Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Lake to Base.
Speaker 1: Well, good evening.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Freilich and Caleb Bond coming up tonight.
Speaker 3: Great news for coffee drinkers. Researchers say it will help
Speaker 3: you age well. But how many cups do you need
Speaker 3: to drink every day to look like Caleb Bond? We
Speaker 3: will explain that a little later plus when we get
Speaker 3: to what's making news tomorrow. Queensland prisoners of scone from
Speaker 3: jail to go and buy KFC.
Speaker 1: I'm serious. That's a headline in tomorrow's papers.
Speaker 3: And the Papua New Guinean government makes their choice between
Speaker 3: Australia and China as their security partners.
Speaker 1: But let's start with a question. Do we need to
Speaker 1: crack down on dog owners?
Speaker 3: Sydney councils are complaining that dog owners are out of control.
Speaker 3: They're walking their dogs off the leash and failing to
Speaker 3: pick up their poop, and so the New South Wales
Speaker 3: government is currently reviewing dog legislation, with councils wanting penalties
Speaker 3: that bite. They want fines for walking your dog flesh
Speaker 3: increased from three hundred and thirty dollars and Waverley council
Speaker 3: wants the power to compel dog owners to undergo responsible
Speaker 3: pet ownership training.
Speaker 1: Is this a real.
Speaker 3: Problem or Preyoh's councils just barking up the wrong tree
Speaker 3: with this one.
Speaker 4: Obviously we want dog owners to be responsible, but I
Speaker 4: think the vast majority of them are. There are millions
Speaker 4: of pets in New South Wales. Yes, you hear about
Speaker 4: the occasional instance, but seriously, I just think this is
Speaker 4: some councils who love to get their hands on more
Speaker 4: and more power wherever they can, and what this will
Speaker 4: turn into. It starts as re education training to learn
Speaker 4: how to look after a dog, It ends with license fees,
Speaker 4: it ends with more and more regulation, and that's the
Speaker 4: danger here.
Speaker 5: Well perhaps so, but I mean I've seen some pretty
Speaker 5: terrible dog owners getting about let their dog.
Speaker 2: You know, crap all over the footpath at the front
Speaker 2: of my joint.
Speaker 5: You know that there is nothing worse than going for
Speaker 5: a nice afternoon walk and you accidentally tread in some
Speaker 5: too that some third owner couldn't take the time to
Speaker 5: pick up. It happens all the time, and for some reason,
Speaker 5: dog owners have this attitude. Many dog owners, not all
Speaker 5: of them, I will note, But many dog owners seem
Speaker 5: to have this attitude. Their dogs should be able to
Speaker 5: go wherever they go at all times, and should be
Speaker 5: treated like a child and doted upon. And if you
Speaker 5: have an issue with their dog being there, it's like
Speaker 5: saying you've got an ugly baby. Well, I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 5: a dog. Like if it's an animal, it doesn't have
Speaker 5: to be there. It should be on leash. It shouldn't
Speaker 5: be allowed to run around any park at wants.
Speaker 2: They shouldn't be.
Speaker 5: Allowed off leash on the beach, going up terrorizing little kids.
Speaker 2: I mean, can you imagine? No, No, I'm serious, I'm serious.
Speaker 5: I'm a small child, a small child that does not
Speaker 5: have experience with dogs.
Speaker 2: S he's a.
Speaker 5: Big dog bounding towards it. And I'm well aware that
Speaker 5: big dogs are generally more docile than little dogs. But
Speaker 5: sees a big dog bounding towards it, and it's scares
Speaker 5: a child's living wits out of them. The dog on
Speaker 5: a leash, look after it, keep it to yourself.
Speaker 3: Fine, that's a great rant, But you failed to disclose
Speaker 3: that you are a cat person, and so I think
Speaker 3: hang on high conflict of interesting.
Speaker 2: Well, I have two.
Speaker 5: Cats at home. I also have a couple of dogs
Speaker 5: on the tracks. I have ownership in their cats, horses, dogs.
Speaker 3: Dogs on the track are a completely different kettle fish.
Speaker 3: The Waverley Council were complaining they've had five hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty five breeches that's people walking their dogs off leash
Speaker 3: over the last three years, which sounds like a lot
Speaker 3: until you realize there's over ten thousand dogs in that
Speaker 3: council area, so it would be one point six percent
Speaker 3: of dogs being walked.
Speaker 1: Off leash every year. This has been a major problem.
Speaker 2: That have been caught.
Speaker 5: That's you know, the fine I think the maximum three
Speaker 5: hundred the maximum three hundred and thirty bucks for walking
Speaker 5: your dog off every years out Wales. In Queensland it's
Speaker 5: eight hundred bucks.
Speaker 2: And to be honest and have a problem.
Speaker 5: I mean, look, if you catch me walking my cat
Speaker 5: off leash, you can find me that too. And the
Speaker 5: fine for not picking up a dog turd is two
Speaker 5: hundred and seventy five dollars. I mean that is as
Speaker 5: far as I'm concerned, it is a worse offense than
Speaker 5: speeding leaving a dog third on the footpath.
Speaker 4: It is Are you serious, Caleb Honestly, I never expected
Speaker 4: you to be the kind of person to come out
Speaker 4: here and argue for more local council finds, more local
Speaker 4: council regulations.
Speaker 6: It kind of flies in the face of everything you
Speaker 6: say every night.
Speaker 4: But I just a certain overreaction, and it is stemming
Speaker 4: from your cat self.
Speaker 6: Cat owners are the worse. I'm sorry, please.
Speaker 5: Cats are conservative animals because they're not mendicant.
Speaker 2: Dogs are mendicant. Dogs are left wingers.
Speaker 5: They rely on their owners to do everything for them.
Speaker 5: Cats don't tread on me. They believe in the individual.
Speaker 5: They're self sustaining, they don't need someone to do something.
Speaker 5: But I mean, dogs are the welfare doll bloods of
Speaker 5: the world compared to cats.
Speaker 3: The Waverley Council's insistence that if you are caught walking
Speaker 3: your dog orf leash you should be sent for mandatory
Speaker 3: pet responsibility training is simply ridiculou If you're allowed to
Speaker 3: run the workshop on the footpath outside closed place, that's
Speaker 3: not ignorance, that's just a lack of courtesy. So training
Speaker 3: isn't going to fix that.
Speaker 1: That's a ridiculous side.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know, maybe if you sort of adopt
Speaker 5: the Singapore line of punishment and you start giving corporal punishment,
Speaker 5: it may teach them a lesson or.
Speaker 1: Tell you what I did learn on this topic. Though
Speaker 1: there's four point seven million dogs and.
Speaker 3: Cats as pets in New South Wales and you have
Speaker 3: zero of them.
Speaker 2: See use, So I'm not responsible.
Speaker 5: You have argued on this panel before that people shouldn't
Speaker 5: be allowed to take their dogs to the pub or
Speaker 5: the cafes.
Speaker 3: So we're on a virgin aircraft and you can do that.
Speaker 2: Again, but you know, each leave it.
