4: like we say all the time, we don't want to
Speaker 4: be lectured by celebrities about it is.
Speaker 5: Because they knew that before they hired him, So to
Speaker 5: turn around now dump him in the middle of the
Speaker 5: test just to be like, oh, because by the way,
Speaker 5: none of his tweets say anything. He is just sharing articles,
Speaker 5: so we'll say that he's spouting this or spouting that.
Speaker 1: You are by retweeting things, you are endorsing them. So
Speaker 1: when you retweet articles saying Israel is committing genocide, you
Speaker 1: are saying.
Speaker 5: Which was also by corrects the Israeli newspaper.
Speaker 2: That doesn't make it true.
Speaker 1: And clearly it's not true if Israeli committing genocide.
Speaker 5: I think people are quite out of touch with the
Speaker 5: unpopularity of Netnya who in Israel before October seven. It's
Speaker 5: the case now a great number of people in Israel
Speaker 5: want him to go to the ICC and face the charge.
Speaker 1: For the Harmasa still holding a couple of children hostage
Speaker 1: more than a year after they were taking and in
Speaker 1: fact is also.
Speaker 5: Eighteen children who will never draw breath again. In Garb,
Speaker 5: we don't have to lose our humanity.
Speaker 2: You can lose humanity. There called moral clarity. Her mass
Speaker 2: broke us.
Speaker 5: Eighteen thousand children. Let's have some moral clarity about that.
Speaker 5: Here is the villain helpless.
Speaker 1: Sure, there's all these children in Gaza who have suffered
Speaker 1: as a result of this conflict, and the.
Speaker 5: Villain is eighteen thousand.
Speaker 1: Sure, whatever the number is, children have suffered, and the
Speaker 1: villain is not Israel.
Speaker 2: The villain is Hermas.
Speaker 1: And yet Peter Larla Layla never tweets about Harmas, not
Speaker 1: a single thing.
Speaker 2: It's all about Israel.
Speaker 1: And for that reason, especially Jewish people in Australia have
Speaker 1: called it out and said this is reprehensible. This guy
Speaker 1: has zero moral clarity. We don't want to listen to
Speaker 1: him commentate on the cricket and said.
Speaker 5: You know what, Isse articles, they're just coming up with
Speaker 5: all the facts and figures of the reality of what's
Speaker 5: happened on the ground in guns. Who's to blame which
Speaker 5: is no.
Speaker 2: Mac, Who's to blame?
Speaker 5: Mac? You're saying it was absolutely necessary that forty I had.
Speaker 1: Been taken hostage by terrorists. I would do whatever, I
Speaker 1: would only show.
Speaker 5: Okay, well, let's say you've had eighteen thousand children and
Speaker 5: they're all say, you're on the other side of this.
Speaker 5: There is no reason why you can't say I believe
Speaker 5: it to be absolutely necessary. What happened and I blame
Speaker 5: it completely on Hermas, but the lack of humanity I
Speaker 5: have seen around this that people can't even bring themselves
Speaker 5: to acknowledge that is something to weep over.
Speaker 4: But there's also no need for sports broadcasters to start
Speaker 4: delving into polity.
Speaker 5: He's met about every reason, but he's a sports journalist
Speaker 5: and he's wearing articles written by Israeli, so to say that.
Speaker 5: I just think that this is being completely misrepresented. And
Speaker 5: I don't think he should have been dumped.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's been misrepresented. I think people know
Speaker 1: exactly where he stands, and people don't.
Speaker 3: Like, you're allowed to stand there. We're just going to.
Speaker 5: Fire all the row Palestinians the flight, and I see
Speaker 5: this as like, oh my god, what are you saying?
Speaker 1: A commercial operation shouldn't be allowed to say? You know what,
Speaker 1: this doesn't fit with what we want. We're losing listeners.
Speaker 5: As Caleb has already said, they knew it before they
Speaker 5: hired here.
Speaker 4: I think they miss I think they missed that up.
Speaker 4: They realized it too late. But still I think they're
Speaker 4: within their rights to sack him for doing stuff.
Speaker 5: That they don't want him to do.
Speaker 4: And he was a casual. So it wasn't like he
Speaker 4: had a long term contract with people.
Speaker 5: Are offended by facts them. I did not see him
Speaker 5: post anything that I found to be untruthful. Then, okay,
Speaker 5: isn't exactly what we're talking about. If someone is saying
Speaker 5: facts now in Victoria, there's oh, this is verlification.
