Speaker 1: Lately, welcome the Late Debates.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening and welcome to the Late Debate. I'm
Speaker 2: James Macpherson with Denika de Giorgio and Joe Hildebrand coming
Speaker 2: up tonight the North Sydney Toilet that if it goes ahead,
Speaker 2: we'll have a world heritage view. You will not believe
Speaker 2: where council want to put Alo plus When we get
Speaker 2: to the papers, the Canberra bureaucrats who are rushing to
Speaker 2: book quantus flights on the taxpayer dollar wouldn't have anything
Speaker 2: to do with double status points, would it. Plus On
Speaker 2: the front page of tomorrow's papers. Ugly scenes at the
Speaker 2: University of Sydney as the Student Representative Council vote for
Speaker 2: the eradication of Israel. All of that a little later,
Speaker 2: but first, just when you thought the world could not
Speaker 2: get any crazier, along comes the animal rights group Peter.
Speaker 2: They are demanding the Brisbane Broncos change their name because well,
Speaker 2: apparently by calling themselves the Bronco they're glorifying rodeos or
Speaker 2: Rodeo's or something. Now, I know what you're thinking, what
Speaker 2: a bunch of donkeys, But I promise you they're not
Speaker 2: horsing around haven't listened to this statement that they trotted
Speaker 2: out earlier today. They said Peter is asking the Brisbane
Speaker 2: Broncos to retire Buck, that's their mascot, and move away
Speaker 2: from imagery such as Bucking Broncos, which glorifies Rodeos. Bucking
Speaker 2: Bronco imagery glorifies Rodeos, one of Queensland's cruelest and most
Speaker 2: backward undertakings. The team could adopt the name the Brisbane Boomerangs,
Speaker 2: after the impressive aboriginal weapon, a nod to the team's
Speaker 2: fostering of indigenous talent and commitment to equality. Now, just
Speaker 2: on that suggestion before we talk about whether or not
Speaker 2: they should ditch the Bronco mascot. If they were to
Speaker 2: call themselves, you know, the Boomerangs, to be more animal friendly.
Speaker 2: Wikipedia says the boomerang was used to kill animals by
Speaker 2: inflicting injuries that lead to their demise. Designed to fly
Speaker 2: straight and with significant force, striking an animal with enough
Speaker 2: power to break bones, puncture vital organs, or cause severe
Speaker 2: head injuries. I think injuries here applies to the people
Speaker 2: at Peter.
Speaker 3: That is quality research, That is quality debating, that that is.
Speaker 1: Would you go from broncos to that actually kills me,
Speaker 1: that kills animals, that's right.
Speaker 3: So this is Peter being Peter. Right, So they do
Speaker 3: this stuff. Who says vegans don't have a sense of humor.
Speaker 3: So what they do is they go around trying to
Speaker 3: find and yes, we know what you're up to, and
Speaker 3: we're doing it anyway because it's just too funny.
Speaker 1: But they go around.
Speaker 3: Making the most ridiculous, outlandish suggestions or demands of what
Speaker 3: they want people to do, knowing that it will be
Speaker 3: seen as so absolutely beyond the pail and absurd that
Speaker 3: people will talk about it. And then Peter gets all
Speaker 3: its little mentions and it gets its messagecross by light.
Speaker 3: So they've come after us before. I think they came after.
Speaker 3: I think they came after hunters and collectors and said
Speaker 3: that the banns and collectors should change their names to
Speaker 3: I guess grazers and collectors or whatever. And they even
Speaker 3: came after Tasmania. They came after the Tasmanian government and
Speaker 3: demanded that they change the name of Eggs and Bacon Bay.
Speaker 3: So there is an idyllic little bay in Tasmania called
Speaker 3: Eggs and Bacon Bay.
Speaker 1: And Peter obviously.
Speaker 3: Doing a bit of gurgling as you were with the
Speaker 3: uses of the boomerangs.
Speaker 1: Oh here's something we can get on top of.