Speaker 5: Up to the individual venue owner. But like, don't tell
Speaker 5: me that you have a right to take your dog
Speaker 5: wherever you want.
Speaker 2: You don't.
Speaker 5: And while we're talking about council, is actually a good
Speaker 5: news story. You might remember last night we told you
Speaker 5: about morning Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in Victoria. But they
Speaker 5: sent out these leaflets for one of the kindergartens where
Speaker 5: they were saying, you know, sign up for next year,
Speaker 5: and they had on the bottom as you can see,
Speaker 5: they're the Pride flag and the Aboriginal flag and the
Speaker 5: Torystrade Islander flag and the Australian flag was nowhere to
Speaker 5: be seen. It came up at their council meeting last
Speaker 5: night and Councilor Bruce Ranken, good on him, came out
Speaker 5: with some pretty common sense stuff and said, well, if
Speaker 5: we're going to use flags anywhere, we also have to
Speaker 5: accompany it with the Australian flag. So that's now been
Speaker 5: passed by the Council and they've also said that within
Speaker 5: sixty days the staff have to come back with a
Speaker 5: revised flags Flags policy that takes all this stuff into
Speaker 5: account and the control of how flags are flown should
Speaker 5: be in the hands of councilors and not in the
Speaker 5: hands of staff, and good on them for responding very
Speaker 5: quickly and doing something. But can you believe out the
Speaker 5: front of their council chambers and you'll be able to
Speaker 5: see the photo here they have six flags. I mean
Speaker 5: they love flags, clearly. You've got the Australian flag, the
Speaker 5: Victorian flag, the Aboriginal flag, the Torrest Trade Islander flag,
Speaker 5: the flag and the council flag. So I can understand
Speaker 5: why they need a flag's policy to deal with all
Speaker 5: of this stuff. But good on them for responding quickly
Speaker 5: and saying no, this is not good enough. The Australian
Speaker 5: flag should be used.
Speaker 2: If flags being you.
Speaker 1: Give them too much credit.
Speaker 3: They've responded quickly to this instance, but this is not
Speaker 3: the first occasion they've done this. Last year they're a
Speaker 3: positive aging newsletter which is published and put out by
Speaker 3: the council five times at least. You can see on
Speaker 3: the bottom of the newsletter there same thing. They've got
Speaker 3: the Pride flag, the Torres Straight Islander flag, the Indigenous flag,
Speaker 3: And it was only after complaints that finally earlier this
Speaker 3: year they changed that newsletter and put the Aussie flag
Speaker 3: on there as well. So it's not the first time
Speaker 3: this has happened. But obviously the backlash from I think
Speaker 3: it was because it was a kindergarten.
Speaker 1: I think that made the difference.
Speaker 3: Although I think they should have gone further than just
Speaker 3: saying the Aussie flag must be included.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you just say no other flags.
Speaker 3: There's one flag that unites us all the Australian flag.
Speaker 1: All other flags fly them on your.
Speaker 4: On a flyer at all, when all other flags really
Speaker 4: do just divide us into groups. We should be focusing
Speaker 4: on uniting as a country. But the other thing I
Speaker 4: love about this is they're stripping the power off the
Speaker 4: bureaucrats of course, it was the bureaucrats that put the
Speaker 4: other flags and not the Australian flag onto the fly,
Speaker 4: because that's how it often is.
Speaker 6: The long march through the institutions is underway.
Speaker 4: But also in Victoria, a freedom of information request has
Speaker 4: revealed that the former Premier Daniel Andrews, three weeks before
Speaker 4: the Voice to Parliament referendum, when he received news that
Speaker 4: polling showed it was tanking, authorized the expenditure of six
Speaker 4: point five million dollars to promote the yes case. Now,
Speaker 4: I can't say I'm especially surprised, but I think the
Speaker 4: fact that he tried, he didn't disclose this to the public.
Speaker 4: It was only made public through the freedom of information requests.
Speaker 4: There will be no accountability for this because he is
Speaker 4: obviously gone and fifty five percent of Victorians voted no.
Speaker 4: It's like and three weeks before I get you know,
Speaker 4: if twelve months before they thought this was part of
Speaker 4: some grand strategy for reconciliation, but three weeks before they've
Speaker 4: looked at the polly and gone, oh crap, let's shovel
Speaker 4: in six point five million dollars, Like, what did they
Speaker 4: expect to achieve?
Speaker 3: I felt conflicted with this story because the money was
Speaker 3: taken from an allocation towards treaty in Victoria.
Speaker 1: So they took six point.
Speaker 3: Five million dollars from their treaty proposal put it towards
Speaker 3: the Voice.
Speaker 1: But here's the bad news.
Speaker 3: They never spent it, and so I wish that they
Speaker 3: actually spent it. The Voice would have been lost and
Speaker 3: it would have been less funding for a treaty, which
Speaker 3: I think is unnecessary. However, I was amused by a
Speaker 3: government spokesperson. He said, well, it doesn't matter because the
Speaker 3: money wasn't actually spent.
Speaker 1: It's the fact that they.
Speaker 3: Took state government money and put it towards a federal issue,
Speaker 3: an issue that the majority of Victorians, as you pointed out,
Speaker 3: did not support. And you also pointed out quite correctly,
Speaker 3: this was done three weeks before the referendum, when it
Speaker 3: was pretty well known to polsters this thing was going
Speaker 3: to die, and yet they still were on the verge
Speaker 3: of committing six to a half million dollars of taxpayer
Speaker 3: money towards a lost cause.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and it's the same as when we talk about
Speaker 5: councils not sticking to the knitting, you know, roads rates
Speaker 5: and rubbish. This is exactly the same situation. State governments
Speaker 5: should not be getting involved in federal issues. Local governments
Speaker 5: shouldn't be getting involved in state issues, and vice versa.
Speaker 5: Federal governments shouldn't be dictating to state governments how they
Speaker 5: run their business. So it's no business of a state
Speaker 5: government to be taking taxpayers money. And that's the other
Speaker 5: thing that really annoys me about this is that it's
Speaker 5: not I understand government spend money to promote policies or
Speaker 5: to promote programs that they have going go and sign
Speaker 5: up for this and that and whatever.
Speaker 2: But if you are.
Speaker 5: Spending public moneies ostensibly to campaign for a political point
Speaker 5: of view, a contentious issue, a referendum, it has nothing
Speaker 5: to do with your state. That is a complete misuse
Speaker 5: of public money. It's sticking your nose in a place.
Speaker 2: Where it does not belong.
Speaker 5: But it's also using taxpayers money, which, beyond the point
Speaker 5: of executing policies that you have been elected to execute,
Speaker 5: should be a political that government. That money is there
Speaker 5: to be spent on government business. Campaigning on a federal
Speaker 5: issue is not state government business.
Speaker 3: You have to wonder about the relationship between Anthony Albanesi,
Speaker 3: who desperately wanted this referendum to succeed, it would be
Speaker 3: his legacy moment.
Speaker 1: And Dan Andrews who.