Speaker 2: It's not effect.
Speaker 1: That is in genocide. That's not a fact. It's not
Speaker 1: a fact. We should move on. Let's go to USA
Speaker 1: because we're never going to agree on this. If you're
Speaker 1: tuning into the cricket in Sri Lanka, Peter Lalo is
Speaker 1: no longer commentator.
Speaker 4: I remind you of cricket.
Speaker 2: It's about that. Well, I think this is the.
Speaker 3: Only thing on television. Are you talking about it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's on right now. Surely it's not.
Speaker 5: They've changed the channel already.
Speaker 1: We talked last night about the fact that US AID,
Speaker 1: which provides a humanitarian relief to people around the world
Speaker 1: at the expense of taxpayers in the US about forty
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year, is being gone through with a
Speaker 1: fine toothed comb by Elon Musk and his doge team.
Speaker 1: And I tell you what, Trump's administration do not look
Speaker 1: like they are going to let up despite the cacophony
Speaker 1: of criticism that was unleashed when Musk went into the
Speaker 1: officers with his team and demanded access to all of
Speaker 1: their records. Elon Musk tweeted today that us AID is
Speaker 1: a criminal organization, and Caroline Levett, the White House spokesperson,
Speaker 1: she outlined exactly why US taxpayers should be outraged about
Speaker 1: what's been allowed to happen with USAID of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration for so many years have listened.
Speaker 7: So if you look at the waste and abuse that
Speaker 7: has run through USAID over the past several years, these
Speaker 7: are some of the insane priorities that that organization has
Speaker 7: been spending money on. One point five million dollars to
Speaker 7: advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces, seventy thousand for a production
Speaker 7: of a Dei musical in Ireland, forty seven thousand for
Speaker 7: a transgender opera in Colombia, thirty two thousand for a
Speaker 7: transgender comic book in Peru. I don't know about you,
Speaker 7: but as an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars
Speaker 7: going towards this scrap, and I know the American people
Speaker 7: don't either.
Speaker 1: That's the first time I've ever thought of a transgendered
Speaker 1: opera as being humanitarian relief.
Speaker 2: But there you go.
Speaker 1: Maco Rubio, who's now taken control of USA, basically said
Speaker 1: this has been the problem. They've been a law unto themselves.
Speaker 8: They have basically evolved into an agency that believes that
Speaker 8: they're not even a US government agency, that they are
Speaker 8: out there a global charity. They take the taxpayer money
Speaker 8: and they spend it as a global charity, irrespective of
Speaker 8: whether it is in the national interest or not in
Speaker 8: the national interest. They are supporting programs that upset the
Speaker 8: host government for whom we're trying to work with on
Speaker 8: a broader scale and so forth. So they're completely unresponsible.
Speaker 8: They just don't consider that they work for the US.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was far more succinct in his take on
Speaker 1: US eight.
Speaker 9: Here, what, well, it's been run by a bunch of
Speaker 9: radical lunatics, and we're getting them out. US AID run
Speaker 9: by radical lunatics, and we're getting them out, and then
Speaker 9: we'll make a.
Speaker 2: Decision calib It's hard to argue.
Speaker 1: I mean, the more you hear about the money that
Speaker 1: is being wasted thrown around on all manner of lefty fetishes,
Speaker 1: like transgendered operas in Colombia. Would anyone have ever imagined
Speaker 1: that was an AID project?
Speaker 4: Yes, the people running the show, we will aware that
Speaker 4: there was a quote unquote AID project. That's why they're
Speaker 4: so upset that the things be dismantled, because they can't
Speaker 4: do what they've always been able to do. Like I
Speaker 4: said last night, the idea that this was an independent body,
Speaker 4: so it was not controlled by the present, it's crazy, like,
Speaker 4: here's just a pot of money for you to go
Speaker 4: and do what you want with, including DEI in Serbi
Speaker 4: and transgender operas. Now, I'm actually kind of curious to
Speaker 4: go to the transgender opera now because I just want
Speaker 4: to see what they've spent their money on YouTube. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I reckon, I've got to go and investigate this now.
Speaker 4: But it's proven what a joke this is, and the
Speaker 4: idea that there is more oversight is never a bad thing, unless,
Speaker 4: of course, you're the one who's been trusted with all
Speaker 4: the money for that time and you've had the rug
Speaker 4: pulled out from underneath you.