Speaker 3: So they're doing it again, and we've walked right into
Speaker 3: their noodle arm little vegan weak need protein free trap.
Speaker 4: Or their vegan weirdness, the absolutely vegan weirdness. Actually they've
Speaker 4: done it. You forgot about the Western Bulldogs. They also
Speaker 4: after you can't forget the Western Bulldogs in the AFL
Speaker 4: last year, they said that they wanted the AFL team
Speaker 4: to be renamed the Western Mutts. Would you believe can
Speaker 4: you imagine the West the Western Mutts versus the West Coast.
Speaker 2: Eggless because they said they're bread promoting breathing in paired
Speaker 2: dog breeds and.
Speaker 4: They said that that was offensive. And they also wanted
Speaker 4: the Western Bulldogs to change their mascot as well. So look,
Speaker 4: you know, look, this is just another example of yet
Speaker 4: again the perpetually outraged that Peter. You know what they're
Speaker 4: going to come after next. They're going to go through
Speaker 4: every single team, the Tigers. I don't think the Sharks
Speaker 4: are safe at this point, are they? I don't know,
Speaker 4: I don't know, But at the rate that Peter are
Speaker 4: going any animal team are.
Speaker 2: Gone, the Saint George I Llawarre team, I mean that
Speaker 2: glorifies the slanging of dragons. Well, and wait till they
Speaker 2: find out the dolphins mascot spends the entire game out
Speaker 2: of water. If they won't be happy with that thing
Speaker 2: about this though, right, surely this affects their funding because
Speaker 2: most of their funding comes from donations. If you saw
Speaker 2: someone from what is the Ethical Treatment of Animals people
Speaker 2: for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, they're out collecting money
Speaker 2: so we can fight for animal welfare, and you've been
Speaker 2: reading that they've been going on with this rubbish, you
Speaker 2: would have thought, if this is the biggest problem with
Speaker 2: animal welfare in this country, that the Broncos mascot might
Speaker 2: glorify rodeos, then maybe animals are doing pretty well and
Speaker 2: Peter don't need my donation.
Speaker 3: It's just the way that Peter gets all this attention
Speaker 3: right across the globe. Like, imagine how many countries they're
Speaker 3: doing this too, all at.
Speaker 1: The same time while we're still banging about it.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't means they get massive, massive amount of
Speaker 3: media coverage.
Speaker 1: It means they get a super high profile.
Speaker 3: It means that they suck funding that might otherwise go
Speaker 3: to RSPCA, which actually does really good stuff on a
Speaker 3: humane society or whatever. But and they get massive celebrity
Speaker 3: endorsements like Pamela Anderson. I think, quite famously rocked up
Speaker 3: in the Nerds that I'd rather go naked than wear fur.
Speaker 1: She was a big Peter ambassador.
Speaker 3: The good news is, though, is that it goes both
Speaker 3: ways because just as Peter demands, you know, it makes
Speaker 3: demands off what other people can name things. I'm told
Speaker 3: that Peter Kreedlin has now written to Peter and demanded
Speaker 3: cease using her name.
Speaker 4: You know, I actually disagree with you. I actually think
Speaker 4: it puts people off more. To be honest, I think
Speaker 4: people look at them and just go, you're a bunch
Speaker 4: of absolute weirdos. Seriously. I mean I know that the
Speaker 4: Broncos told them to buck off. Oh, I thought that
Speaker 4: was quite clever. People get put off by this nonsense, seriously,
Speaker 4: because what they're actually doing is they're ramming it down
Speaker 4: our throats. Now, if you're going to be an activist organization,
Speaker 4: I'm happy for you to say this is my cause,
Speaker 4: this is what I'm about. But when you start making
Speaker 4: ludicrous suggestions like these. I think it actually puts people on.
Speaker 3: I think the problem is they know it's ludicrous. All
Speaker 3: it does is get everyone talking about it.