Speaker 3: Makes this decision, as you said, just three weeks before
Speaker 3: the vote, trying to help his federal mate, and of
Speaker 3: course during the most recent elections, Dan Andrews who was
Speaker 3: coaching Anthony Albanesi in debating techniques. So the two are
Speaker 3: obviously close, and you have to wonder whether that played
Speaker 3: into the decision to take a bit of money from
Speaker 3: here and throw it over there.
Speaker 5: It's funny I had thought about that for a while
Speaker 5: when you mentioned that Andrews was helping out with his
Speaker 5: debate practice. Of course, his role in the debate practice
Speaker 5: was to pretend to be Peter Dutton. And so do
Speaker 5: we think that perhaps the unpopularity of Daniel Andrews may
Speaker 5: have eventually rubbed off on Peter Dutton because of course
Speaker 5: he pretended to be the bloke. There are a few
Speaker 5: similarities that could be drawn there.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the UK.
Speaker 3: We're a fascinating study out of Buckingham University has found
Speaker 3: that in forty years time, white British people will be
Speaker 3: a minority in their own country. Now this was done
Speaker 3: through assessing migration levels, birth rates and death rates. You
Speaker 3: can see a graph that will show you in just
Speaker 3: a moment that demonstrates how right now, white British people
Speaker 3: make up seventy three percent of the population. That's the
Speaker 3: light blue line on the far left of your screen there,
Speaker 3: that's seventy three percent, But it drops to twenty fifty
Speaker 3: when white British people will be fifty seven percent of
Speaker 3: the population, and then by twenty sixty three British white
Speaker 3: people will be less than fifty percent. By the end
Speaker 3: of the century, they estimate that white Brits will comprise
Speaker 3: just thirty three point seven percent of the population of Britain.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: They're being replaced by foreign born and second generation immigrants,
Speaker 3: who now are less than twenty percent of the population,
Speaker 3: but in twenty five years will make up fully a
Speaker 3: third of the population, and by the end of the century,
Speaker 3: researchers estimate that six out of ten Brits will have
Speaker 3: been born outside the UK or have at least one
Speaker 3: immigrant parent. When it comes to religion, the statistics have
Speaker 3: shown that the Muslim population now seven percent, will be
Speaker 3: eleven percent in twenty five years, and by the end
Speaker 3: of the century will be somewhere between twenty and twenty
Speaker 3: five percent. With under forties it'll be one in three
Speaker 3: people will be Muslim.
Speaker 1: This is a massive.
Speaker 3: Change in the demography of the UK and it begs
Speaker 3: the question the UK still with the UK, but with
Speaker 3: different people. If you've got a population that no longer
Speaker 3: agree on the symbols, the traditions, the culture or the religion,
Speaker 3: with nothing to unify them and no shared identity, are
Speaker 3: you headed for civil strife or freyer? Do we have
Speaker 3: leadership that can somehow navigate this and hold a country together?
Speaker 4: And the important thing to note is that Australia is
Speaker 4: a multi ethnic society.
Speaker 6: The West is multi ethnic.
Speaker 4: But multi ethnic societies only work if we're united by
Speaker 4: shared values. We have to have a common set of
Speaker 4: values and culture and without that things do start to crumble.
Speaker 4: And I guess the question here is essentially, in three generations,
Speaker 4: the demographics of the Western world at large, because this
Speaker 4: is happening in Australia as well, it's happening in Canada,
Speaker 4: it's happening across the rest of Europe, have been totally changed.
Speaker 4: This is unprecedented in global history. There has never been
Speaker 4: such a rapid and profound chain in the makeup of societies,
Speaker 4: and the question is can the center hold What does
Speaker 4: it look like when you know the country that started
Speaker 4: the Church of England now at the end of the century,
Speaker 4: one in five people will be Muslim like it does
Speaker 4: raise those serious questions around what the future of Britain is.
Speaker 4: And I also can't help but notice that there's a
Speaker 4: double standard when it comes to diversity. We don't go
Speaker 4: to Japan or China and say you, guys need to
Speaker 4: be more diverse, you need to embrace multiculturalism. But people
Speaker 4: say that about the West all the time, and I
Speaker 4: would say no, we are very welcoming, very accepting, so
Speaker 4: much so that the country is going to look completely different.
Speaker 5: Well, it will be unrecognizable. And that is a great
Speaker 5: chain because it should be noticed it's not specifically about race,
Speaker 5: because this will be people will turn this around and say, oh,
Speaker 5: it's white supremacists to say that you're worried about there
Speaker 5: won't be enough white people in Britain. Well, the definition
Speaker 5: of white people in this study was people who don't
Speaker 5: have an immigrant parent. So you could be third generation
Speaker 5: living in England, but you're Bangladeshi by origin and you're
Speaker 5: counted as being white in this study, so we'll be
Speaker 5: clear about that.
Speaker 2: But to say that it is bad to.
Speaker 5: Worry about where a country is going, and that is
Speaker 5: essentially the inference when we talk about these things, is
Speaker 5: wrong because why did people move to Britain in the
Speaker 5: first place. Why did people move to Australia in the
Speaker 5: first place because they thought it was better than the
Speaker 5: country they came from. And what has always staggered me
Speaker 5: is that people move to another country because they think
Speaker 5: it's a better place than the one they've come from,
Speaker 5: and then set about trying to make it like the
Speaker 5: country they've come from. Well, if you want to live
Speaker 5: in the country you came from, go back to the country.
Speaker 2: You came from.
Speaker 5: That's where you were. Why do you seek to turn
Speaker 5: other countries into.
Speaker 2: What you left?
Speaker 5: And if we don't have the culture and the various
Speaker 5: things that have made Australia and Britain and what a
Speaker 5: great you don't have Australia in Britain anymore. I mean,
Speaker 5: if you're talking about twenty twenty five percent of the
Speaker 5: population being Muslim at that point, you'll be heading towards
Speaker 5: probably nearly majority Muslim in terms of the people who
Speaker 5: are religious in the country right, which is an insane
Speaker 5: position to be in because once you have that massive people,
Speaker 5: you can have serious legislative sway and then you can
Speaker 5: start dictating or particular parties that will form around this.
Speaker 5: We'll start dictating that, you know, Sharia law should be
Speaker 5: instituted in places. We already have dozens and dozens of
Speaker 5: quasi Sharia courts that exist across the UK, Sharia councils
Speaker 5: I think they call them over there, which are dolling out,
Speaker 5: you know, a jurisdiction over Sharia law in the UK,
Speaker 5: not legally, but people respect these people and so they
Speaker 5: take their word for it. This sort of stuff will
Speaker 5: become law if you're not careful. That's what we're fighting
Speaker 5: for here. It's not about we don't like the color
Speaker 5: of someone's skin or whatever. It's fundamentally the basis of
Speaker 5: a country and why exists. And if you throw that away,
Speaker 5: what's the point of the country exists.
Speaker 3: Well, the point you make is very good, and the
Speaker 3: astonishing thing to me is that this is news today.
Speaker 3: But back in nineteen sixty eight, conservative politician in Not Powell,
Speaker 3: he was ridiculed as a racist for saying exactly what
Speaker 3: the researchers of this study have said, today have.