Speaker 5: The fact that it's lasted this long, I mean JFK
Speaker 5: started USAID and it was supposed to be for this
Speaker 5: very reason. More oversight. It was like, well, what are
Speaker 5: these guys getting up to. This was back when the
Speaker 5: CIA was under Alan Dulles, and good lord, you can
Speaker 5: still see the trailer of destruction that man left, who's
Speaker 5: in numerous countries. Absolutely, So JFK was like, Okay, I've
Speaker 5: had enough of this. I want to overhaul this. But
Speaker 5: here we are decades later and it's gone straight back
Speaker 5: to Alan Dulles's style. USAID is a front for the CIA.
Speaker 5: Technically it has a budget bigger than the State Department.
Speaker 3: And let's see other the CIA itself.
Speaker 5: So these guys are the money guys, and there she is,
Speaker 5: and we can laugh about that list of ridiculous sounding projects.
Speaker 5: You can bet your bottom dollar that's not actually what
Speaker 5: it's funding. These guys don't hand out AID. They cooperate
Speaker 5: and coordinate to do all sorts of clandestine stuff in
Speaker 5: foreign countries to establish American hegemony in regions where they're like, well,
Speaker 5: we want a stronger foothold here, we want a stronger
Speaker 5: foothold there. So it sounds clownish, but you can bet
Speaker 5: your bottom dollar that's actually not what it's being spent
Speaker 5: on in those foreign countries at all. We're back home
Speaker 5: to Australia now where Donald Trump. We know that he
Speaker 5: was the most popular Republican to win the gong since
Speaker 5: nineteen eighty eight. That's how comprehensive his victory was. And
Speaker 5: yet the Greens have decided no, no, this is the
Speaker 5: end of the world as we know it, and the
Speaker 5: little Greens party here in Australia want to make sure
Speaker 5: as they move this emergency motion that everyone understands this
Speaker 5: is an emergency and this man must be stopped.
Speaker 10: The election of Donald Trump is a threat to Australia
Speaker 10: and the world. His attacks on human rights, democracy, climate action,
Speaker 10: the toxic relationship mister Trump has with the tech billionaires
Speaker 10: Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, Rupert Murdoch, the media billionaire
Speaker 10: into the Oval Office to help him rule the world.
Speaker 3: This is scary stuff. It's terrifying.
Speaker 5: Ruberbov has just been promoted apparently he's rule the world now.
Speaker 5: But she's right. It is terrifying if you're a Green
Speaker 5: because while he's not a threat to democracy, here is
Speaker 5: a threat to every single one of that party's ideologies.
Speaker 5: And because it's so popular now on the other side
Speaker 5: of the globe, the momentum is growing over here. They say,
Speaker 5: America sneezes. The rest of the world catches a cold. Well,
Speaker 5: I like this sneeze, and these guys are afraid as
Speaker 5: this cold catches on here in Australia and Trump fever
Speaker 5: seizes everyone, they know that this is the graveyard of
Speaker 5: their ambition that they are staring down, not just this year,
Speaker 5: but for many years to come.
Speaker 1: Now, our senators don't sit that often, right, and so
Speaker 1: you would expect when our senators gather together, they would
Speaker 1: debate the big issues that are of concern to the
Speaker 1: Australian public. And we could name them pretty quickly, you know,
Speaker 1: cost of living, cost of living, cost of living, and
Speaker 1: there's a couple of other things as well.
Speaker 2: But Senator Nick McKim from the Greens.
Speaker 1: He moved, it's called a matter of urgency, so the
Speaker 1: Senate will stop and debate this particular issue because it's urgent.
Speaker 1: And so the matter of urgency was that the election
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump is a threat to Australia and to
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 2: And for that the.
Speaker 1: Greens halted discussion on everything affects you and I in
Speaker 1: our daily lives, so they could promptificate over Donald Trump
Speaker 1: meeting in his office with Ripert Murdoch to rule the world.
Speaker 1: What a waste of space the Australian Greens are.