Speaker 4: Hopefully we're talking, but it doesn't Oh well, Peter, great, terrific,
Speaker 4: you're doing great. It doesn't go yet it's clapp let's
Speaker 4: clap for them. I think it just puts them off.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe if you're already donating to Peter, you're probably
Speaker 2: not going to be put off by this because you're
Speaker 2: already down that.
Speaker 3: If you're vegan or whatever, you probably think it's funny.
Speaker 3: It's probably the only thing you think is funny.
Speaker 1: Let's talk vegan.
Speaker 2: Let's move from that to South Australia, because they have
Speaker 2: got some big problems in South Australia. Late a statistics
Speaker 2: show sixty three percent of adults are either overweight or
Speaker 2: obese and thirty five percent of children are either overweight
Speaker 2: or obese. So it's a large issue for South Australia
Speaker 2: and the government have decided to do something about it.
Speaker 2: From July first, they will ban advertising of junk food
Speaker 2: and sugary drinks on all public transport. Now. The Australian
Speaker 2: Association of National Advertisers has obviously, as you would imagine,
Speaker 2: opposed this because it'll affect their revenue, of course. But
Speaker 2: the biggest problem here is the lack of nuance. For instance,
Speaker 2: junk food under the definition provided by the South Australian
Speaker 2: Government would include processed food. So get this, Danika, you
Speaker 2: would be unable to advertise a ham and sealad sandwich
Speaker 2: because ham is processed. Or what about this if the
Speaker 2: Make a Wish Foundation put up an out on a
Speaker 2: bus and the advertisement for Maker Wish Foundation featured a
Speaker 2: kid with say a sponge cake celebrating a birthday, that
Speaker 2: would be illegal because that would be promoting unhealthy foods.
Speaker 2: Or what if there was a food festival being held
Speaker 2: in Adelaide, they wouldn't be able to advertise their food
Speaker 2: festival with a picture of pastry. So it's a good ee, dear.
Speaker 2: I suppose to try to help better health in Adelaide,
Speaker 2: but there's zero nuance with these laws. And that's the problem.
Speaker 2: Once you start trying to outlaw every little thing that's
Speaker 2: still hurt society, you end up just having large swathe
Speaker 2: laws that become ridiculous.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and look, let's be very clear, you do not
Speaker 4: have to be a Rhodes scholar to know what the
Speaker 4: difference between a ham and salad sandwich and say, chocolate
Speaker 4: and Lolly's is I think you could. You don't have
Speaker 4: to be a road what difference perhaps in the calories
Speaker 4: the amount of sugar in both of those. But look,
Speaker 4: this is another example of why people don't trust leaders,
Speaker 4: because once you start enforcing blanket bands, you can't do this.
Speaker 4: You can't do that. We're back to the COVID years.
Speaker 4: It may as well be back to the COVID years.
Speaker 4: But also how much how much ham are people actually eating? Yeah?
Speaker 4: But how much is a lot? Because Okay, if you're
Speaker 4: eating a couple of kilos a day, I'd go you
Speaker 4: are absolutely overdosing on the processed meat. But if you've
Speaker 4: got a couple of slices in your sandwich, come on,
Speaker 4: I just think it's ridiculous. Look, please, let adults be adults.
Speaker 4: Let adults make their own decisions in their own lives.
Speaker 4: Let adults make decisions for their own children. And what
Speaker 4: are they going to do next? Band junk food? Are
Speaker 4: they going to go?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 4: You know McDonald's needs to be banned? Is Goozman and
Speaker 4: gomes ay? They are in the firing line. Now you
Speaker 4: know where does it end, Because once you open the
Speaker 4: door to these sorts of blanket bands, that door gets
Speaker 4: further open.
Speaker 1: I don't mind.
Speaker 3: I mean obviously because this was done by South Australian
Speaker 3: Premier Peter Malanauskus.
Speaker 1: Under his watch, he can do.
Speaker 3: No wrong because he is one of the two most
Speaker 3: handsome premiers.