Speaker 7: Listened those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first
Speaker 7: make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a
Speaker 7: nation to be permitted the annual inflow of some fifty
Speaker 7: thousand dependents, who are, for the most part, the material
Speaker 7: of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It
Speaker 7: is like watching a nation engaged in heaping up its
Speaker 7: own funeral.
Speaker 3: Pile Enoppower was sacked from Shadow Cabinet the day after
Speaker 3: he made that speech because it was claimed he was
Speaker 3: racist for raising these very real and obvious concerns. What
Speaker 3: strikes me as amazing about this is a problem once
Speaker 3: thought too small to worry about, is now a problem
Speaker 3: so large that to deal with it you'd have to
Speaker 3: almost turn into a monster that we have typically derided
Speaker 3: and not wanted to be.
Speaker 1: You see what's happening in the US. You see we'll
Speaker 1: talk in a minute.
Speaker 3: I guess about other parts of Europe. To deal with
Speaker 3: this now is going to require very strong action. I'm
Speaker 3: not sure the West have got the stomach for it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And in the case of the UK, they're obviously
Speaker 4: still part of the European Human Rights Convention, which ties
Speaker 4: their hands on a lot of these issues, making it
Speaker 4: really hard for them to then depoor people that I
Speaker 4: found to be in the country illegally. In fact, one
Speaker 4: third of people who are granted asylum claims by UK
Speaker 4: judges are deemed.
Speaker 6: To be exceptional cases.
Speaker 4: Judges are granting exceptional asylum claims in a staggering one
Speaker 4: third of cases, which to me seems to invalidate the
Speaker 4: definition of exceptional, because how can one third of cases
Speaker 4: be exceptional? But what this then means And often they're
Speaker 4: pointing to things like family or children in the country,
Speaker 4: which means they can't be deported. So here's some examples
Speaker 4: of the kinds of people that are now allowed to
Speaker 4: stay because they're exceptional.
Speaker 6: An Albanian man who.
Speaker 4: Ran a cannabis factory is able to stay in the
Speaker 4: UK because him being deported would mean his daughter would
Speaker 4: lack a strong male role model. Or another woman who
Speaker 4: was supposed to be deported to Grenada couldn't because her
Speaker 4: husband doesn't like Caribbean food or the heat. So these
Speaker 4: are the kinds of exceptional circumstances people are point to
Speaker 4: stay in the UK, and it's all stemming from Article
Speaker 4: eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states
Speaker 4: that you need to respect people's private lives and their
Speaker 4: family and so all sorts of ridiculous considerations are being
Speaker 4: taken into account, no doubt.
Speaker 3: My favorite one, Frayer, that's the Albanian who could not
Speaker 3: be debaunted back to Albania because his son didn't like.
Speaker 1: To check it.
Speaker 3: In Albania, a judge literally ruled that.
Speaker 1: What's amazing to me.
Speaker 3: You mentioned the European Convention on Human Rights, which the
Speaker 3: UK has signed up to, and there are nine European
Speaker 3: countries that are currently calling for this to be reviewed
Speaker 3: because clearly these exceptions are ridiculous and they're increasingly becoming
Speaker 3: non exceptional. But the UK has not signed up to say, hey,
Speaker 3: we want a review of this. And Keir Starmer, for
Speaker 3: all his talk about we're becoming an island of strangers,
Speaker 3: we need to do something about this, you'd think this
Speaker 3: would be one of the first things he would not
Speaker 3: just address, pull out of this convention and take responsibility
Speaker 3: for your own country who's coming to it. But he's
Speaker 3: not done that, which makes you wonder if Keir Starmer's
Speaker 3: retric on immigration.
Speaker 5: Is just that well, and this is The biggest problem,
Speaker 5: right is we are strangling ourselves. Now, obviously, these cases
Speaker 5: make a mockery of the immigration system, the idea that
Speaker 5: you can come to a country illegally, then claim asylum,
Speaker 5: then commit a bunch of crimes, and then we say, oh,
Speaker 5: we can't get rid of you because your son doesn't
Speaker 5: love foreign chicken nuggets. Right, I mean, it's a joke,
Speaker 5: it's funny, whatever, but it proves that we are strangling
Speaker 5: ourselves over and over again. Same as the last discussion.
Speaker 5: We just had the only way to fix these issues,
Speaker 5: and this sends a message not just to people who
Speaker 5: want to come illegally, but also people on the other
Speaker 5: side of the world who may will come legally but
Speaker 5: see a soft country that is right for infiltration. The
Speaker 5: problem is that we don't do anything to fix it ourselves,
Speaker 5: and the only way we can actually fix these issues
Speaker 5: is to.
Speaker 2: Have lots and lots of children.
Speaker 5: Basically, I mean the fertility rate as the across the world,
Speaker 5: it should be noted, but particularly in the West. I
Speaker 5: mean Sub Saharan Africa is about the only place where
Speaker 5: they actually have children above the replacement rate, but across
Speaker 5: the West it is declining. Every single year, which means
Speaker 5: we're having fewer and fewer children. Now, if you've decided
Speaker 5: you must have eternal economic growth, the only way to
Speaker 5: achieve that is to have more people in the country,
Speaker 5: and so the only way to achieve that is to
Speaker 5: import more people into the country.
Speaker 2: And so we sort of do this.
Speaker 5: Without having any regard for who we're bringing in and
Speaker 5: why we're bringing them in, and then we all wake
Speaker 5: up one day and we go, oh, gee, this joint
Speaker 5: doesn't look like it used to well, because we did
Speaker 5: it to ourselves. We send messages with things like this
Speaker 5: that it's okay to come illegally to the UK because
Speaker 5: a third of cases are exceptional, and you'll be able
Speaker 5: to say because your son doesn't like chicken nuggets like
Speaker 5: it just seems a message to the world that we
Speaker 5: are weak, We're up for infiltration.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter anything.
Speaker 3: The other question I have with this is how do
Speaker 3: all these asylum seekers know their way around the law
Speaker 3: so well?
Speaker 4: I know they've clearly got some good advice, but it's
Speaker 4: interesting you mentioned kirs Sama as well, because for all
Speaker 4: this tough talk on migration, illegal boat crossings across the
Speaker 4: English Channel are actually already at record highs and they're
Speaker 4: basically doing this apparently by just packing.
Speaker 6: More people into boats.
Speaker 4: So these smugglers have gotten a lot more sophisticated.
Speaker 6: Check this out.
Speaker 8: These are the number of people per boat on average
Speaker 8: twenty twenty five fifty five point eight people per boat,
Speaker 8: so a really high number particularly, I mean, look at
Speaker 8: twenty eighteen compared to seven in twenty eighteen and thirty three.
Speaker 8: They're in twenty twenty two, that record year, so we
Speaker 8: are seeing more people crowding onto boats. There is more
Speaker 8: a play here than just the weather when it comes
Speaker 8: to why we are seeing called numbers of people this
Speaker 8: year so far crossing the Channel in small boats.
Speaker 4: Since twenty eighteen, the UK has recorded a staggering one
Speaker 4: hundred and sixty five thousand illegal boat crossings across the
Speaker 4: English Channel, bringing in illegal migrants into the UK. One
Speaker 4: hundred and sixty five thousand boats. Now imagine they're all
Speaker 4: carrying ten twenty migrants. That is a shocking amount of people.