Speaker 4: If I ruled the world, every day would be the
Speaker 4: first day of spring. Sarah Hanson Young would be living
Speaker 4: in Peaking. If I rule the world, you would think,
Speaker 4: like they clearly they've realized that they're I can't keep
Speaker 4: going because the viewers will have there is blending. But
Speaker 4: you know, they realized they're in trouble, and you'd think,
Speaker 4: having realized that they are in trouble, that go, okay,
Speaker 4: maybe we should temper ourselves a little bit now and
Speaker 4: just try to hang on. No, no, no, let's just
Speaker 4: go full blown off the reservation and lean into how
Speaker 4: crazy we are, which is why people have been turning
Speaker 4: off them. Oh yes, now we've got the winner.
Speaker 5: We've got the winner.
Speaker 4: Donald Trump is a threat to the world and he
Speaker 4: must be stopped because his mates with Elon Musk and
Speaker 4: Mark Zuckerpergen Rupert Murdoch. I mean, you could not get
Speaker 4: anything crazier, could you, Sarah Hanson Young, South Australian. Unfortunately
Speaker 4: I have to report so I think I've said this before.
Speaker 4: I took great pleasure when and I don't know normally
Speaker 4: talk about how I vote, but when I voted in
Speaker 4: the twenty nineteen federal election now still in South Australia,
Speaker 4: vote below the line as I always did in the.
Speaker 2: Senate were you old enough to eight?
Speaker 4: And I made sure that Sarah Hanson Young was last
Speaker 4: on the ballot paper.
Speaker 3: I took great pleasure in doing that.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about someone who's not last on.
Speaker 3: The ballot paper.
Speaker 4: It would seem that would be Nigel Farage and his
Speaker 4: party Reform UK. Now just consider this party is less
Speaker 4: than a year old. He started this party last year,
Speaker 4: just weeks before the federal election over there, when he
Speaker 4: said he was going to have a go and put
Speaker 4: his hat in the ring for Clacton, which of course
Speaker 4: he won. He has started from zero and now, according
Speaker 4: to the latest polling, it's the most popular party in
Speaker 4: the UK. No, it's not a joke because of course
Speaker 4: the Starma government has just been so bloody awful. Have
Speaker 4: look at the numbers here, twenty five percent. Reform UK
Speaker 4: is now polling the government lay which was elected in
Speaker 4: a landslide barely seven eight months ago, twenty four percent,
Speaker 4: the Tories twenty one percent, the lib dims fourteen and
Speaker 4: the Greens nine. This man is a runaway train. And
Speaker 4: here he was earlier tonight Nigel Frage talking to Paul
Speaker 4: Murray about this.
Speaker 3: Polly, You know.
Speaker 11: What, the consensus we've had for years doesn't work. Ordinary
Speaker 11: folk get poorer, our borders are open, excess migration changes
Speaker 11: our communities. People want strong, patriotic, real leadership that actually
Speaker 11: cares about ordinary people, not just the big corporates.
Speaker 4: And don't forget, of course, there was that petition a
Speaker 4: few months ago calling for another general election. About four
Speaker 4: months after they just had one.
Speaker 3: Million, which is.
Speaker 5: Two point seven seven million signatures.
Speaker 3: Who of everyday people.
Speaker 5: Even know about a petition that someone's lodged on the
Speaker 5: parliamentary website. That is how much traction that has to
Speaker 5: set a record four months old. The Prime Minister was
Speaker 5: in the role, and that many people went out of
Speaker 5: their way to say, for the love of God, or
Speaker 5: in their case, the love of country, let's go to
Speaker 5: another general election. Please. To be honest, I couldn't believe,
Speaker 5: given the state of the UK at the end of
Speaker 5: the Tory government, but before Starmer even got a chance,
Speaker 5: I couldn't believe that reform didn't romp it in at
Speaker 5: the last election because the country was in a terrible state.
Speaker 5: Then it seems to have taken this government to nudge
Speaker 5: the feeble populace to a level of fury whereby they're
Speaker 5: like this guy all the way to the top.
Speaker 1: I just wonder if our Liberal Party is watching what's
Speaker 1: happening in the UK and observing that people are sick
Speaker 1: of Conservatives who talk a right wing game and then
Speaker 1: govern like a left wing government. They want conservatives to
Speaker 1: stand for conservative principles and do it boldly for ajs
Speaker 1: reaping the benefit.
Speaker 2: Well, the problem is look here to stand.
Speaker 5: That, just like over there, the politicians have to shill
Speaker 5: for the votes. So once you've got numbers like we
Speaker 5: have here in Australia, or only a third of us
Speaker 5: were born here, you have to shill for the other
Speaker 5: two thirds as votes. So they're never going to be
Speaker 5: as hardline as any of us would probably like.