Speaker 1: In the nation of Australia. And so of course, you know,
Speaker 1: I was about to say, oh, this is absolutely bloody ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Where are they doing it? Oh what a fantastic idea.
Speaker 3: This is going to improve health outcomes for kids for
Speaker 3: generations to come. But I think if it is just there,
Speaker 3: if it's just the government saying well, no, this is
Speaker 3: what we decide we're going to accept just for our
Speaker 3: you know, our sites public.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're not going to ban it. I like
Speaker 1: it better than a wealth tax.
Speaker 3: And then a sugar tax, because that actually targets people
Speaker 3: who are less wealthy, because of course people who are
Speaker 3: poorer are from lawa sarchio economic backgrounds are more likely
Speaker 3: to have to buy junk food or less healthy food
Speaker 3: because it's cheaper and easier, and that just ends up
Speaker 3: penalizing them when they're already being penalized by life.
Speaker 2: The problem with your labor mates though, is now that
Speaker 2: South Australia are doing this, there's pressure on Mark Butler
Speaker 2: to do something nationally. And as Denika said, where do
Speaker 2: you stop? And not just like ban junk food, but
Speaker 2: if you're not going to advertise on public transport, I
Speaker 2: mean kids let access advertising about junk food on social media,
Speaker 2: it's everywhere you're going to ban that. Are you going
Speaker 2: to ban junk food being used to sponsor sporting things?
Speaker 2: And are you going to ban parents who? I mean
Speaker 2: after all its parents who buy the food, right, correct?
Speaker 2: So should we start removing children from homes where mum
Speaker 2: and dad are buying them kick kats? But this is
Speaker 2: what point do you draw a line?
Speaker 4: At what point do you draw a line? But at
Speaker 4: what point do you take your fingers out of parents lives?
Speaker 4: Stop telling parents how to pair its, make the decisions
Speaker 4: for themselves. They know their kids best. They're the ones
Speaker 4: that know their children in and out. Stop dictating to
Speaker 4: parents what they should and shouldn't be doing. Well.
Speaker 3: It's a bit like when they started banning all unhealthy
Speaker 3: foods from school canteens. Little word to the wise, the
Speaker 3: kids still know it's out there. Yeah, Like even if
Speaker 3: you don't advertise chocolate, as soon as a kid gets
Speaker 3: a hold of the good stuff, that's all they want
Speaker 3: for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: And they know it's there, and they.
Speaker 3: Will beat you into submission day in day out. Obviously,
Speaker 3: I'm still suffering from quite a bit of personal trauma.
Speaker 1: I just gave my five year old a packet of oreos,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: Like they just they get it and they wear you
Speaker 3: down and they find a way because they're evil, manipularly
Speaker 3: little terrorist masterminds who know how to find your weak
Speaker 3: spot and then crush it and break.
Speaker 1: You as a human. I'm just going to stop.
Speaker 4: But you might be in trouble see under South Australian
Speaker 4: under a blanket bad But you could be in trouble.
Speaker 1: Right well, maybe it might be one less thing that
Speaker 1: you have to worry. So it's like the social media,
Speaker 1: you know, what is it?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: Like what I say to you know, we say to
Speaker 1: my fireelf. For example, my mum.
Speaker 3: Says to her, well, if you eat all that chocolate,
Speaker 3: you're going to get diabetes. And I actually had to
Speaker 3: bring her into work to Sky News and she was
Speaker 3: talking to Mel the makeup lady downstairs, and she just
Speaker 3: goes up to Melon and says, do you have chocolate
Speaker 3: every day and.
Speaker 1: Says, I'm actually I do, yeah, I mean the you
Speaker 1: have diabetes.
Speaker 2: The biggest you hear is parenting, right. You know when
Speaker 2: you go to kmart you have to pay for anything.
Speaker 2: You have to weave through this maze of stuff that
Speaker 2: is all aimed at kids. It's all like kinder Surprises.
Speaker 1: And all that.