Speaker 6: James, and we.
Speaker 3: Shouldn't just blame the Labor Party, although they're now in government,
Speaker 3: they need to do something about it. But for quite
Speaker 3: a number of years the Conservatives oversaw huge immigration numbers.
Speaker 5: The funny thing is, though I'll show you this clip,
Speaker 5: they're blaming it.
Speaker 2: They're blaming it on the weather. Take a look.
Speaker 8: Well, for the first time this year, the Home Office
Speaker 8: have released this data. These are red days days where
Speaker 8: effectively the weather conditions mean channel crossings are more likely
Speaker 8: sixe red days in the first four months of twenty
Speaker 8: twenty five, and.
Speaker 6: You can see the comparison. It is significantly more.
Speaker 1: Than those previous years.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's the only reason they're coming across the channel
Speaker 5: is the weather is nice. Someone who is trying to
Speaker 5: do something serious about migration in his country's good Wilders, who,
Speaker 5: of course you will know, eight months ago won the
Speaker 5: Dutch election and then formed a coalition with two other
Speaker 5: right leaning parties. Well, he's walked away from that coalition
Speaker 5: now because he says they have not taken his demands
Speaker 5: on migration seriously. He asked for three things, to end
Speaker 5: asylum migration, to deport Syrian refugees, and to close asylum shelters.
Speaker 5: It hasn't happened. And now we've ended up with this.
Speaker 9: We can no longer bear responsibility for this. I signed
Speaker 9: for the strictest to silent policy, not for the downfall
Speaker 9: of the Netherlands and our responsibility for this cabinet therefore
Speaker 9: ends at this moment.
Speaker 5: So now the Netherlands will have to go to another election,
Speaker 5: which will ostensibly be an election or a referendum as
Speaker 5: it were, on immigration. And ged Wilde's won eight months
Speaker 5: ago where he had the mose. He didn't have enough
Speaker 5: to form a government, but he had the most seats
Speaker 5: of any party at the election eight months ago, and
Speaker 5: so what he's doing here is staking his credibility on
Speaker 5: the fact that he did so well in that election.
Speaker 5: Because people want a crackdown on migration, his coalition partners
Speaker 5: haven't handed it to him, and he's saying, well, let's
Speaker 5: go to the polls and see what the people really think.
Speaker 3: Well, I think he got thirty one percent of the vote.
Speaker 3: The left wing opposition got thirty percent of the vote,
Speaker 3: and he has declared he will be the next Prime
Speaker 3: Minister of the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: So he's rolled the dice.
Speaker 3: Credit to him though that he stood for principle, and
Speaker 3: he's been accused of being reckless and a kamikazi politician.
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: I think he went to the poll saying this is
Speaker 3: what I want to accomplish, found himself part of a
Speaker 3: coalition that will not do that, and so he said,
Speaker 3: all right, I'm removing myself from the co Let the
Speaker 3: people decide again.
Speaker 6: And the coalition was always rocky to begin with.
Speaker 4: It took them about eight months to negotiate it in
Speaker 4: the first place. And this also does highlight the problems
Speaker 4: with the EU system or the European systems, where no
Speaker 4: parties really can form majority, so you're always hamstrung by.
Speaker 6: These awkward coalitions.
Speaker 4: So it'll be interesting to see whether this referendum does
Speaker 4: work well.
Speaker 3: The other coalition that's interesting to watch is the coalition
Speaker 3: between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who have been best
Speaker 3: buddies since Trump went to the White House, but that
Speaker 3: relationship seems to have soured a little bit over Trump's
Speaker 3: economic plan. Elon Musk tweeted over the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but I.
Speaker 1: Just can't stand that anymore.
Speaker 3: This massive, outrageous pork Field congressional spending bill is a
Speaker 3: disgusting abomination. Tell us how you really feel, Elon. Shame
Speaker 3: on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong,
Speaker 3: You know it. This, of course, is Trump's big beautiful bill.
Speaker 3: Caroline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, was asked, is this
Speaker 3: the end of the bromance between Trump and Musk?
Speaker 6: Look, the President already knows where Elon Musk stood on.
Speaker 6: This bell doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one
Speaker 6: big beautiful bell, and he's sticking to it.
Speaker 3: Before we talk about the bill, if we get to it.
Speaker 3: The relationship I think is interesting because people were accusing
Speaker 3: Elon Musk of being a de facto president. They said
Speaker 3: he's only working for the Trump administration to get a
Speaker 3: favor for his business. But clearly that's not the case
Speaker 3: because Elon Musk, who only just finished up working as
Speaker 3: part of DOGE, has been straight on the front foot
Speaker 3: a disgusting abomination, he says, of Trump's economic plan. He's
Speaker 3: clearly not trying to suck up to the Trump administration.
Speaker 3: The other thing that's funny is they got criticized for
Speaker 3: being too close, but.
Speaker 1: Then everyone said, oh, but now they've broken up, So
Speaker 1: I knew it would last. I don't think it's any
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 3: I think it's two fairly mature, strong men who have
Speaker 3: strong opinions and together where they can and where they disagree.
Speaker 3: They disagree, but that doesn't mean the relationship is fractured
Speaker 3: or see, we told you it was never going to work.
Speaker 3: There are two men with their own minds who've done
Speaker 3: very well for America and now have a disagreement, and.
Speaker 5: They were always destined to butt heads in some way, right,
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 5: You can't put two blokes like that in a room
Speaker 5: and expect that they're going to agree all of the
Speaker 5: time and have a wonderful time. They had to disagree
Speaker 5: at some point.
Speaker 2: And also the point that.
Speaker 5: He was supposedly sucking up to Trump for his own benefit,
Speaker 5: well it's abundantly clear that was not the case, because
Speaker 5: he's taken a massive personal hit in terms of his
Speaker 5: companies and his wealth and the time that he was
Speaker 5: running DOGE, and he at the same time was taking
Speaker 5: great interest in interfering, if you want to use that word,
Speaker 5: in politics in other countries as well. It was never
Speaker 5: just about the United States. He was getting involved in Europe.
Speaker 5: He was making overtures in Australia, So it was never
Speaker 5: just about favoring currying a favor with Trump. As for
Speaker 5: the big, the one big beautiful bill, I mean, most
Speaker 5: of it's stuff that Trump promised he would do when
Speaker 5: he was elected anyway. But the one thing that is
Speaker 5: a problem, and that's what Mask is carrying on about,
Speaker 5: is that the debt ceiling is increased to four trillion dollars, right,
Speaker 5: And the debt ceiling is the amount of money that
Speaker 5: the government is allowed to borrow in order to keep
Speaker 5: doing its work. And so essentially what Musk is saying is,
Speaker 5: I was, you know, spent the last one hundred odd
Speaker 5: days working for you trying to reduce government spending, and
Speaker 5: then you've come along and basically given the green light
Speaker 5: to increase government spending. That's what he's upset about. And
Speaker 5: I don't think there's an issue with him being upset
Speaker 5: about that, because that's essentially what he's worked so long before.