Speaker 3: To see because it got that.
Speaker 5: Many people from other countries. You have to shield you're
Speaker 5: out there mercy. You can't just come out and be like, oh,
Speaker 5: actually I'm going to be suddenly very nationalistic and very patriotic.
Speaker 5: It simply won't work. You'll never get into government.
Speaker 1: Ye farajas doing it least twenty five percent. So we'll
Speaker 1: see where at LANs. Let's go to a break when
Speaker 1: we come back. Interesting story on the front page of
Speaker 1: Tomorrow's Australian. A big announcement from the government about the
Speaker 1: latest Chinese artificial intelligence app that won't be allowed on
Speaker 1: any government systems or devices. All that in a month,
Speaker 1: all right, some big stories on the front page of
Speaker 1: tomorrow's Australian newspaper, not least of which Liz, the Australian
Speaker 1: Government's made a big announcement on the future of AI
Speaker 1: in this country.
Speaker 5: They have Indeed, they're not doing another TikTok. They saw
Speaker 5: how that got out of hand pretty fast.
Speaker 3: There's time they're onto it.
Speaker 5: Quick security ban for deep Seek artificial intelligence Chinese artificial
Speaker 5: intelligence app Deep Seek has been banned from Australian government
Speaker 5: systems and devices following an assessment by intelligence agencies that
Speaker 5: the software poses an unacceptable risk to national security. The move,
Speaker 5: set in motion by a Home Affairs Protective Security Order,
Speaker 5: is similar to the government's ban on TikTok on official devices.
Speaker 5: To quote Minister Tony Burke, the Albanezi government is taking
Speaker 5: swift and decisive action to protect Australia's national security and
Speaker 5: national interest. AI is a technology full of potential and opportunity,
Speaker 5: but the government will not hesitate to act when our
Speaker 5: agencies identify a national security risk. Our approach is country
Speaker 5: agnostic and focused on the risk to the Australian Government
Speaker 5: and our assets. Okay, So that last sentence I think
Speaker 5: we can safely conclude was a bit of bs. I
Speaker 5: don't think it's country agnostic at all. If this was
Speaker 5: an American app, we probably wouldn't be worried about it.
Speaker 5: But hey, I think they've seen what happened with techtok.
Speaker 5: They woke up way too late. There's now eight point
Speaker 5: five million monthly users in Australia alone of that Chinese app,
Speaker 5: which we know is a massive data harvesting apparatus for
Speaker 5: the CCP, And here they are going, hang on a minute,
Speaker 5: when we're not going to have the Chinese AI, which,
Speaker 5: by the way, there's plenty of other AIS to choose from,
Speaker 5: like Elon's Groc and others. So it's not that Ozzie's
Speaker 5: will now be bereft of this function. It's simply a
Speaker 5: big no to this one, and they haven't banned it
Speaker 5: for all OSSI's they're simply saying we're not using it,
Speaker 5: and we very strongly advise that you familiarize yourself with
Speaker 5: how your data can be used, should you choose to
Speaker 5: use it.
Speaker 1: It's nice to see this government showing leadership and getting
Speaker 1: onto something immediately, rather than allowing events to overtake them
Speaker 1: before belatedly they try and mop up the mess.
Speaker 2: So credit where credit's due.
Speaker 1: Good decision from Tony Burke on this one, and as
Speaker 1: for him calling it a country agnostic decision, you're.
Speaker 2: Right, it's bs.
Speaker 1: However, they have to play the game.
Speaker 3: Oh but and to be fair that.
Speaker 4: We probably should have a discussion about whether or not
Speaker 4: it should be available to use for anyone, because of
Speaker 4: course we like in China, they're not using rock and
Speaker 4: they're not using chat GPT because they'd be worried that
Speaker 4: such things might give them information about the Western world,
Speaker 4: or perhaps more pertinently, give them information about.
Speaker 2: The Chinese world.
Speaker 4: Iye, what happened in Tianam and Square, et cetera. We
Speaker 4: know what Deepseek says about all of these things. You
Speaker 4: go on there and ask about Tianam and square and says, oh,
Speaker 4: I don't know what you're talking about. Let's talk about
Speaker 4: something else, right, So we allow China and its businesses,
Speaker 4: which are always in some way link to the CCP,
Speaker 4: to have influence and power in our countries, but of
Speaker 4: course they don't allow our businesses, Western businesses to have
Speaker 4: that level of power and influence in their country. So
Speaker 4: it is it's an unfair balance. I think in some
Speaker 4: ways that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 1: It's a really good point for a government that keeps
Speaker 1: banging on about misinformation and disinformation to allow a Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party app to have free reign through the populace.
Speaker 2: If they're really that concerned, do something about that.
Speaker 5: I mean, of a moral quandary, it would barely trouble
Speaker 5: a child. So we're glad that the Albanezy government hasn't
Speaker 5: find this too difficult. Back to the ods now off
Speaker 5: the sheep's back crisis of the wool industry. Australia's sheep
Speaker 5: industry is facing a mass exodus, with wool production at
Speaker 5: its lowest in a century, as farmers increasingly turn away
Speaker 5: from the shearing shed and to the slaughter house in
Speaker 5: the face of rising costs and low prices. The industry
Speaker 5: that once carried the fortunes of regional Australia on its
Speaker 5: back is in the midst of a profitability crisis, with
Speaker 5: farmers last year cutting losses and sending the highest number
Speaker 5: of adult sheep to the Abatoir since the floor price
Speaker 5: was removed three decades ago. The article also talks about how,
Speaker 5: of course this has been massively influenced by the fact
Speaker 5: that this government's van on live sheep export, which is
Speaker 5: set to come into full effect in twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 5: just has these farmers saying, look, with the costs of
Speaker 5: running the industry as it is, and us already knowing
Speaker 5: what's coming down the track, it simply doesn't make sense
Speaker 5: to keep going anymore.
Speaker 1: According to this article, wool production in Australia is the
Speaker 1: lowest it's been since nineteen three, which is just astonishing.
Speaker 1: So you've got sheep, you can either sell the meat,
Speaker 1: you can export them overseas, or u can fleece them
Speaker 1: and sell the wool, so there are three options. The
Speaker 1: government's banned live exports, so that's gone. The price of
Speaker 1: wool has fallen through the floor, so they're not making
Speaker 1: money there. So our farmers are deserting the sheep farming
Speaker 1: industry altogether. And we always prided ourselves on being a
Speaker 1: nation that rode on the sheep's back. Yeah, and the
Speaker 1: longer trill in the government actually anything to.
Speaker 4: Help production costs have gone through the roof shearers, etc.
Speaker 4: The wages they have to pay them. And I thought
Speaker 4: this was extraordinary because I have woolen pieces in my
Speaker 4: wardrobe at home, Australian maid that were put together in
Speaker 4: the nineteen seventies, right, and they're as good as the
Speaker 4: day they were made. You can find them.
Speaker 2: They're still fashion Yeah they are.
Speaker 4: I'll wear one one night and you know, Australian made,
Speaker 4: good quality, Australian made woolen stuff. Right. It says here
Speaker 4: that the Australian wool industry has been trying to market
Speaker 4: itself overseas to overcome these woes. All but half a
Speaker 4: billion dollars have been spent on marketing in the last decade,
Speaker 4: funded by farmer levies. Now, wonder the farmers don't have
Speaker 4: any money. They're pooning up all this money hoping we'll
Speaker 4: promote our product overseas.
Speaker 3: Like five hundred million.
Speaker 4: Dollars they have spent for basically no return. If you're
Speaker 4: a farmer, you're belivered.
Speaker 5: It's just another way in which our farmers have been
Speaker 5: dudded here in Australia. To the third article on the
Speaker 5: front of the OS plot thickens on why Prime Minister
Speaker 5: won't just say when he first learned of that then
Speaker 5: bomb mate, Why won't you just spit it out? Anthony
Speaker 5: Albaneze's refusal to reveal when he was told about the
Speaker 5: planned mass casualty terror attack targeting Jewish Australians in Sydney
Speaker 5: is undermined by his previous public confirmations regarding terrorism, espionage
Speaker 5: and defense national security briefing. So we know that he's
Speaker 5: obfuscated about this. Well, look, I'm briefed on things all
Speaker 5: the time, and I don't just face the public and
Speaker 5: tell them everything I've learned from the police. But this
Speaker 5: article very smartly outlines when he did tell the public
Speaker 5: about the synagogue attack, the Adas synagogue attack, the Willara
Speaker 5: fire bombing, the Wakely church attack, Russian espionage back in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty four, the RAAF Chinese aircraft incident, and the
Speaker 5: post October seven Hamas terror attack. So this guy has
Speaker 5: form now coming out and telling everyone. Well, I know
Speaker 5: that's not following protocol. Of course, I'm not just going
Speaker 5: to spill the beans to everyone as soon as I've
Speaker 5: been briefed. I mean, who's believing him at this point?