Speaker 3: He wasn't there to cut government spending. He was there
Speaker 3: to cut government waste. Sure, there's got to be a
Speaker 3: differentiation between government spending and government waste.
Speaker 1: I know the CITC.
Speaker 3: Says, what's the well, but Trump wants to spend a
Speaker 3: lot of money on the military.
Speaker 4: It's military, it's defense, it's border security. And the bill
Speaker 4: does involve one point five trillion dollars in cuts and
Speaker 4: another point that the Trump administration made is that basically
Speaker 4: the costings released by the Budget Office, there is not
Speaker 4: accounting for the revenue generated by the tariffs, and that
Speaker 4: is part of Trump's economic strategy, essentially broad in the
Speaker 4: tax base by imposing tariffs so you don't have to
Speaker 4: tax Americans as much.
Speaker 6: They're going to raise between two.
Speaker 4: Point three and three point three trillion dollars, which is
Speaker 4: enough to offset, if not actually mean the Big Beautiful
Speaker 4: Bill is a surplus technically, So there are a lot
Speaker 4: of arguments around how they're costing this the precise numbers,
Speaker 4: but overall, the one thing I find so funny is
Speaker 4: the Democrats have spent the last six months trying to
Speaker 4: demonize Elon Musk, and now the first sign of trouble
Speaker 4: in Paradise. I feel like, see, we always knew Elon
Speaker 4: Musk would come back to the right side.
Speaker 6: It's like, wait, two months ago, you were calling him
Speaker 6: a Nazi. How does this work that.
Speaker 1: They're all buying Tesla's again?
Speaker 6: Yeah, Tesla's are back.
Speaker 4: But look also in America, in the Maga movement, they
Speaker 4: are really shaping culture. According to a plastic surgeon, Hollywood
Speaker 4: face is out.
Speaker 1: People don't want to.
Speaker 4: Look like Hollywood celebrities anymore. They want to look like maga.
Speaker 4: Republican women, specifically, Ivanka Trump is a main source of inspiration.
Speaker 6: For the Maga movement. And you know, the Democrats, who
Speaker 6: are so lovely, so.
Speaker 4: Inclusive, are of course making fun of these Trump women
Speaker 4: and their Mara Lago face. Here's what the lovely comedians
Speaker 4: at CNN had to say.
Speaker 1: Who is this fresh face beauty?
Speaker 6: It looks like one of the Brady Bunch children.
Speaker 4: That's first daughter in law and recording an artist, Laura Trump.
Speaker 4: So Maga face is high cheekbones, full lips, big eyes.
Speaker 4: But it's not just the Republican women that are getting
Speaker 4: on Maga face.
Speaker 6: It's also some of the men.
Speaker 4: Matt Gates, who was briefly touted to be Attorney General
Speaker 4: by Trump, has as he can see there, clearly had
Speaker 4: a little bit of work done to his brows and everything.
Speaker 4: But if you think that plastic surgery is just taking
Speaker 4: over the Republican Party, you're also wrong because apparently Joe
Speaker 4: Biden is also a prolific user of plastic surgery. You
Speaker 4: can see he's changed his hairline, he's had botox, he's
Speaker 4: had his eyelids reduced, and he's removed some of his eyebags.
Speaker 6: So, James, is this the new normal?
Speaker 4: Should we just expect all our politicians to undergo hundreds
Speaker 4: of thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery?
Speaker 3: I think it's funny that people now want to look
Speaker 3: like politicians. Then they say politics has show business for ugly. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so it's pretty funny Americans wanting to look like the
Speaker 3: Trumps now. And the other irony, of course, is people
Speaker 3: in Hollywood criticizing those doing plastic surgery. So but Caleb,
Speaker 3: our producer, decided that we could look like Maga.
Speaker 5: Pe mate, you just totally ruined my line. I was
Speaker 5: going to say that you'd been in and had yourself
Speaker 5: sort of done up to see what you could look like.
Speaker 2: Because James, as you.
Speaker 5: Know, you know about his hairline and whatever, so he
Speaker 5: has been looking at options and well, this is one
Speaker 5: of them. Likely he's going to go the full Trump look.
Speaker 5: I think we've got a couple of others here as well.
Speaker 5: If we've got Freyer, she's been he.
Speaker 1: Was the youngest.
Speaker 5: Actually, I mean that just looks like Don Junior. To
Speaker 5: be perfectly honest, I don't see much of myself in there.
Speaker 2: But I'll go for it. The beard looks good. What
Speaker 2: about Frey? What have we got there? Oh again? Well,
Speaker 2: have you ever been a blonde before?
Speaker 1: Front?
Speaker 4: No, I'm not sure if I should start now, but
Speaker 4: I banker is pretty cool.
Speaker 2: Well we can go the Marra a Lago.
Speaker 5: Look, James won't be here tomorrow night because I'm told
Speaker 5: he's actually going off to see a plastic surch Is
Speaker 5: that correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll be back in a couple of months.
Speaker 2: We're to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we look at tomorrow's papers, including
Speaker 3: Queensland Prisoner's absconding to.
Speaker 1: Go on by KFC. It's coming up, mister c welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at what's making headlines tomorrow. And
Speaker 3: I've got to say the front page of tomorrow's Cans
Speaker 3: Post got my attention when I saw it earlier. This
Speaker 3: evening prison break reads the headline inmates absconding to get KFC.
Speaker 1: You break out of prison for McDonald it's not for
Speaker 1: chaos ah.
Speaker 3: The state government says it will review security at Queensland
Speaker 3: Prison Farms after at least four detainees escaped on separate occasions,
Speaker 3: including one fugitive who fled on a tractor. Other inmates
Speaker 3: are leaving to get KFC. A former prisoner claims the
Speaker 3: prisoner who fled on a tractor it was from a
Speaker 3: low security prison a couple of days ago. It was
Speaker 3: a big red tractor actually, and so police put.
Speaker 5: It chager, chagger, big really back put.
Speaker 3: Out an appeal for the public. Anyone who's seen a
Speaker 3: prisoner on a big read to tract.
Speaker 1: It was pretty identifiable.
Speaker 3: But this allegation that prisoners are taking off to go
Speaker 3: get KFC, tell you what. The prison food must be
Speaker 3: bad if that's the reason they're not escaping to seat
Speaker 3: their girlfriend or escaping for you know, the joy of freedom.
Speaker 1: They just need a Kernel Burger, they.
Speaker 6: Need a KFC.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean the chicken is good at KFC and
Speaker 4: probably beats MACS on that front. But I would say,
Speaker 4: if you want a holistic review of all like the two,
Speaker 4: definitely I would probably escape prison for McDonald's, not KFC.
Speaker 4: But moving on to the Daily Telegraph now, the headline
Speaker 4: is oh men proved the Liberal Party has a serious
Speaker 4: issue with women. One of the men appointed in the
Speaker 4: federal takeover of the New South Wales Liberals has triggered
Speaker 4: fury among female colleagues after saying women in the party
Speaker 4: had become so assertive they may have to introduce reverse
Speaker 4: quotas for men. Sources confirmed. Alan Stockdale made the comments
Speaker 4: in a Tuesday meeting of the New South Wales Liberal
Speaker 4: Women's Counsel.