Speaker 5: And it just makes it more suspicious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a pretty damning article. And of course
Speaker 1: to add to that, Chris Min's, the new Southwest Premier,
Speaker 1: was very forthright telling people when security agencies had told
Speaker 1: him that it was a terrorist incident. So Chris Mins
Speaker 1: didn't have any problem with protocol or you know, breaking confidences.
Speaker 1: Albanezy looks completely inept here and he looks shifty.
Speaker 4: Indeed, and just very quickly. We should note before we
Speaker 4: go speaking of Chris Mins, that his Transport Minister Joe
Speaker 4: Halen resigned today after taking that van trip up to
Speaker 4: the Hunter Valley on the Australia Day weekend. She said
Speaker 4: the other day, look, you know, I'll repay the money.
Speaker 4: It's all good and men's back during but someone gave
Speaker 4: her a little tap on the shoulder as more news
Speaker 4: came out last night and darlink that's the end of it.
Speaker 2: That's the end of that.
Speaker 1: Resigned from capin We're going to go to a break
Speaker 1: when we come back. Apparently in Queensland you're allowed to
Speaker 1: threaten to punch your boss and sacking is disproportionate punishment.
Speaker 2: You keep your job. We'll look at that in just
Speaker 2: a second. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Well, it seems it takes a lot to get the
Speaker 1: sack at the Gladstone City Council.
Speaker 3: It does, indeed, so get this.
Speaker 5: About fifteen months ago, this bloke had been struggling with
Speaker 5: psiati Kai's feeling flat and anxious. He sends a text
Speaker 5: to his mate while he thought he was his mate
Speaker 5: at work, calling the boss the sea word and saying
Speaker 5: I'm just going to have to punch on with them,
Speaker 5: but I don't like this guy very much, hence the language.
Speaker 3: The guy who.
Speaker 5: Received the text thought it was a great idea to
Speaker 5: show this to the boss. He said it was out
Speaker 5: of concern for his friend. His friend was then called
Speaker 5: into the boss's office and stood down on leave initially
Speaker 5: but then shacked. Apparently he wasn't very happy about being
Speaker 5: called the SeaWorld. But in a win for everyone who
Speaker 5: loves using profanity, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has said
Speaker 5: that the Council's got to rehire this guy. The Industrial
Speaker 5: Commissioner Roslin McLennan found after a two day hearing in
Speaker 5: November twenty twenty four that this guy's termination by the
Speaker 5: council was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. In her finding, she
Speaker 5: said he was not given twenty four hours notice of
Speaker 5: that meeting with the boss, he wasn't informed of his
Speaker 5: right to have a union representative or any other representative president,
Speaker 5: and he wasn't provided in detail regarding what the meeting
Speaker 5: was about and why his attendance was required. So he
Speaker 5: now gets fifteen months back pay, hasn't been working, now
Speaker 5: gets refunded in full, and his job is reinstated. Can
Speaker 5: you imagine how awkward his first day back in the
Speaker 5: job it's going to be.
Speaker 4: But so it should be, because the real villain here
Speaker 4: is his mate, who ran off and showed private text
Speaker 4: messages to the bo I was.
Speaker 2: Worried about boss's welfare as well.
Speaker 3: Come on, seriously, if.
Speaker 2: You look at the if you look at.
Speaker 4: The message, he doesn't sound like he's actually going to
Speaker 4: punch on with him. And let's be serious here, if
Speaker 4: we start sacking everyone who has ever seen a rude
Speaker 4: message about their boss to a colleague, nearly the whole
Speaker 4: country will get sacked tomorrow, Like this can't be the.
Speaker 1: Standard on not you go on every night about incitement
Speaker 1: to violence.
Speaker 4: This guy's roll incitement Who a sad party felt like
Speaker 4: they wanted to punch on with their boss is how.
Speaker 2: It goes in writing.
Speaker 1: I think that the lesson. That's all we've got time
Speaker 1: for tonight. Thanks for your company, but stick around. Coming
Speaker 1: up in just a moment, it's the Reader Penny Show.
Speaker 2: Good Night,