Speaker 1: And what's wrong with that? Freya?
Speaker 4: Not the approach I probably would have taken were I
Speaker 4: in his position, But I do think I mean, clearly
Speaker 4: it's a joke here, Clearly he's just this is an
Speaker 4: off the cuff comment that some people are really offended about.
Speaker 4: I do sort of understand why they might be, but like,
Speaker 4: come on, give.
Speaker 1: Him a break.
Speaker 5: I'm going to say, the bloke has serious balls. If
Speaker 5: he's willing to go into women's Council and say that,
Speaker 5: then he's the sort of bloke who ought to be
Speaker 5: premier because he'll stare anyone down right. But he does
Speaker 5: actually have a point, And I'm not saying that what
Speaker 5: he said was completely serious, But what he is getting
Speaker 5: at is the suggestion that keeps coming up that the
Speaker 5: Liberal Party ought to have quotas for women's nonsense. Because
Speaker 5: if you start saying that we don't choose people pre
Speaker 5: select people on the basis of merit. Well, then we
Speaker 5: should have reverse quotas for men as well, and you
Speaker 5: have quotas for everything else. What he's doing is taking
Speaker 5: on the concept of quotas. He's not actually saying that
Speaker 5: you need reverse quotas for men, but perhaps we need
Speaker 5: reverse quotas for people with the name McPherson or something.
Speaker 3: It's off topic, but I always wonder when does the
Speaker 3: quota finish? At what point do people say, you know what, well,
Speaker 3: we don't need quoters anymore. Yeah, and it's yet to
Speaker 3: be proven that a quota, once imposed, is ever lifted.
Speaker 1: That's the problem precisely.
Speaker 5: Let's go to the front of the Olds tomorrow where
Speaker 5: it says Charmers slams PMS door shut on gains tax.
Speaker 5: Jim Chalmers has declared he will not negotiate with the
Speaker 5: Coalition on superannuation tax reforms, just a day after Anthony
Speaker 5: Albinizi left the door open to a compromise with the
Speaker 5: Treasure of preferring to do a deal with the Greens
Speaker 5: that retains the contentious tax on unrealized capital gains. Doctor
Speaker 5: Charmers lashed out at opponents of the government's proposed tax
Speaker 5: hike on superannuation balances above three million dollars, accusing critics
Speaker 5: of pretending to dislike the model of taxing unrealized capital
Speaker 5: gains while actually being against clamping down on tax concessions.
Speaker 1: For the wealthy.
Speaker 5: Ah, the oldest trick in the book. It's because you
Speaker 5: want to do nice things for rich people. It's not
Speaker 5: about doing nice things for rich people. It's about the
Speaker 5: fact that texting unrealized capital gains is completely without present.
Speaker 5: It is insane because you are texting people on something
Speaker 5: that is not liquid, it doesn't actually exist. And of
Speaker 5: course we know that the three million dollars is not indexed,
Speaker 5: maybe will become two million dollars by the time the
Speaker 5: Greens get their hands on it is not indexed, and
Speaker 5: that a young person today earning the average wage, if
Speaker 5: they continue to earn the average wage for the rest
Speaker 5: of their life, will have three million dollars in super
Speaker 5: by the time they are sixty four. I mean, there
Speaker 5: is so much wrong with this, and all charmers can.
Speaker 2: Say is, oh, it's because you like rich people.
Speaker 5: Come on.
Speaker 4: And the fact that this was not given more airtime
Speaker 4: during the election, like this was barely even mentioned during
Speaker 4: the campaign. So in some senses, I'm sort of glad
Speaker 4: he's ruled out a deal with the coalition because if
Speaker 4: they had started to negotiate on this, they would never
Speaker 4: come back.
Speaker 6: That would shatter their credibility.
Speaker 4: You cannot possibly be a liberal and support more taxes
Speaker 4: like it's an incompatible position, especially one as egregious as
Speaker 4: a tax on unrealized gains. Literally flies in the face
Speaker 4: of our entire tax law. But it's also interesting to
Speaker 4: see the number of people that have come out against this,
Speaker 4: former governors, senior labor people as well.
Speaker 3: What's crazy about this is that it's making front page
Speaker 3: headlines now after the election. It should have been making
Speaker 3: headlines before the election, but the Liberal Party decided it
Speaker 3: wasn't an issue that they wanted to run with and
Speaker 3: so they ignored it.
Speaker 1: Just is astonishing to me.
Speaker 5: Indeed, another story on the front of the ODS tomorrow.
Speaker 5: We stand with Australia, p and G drives defense packed
Speaker 5: amid China push Papua New Guineas push for a defense
Speaker 5: treaty with Canberra. Sin's a message to all competing interests
Speaker 5: in the region that the Pacific nation stands with Australia
Speaker 5: and supports the international rules based order, P and g's
Speaker 5: Defense minister said in a landmark speech that nails the
Speaker 5: country's security allegiances.
Speaker 2: To the mast.
Speaker 5: Speaking of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Defense Conference in
Speaker 5: Canberra on Wednesday, which I'm sure the Prime Minister didn't
Speaker 5: like because he doesn't like ASPI at the moment, Billy
Speaker 5: Joseph said the recent circumnavigation of Australia by Chinese People
Speaker 5: Liberation Army.
Speaker 2: Navy ships, which also entered P and G waters.
Speaker 5: Had underlined the potential threats faced by Pacific nations, like
Speaker 5: everybody else, have a very strong economic partnership with China,
Speaker 5: he said, and I'm sure Australia also the same as
Speaker 5: the US and everybody. But when it comes to security,
Speaker 5: which use our traditional partners, which is Australia and the US,
Speaker 5: I'm glad to hear them saying it.
Speaker 2: I would like to see some action.
Speaker 5: That proves it though, because of course we have seen
Speaker 5: China sacking up to all in sundry around the Pacific
Speaker 5: since the dawn of time basically, but they're putting the
Speaker 5: heavies on at the moment. If P and G wants
Speaker 5: to go into a pact. Great, but you know, we
Speaker 5: can't just go into these things with our eyes closed
Speaker 5: and believe everything that we're told.
Speaker 3: Billy Joseph is speaking more strongly about the relationship between
Speaker 3: p and G and Australia than Anthony Albanesi speaks about
Speaker 3: the relationship between Australia and.
Speaker 1: The United States.
Speaker 3: He's speaking more strongly about the Chinese threat than Anthony
Speaker 3: Albanese is speaking about it. So and by the way,
Speaker 3: just proves what a rugby league team in Papua New
Speaker 3: Guinea can do, right, I mean, who said that wasn't
Speaker 3: a good idea. Let's go to the front page of
Speaker 3: the Northern Territory News. Territory Day war triumph. After weeks
Speaker 3: of tense negotiations with interstate authorities that would be namely
Speaker 3: New South Wales, Territory Day has been saved after one
Speaker 3: hundred tons of fireworks bound for the Northern Territory was
Speaker 3: cleared to transit through New South Wales and Queensland. A
Speaker 3: couple of weeks ago, one hundred tons of fireworks was
Speaker 3: seized in New South Wales. It was on its way
Speaker 3: to the Northern Territory, where on their special day you're
Speaker 3: allowed to set off illegal fireworks one.
Speaker 1: Day a year.
Speaker 3: In fact, they estimate three hundred and seventy tons of
Speaker 3: illegal fireworks will.
Speaker 1: Be set off on that day. It's quite incredible.
Speaker 3: But New South Wales officials seized the fireworks before they
Speaker 3: could get to the territory, which meant that the Chief
Speaker 3: Minister of the territory had to talk to Chris Min's right.
Speaker 3: But it's all been solved. The illegal fireworks are on
Speaker 3: their way. The Territorians will have their moment.
Speaker 6: Yes, because that's right.
Speaker 4: In New South Wales you can't actually buy fireworks, so
Speaker 4: I've heard of people driving down to the Act to
Speaker 4: try and smuggle fireworks across the border, which all seems
Speaker 4: a little bit ridiculous. But the Territorians get their fireworks, yippie.
Speaker 4: Moving on to Tasmanian Mercury, the saga with the Liberal leadership.
Speaker 4: There is clearly ongoing no confidence vote put Libs on brink.
Speaker 6: Rocky's horror show.
Speaker 4: Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe faces judgment day today as a no
Speaker 4: confidence motion in his leadership, moved by Opposition leader Dean Winter,
Speaker 4: moves closer to passing the House of Assembly. Key Cross
Speaker 4: benches have backed the motion leaving the minority Liberal government
Speaker 4: unlikely to unable to head off. A stunning defeat plunged
Speaker 4: Tasmania into political turmoil, raising the prospect of the state election.
Speaker 6: It has left the state budget in.
Speaker 4: Doubt and cars a shadow over Tasmania's AFL team. Debate
Speaker 4: resumes this all sounds like a whole lot of chaos.
Speaker 3: You said the AFL team has a shadow over it,
Speaker 3: as if that's not the main thing. That's the main
Speaker 3: part of this story here, tesay, he needs an AFL team.
Speaker 1: I hope they sought.
Speaker 5: That out exactly in all this contention over the ground
Speaker 5: and whether it's got a roof of all this atm
Speaker 5: You know who would think that it would be an
Speaker 5: AFL team that could well bring the Tasmanian government dundune
Speaker 5: and take them to an early election.
Speaker 2: Give the people their team. God damn it.
Speaker 1: Exactly. We're going to go to a break. When we
Speaker 1: come back.
Speaker 3: Researchers say drinking coffee will help you to age well.
Speaker 3: But how many cups do you need to drink every day?
Speaker 3: We'll tell you after the break. We talk a lot
Speaker 3: on this program about council stuff ups here in Australia,
Speaker 3: but I'll tell you what. The Lincolnshire Council in the UK,
Speaker 3: they have stuffed up pretty bad, spending fifty pounds on
Speaker 3: a bridge that goes nowhere. Check out the photo we've
Speaker 3: got of this bridge. They built it and then they
Speaker 3: ran out of money and they just haven't been able
Speaker 3: to finish it at all. So the top right of
Speaker 3: your screen there there you go. The road literally just
Speaker 3: stops in the middle of a paddock. And they've told
Speaker 3: local constituents they'll have enough money to finish that road
Speaker 3: in five years time, so it's just going to sit there.
Speaker 1: They come up with an idea, Caleb.
Speaker 3: They could raise money by charging tourists to go and
Speaker 3: see a white elephant in the wild.
Speaker 2: Oh, very good, very good.
Speaker 3: But the old thing I think about that train spotters
Speaker 3: would love it too. If we just show that image again,
Speaker 3: I reckon that's how they can use it people wanting
Speaker 3: to you know, people love spotting trains.
Speaker 1: That bridge is a perfect advantage.
Speaker 5: Point charge price of admission to go.
Speaker 2: Maybe they can raise the money to build it.
Speaker 5: The only thing is, though, that we actually had a
Speaker 5: case reasonably similar in Mount Barker in Adelaide. I think
Speaker 5: we talked about it last week. Yeah, road where they
Speaker 5: built them, and the road came up to a fence,
Speaker 5: and they couldn't build the road through the fence because
Speaker 5: someone owned the easement between it, and so to go
Speaker 5: on like the two sides of the suburb, you literally
Speaker 5: had to drive out of one side and go all
Speaker 5: the way around because they had built a road that
Speaker 5: led to nothing. Fantastic stuff, isn't it. James mentioned elephants though,
Speaker 5: how about this elephant over entirely, and of course if
Speaker 5: you're ever going to see one in the wild.
Speaker 2: This where it would be.
Speaker 5: It just wouldn't expect the wild in inverted commas to
Speaker 5: be in shop. This fella play bang leckt. This elephant
Speaker 5: is called walked out of his wild elephant. He lives
Speaker 5: in a nearby national park and he's allowed to roam
Speaker 5: around wander around. So he's walked out of the national park.
Speaker 5: The shopkeepers in there selling something to someone and in
Speaker 5: walks play Yang lick, and they tried to get him
Speaker 5: out of there by I'm not joking, pleading with him
Speaker 5: and yelling at him as though that was going to
Speaker 5: make some sort of difference. And one of my favorite details,
Speaker 5: it has to be said, in story, it is that
Speaker 5: the shop owner said repairing the demage shelves and replacing
Speaker 5: the lost goods would cost more than a thousand bart
Speaker 5: and that sounds like a lot, but it's actually forty
Speaker 5: seven Australian dollars. You've heard about a bull in a
Speaker 5: china shop. I didn't know about the elephant in the
Speaker 5: tech shop. But for Ally does his forty seven dollars.
Speaker 5: They're not quite as dastardly as they look.
Speaker 4: It's honestly extremely impressive given how huge the elephant is
Speaker 4: as well, really really remarkable stuff. A new study has
Speaker 4: come out which shows that for women's aging, it's actually
Speaker 4: beneficial to drink caffeine.
Speaker 6: Apparently the ideal number is three.
Speaker 4: Small cups of coffee a day make women age better. Now,
Speaker 4: I personally feel very validated by this study because people
Speaker 4: always call me out for my caffeine consumption, but hey,
Speaker 4: this is just a longevity strategy to extend my lifespan.
Speaker 4: This study of fifty thousand women over thirty two years
Speaker 4: has proven so, so no shame in coffee drinking.
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 1: Does it work with lattes?
Speaker 6: It does? It does?
Speaker 5: Mean?
Speaker 2: Is the question? I mean, it just gets better and better.
Speaker 2: Coffee is good.
Speaker 5: For you, red wine is good for you. Nicotine helps
Speaker 5: prevent Alzheimer's.
Speaker 2: I mean, every single day the Puritans checks.
Speaker 5: Just get another reason to buger off back into there,
Speaker 5: but we're all.
Speaker 1: Off to get a coffee that's from us. Stick around.
Speaker 1: Coming up is the Read a Penalty Show. Good Night