Speaker 2: It's all the whole levels will grab. You've just got
Speaker 2: to learn to parent and learn to say no. It's
Speaker 2: not that difficult, unless which case it's impossible. You'll do
Speaker 2: whatever they want. Empty. Albanezi on Tuesday was sworn in
Speaker 2: for his second term as Prime Minister along with his
Speaker 2: new cabinet, and what got everybody talking was the absence
Speaker 2: of a Bible when he took his oath the Catholic
Speaker 2: Prime Minister. Rather than swearing on a b I will,
Speaker 2: as his tradition, chose to take a secular affirmation. Here's
Speaker 2: what he did on Tuesday. I, Anthony Norman Albanese, do
Speaker 2: solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well
Speaker 2: and truly serve the conwell of Australia, her Land and
Speaker 2: her people in the office of Prime Minister projers. Now,
Speaker 2: legally it makes no difference, but politically and culturally there's
Speaker 2: questions being asked, particularly since Anthony Albanese made a pretty
Speaker 2: big deal of his Catholic faith prior to the election,
Speaker 2: and more recently was talking about how proud his mother
Speaker 2: would be that he will be the first Australian Prime
Speaker 2: Minister to attend the inauguration of a pope. So why
Speaker 2: didn't he swear his oath on the Bible. He is,
Speaker 2: as I said, a Catholic. Well, here's the explanation he
Speaker 2: gave today.
Speaker 6: I believe in a separation of church and state, so
Speaker 6: I choose, for example today, I've always chosen to do
Speaker 6: an affirmation because I think that as the Australian Prime Minister,
Speaker 6: I represent people of every faith and no faith, and
Speaker 6: so that for me, that's a personal decision. Other people
Speaker 6: who swear on the Bible or the Qur'an Nle's case
Speaker 6: is perfectly up to them. It's a personal choice.
Speaker 2: But now there's a few points we could make about this,
Speaker 2: But let me just make one point. He said he
Speaker 2: refused to swear on the Bible because he believes in
Speaker 2: the principle of the separation of church and state. Here's
Speaker 2: my question, where did he get that principle from. Well,
Speaker 2: that principle was not existent until Jesus said, render unto Caesar,
Speaker 2: what is Caesars? And unto God what is God's? The
Speaker 2: principle of separation of church and state. Religion and state
Speaker 2: did not exist anywhere in the world until Jesus made
Speaker 2: that claim. That principle, which he says was his guiding principle,
Speaker 2: is actually in the Bible that he refused to swear
Speaker 2: on Albanese. He probably just doesn't know quite enough of
Speaker 2: what he believes. If he knew it, he wouldn't have
Speaker 2: had a problem.
Speaker 3: Very well played again, although I think he is being
Speaker 3: very genuine to see he didn't make a huge deal.
Speaker 3: I mean the fact that the pope died in the
Speaker 3: middle of the election campaign. Obviously he had to put
Speaker 3: out a statement about that and comment on it a lot.
Speaker 1: It emerged, It emerged publicly, and against I can tell
Speaker 1: you it was actually against his wishes.
Speaker 3: He actually asked the journo not to run the story.
Speaker 3: But the journo did anyway, and it wasn't me, but
Speaker 3: that he'd been going to Mass again. So it started
Speaker 3: being and he's been raised to Catholic obviously, you know,
Speaker 3: like we all do. You lapse, you go off and
Speaker 3: do other stuff, and then you often come back to
Speaker 3: it later in life. And he started doing that, and
Speaker 3: he'd been spotted at you know, the big Catholic Church
Speaker 3: Canberra and and so and so that was written about
Speaker 3: and I read that he's back, but I don't think
Speaker 3: it is something because I actually had him on my
Speaker 3: podcast and tried to get him to talk about him
Speaker 3: going back to the faith of you know, his own Catholicism,
Speaker 3: because it was clear that he wrote.
Speaker 1: The statement about the Pope dying himself. You can just
Speaker 1: tell sometimes when it's them and not their their minions
Speaker 1: doing it.
Speaker 3: And and he just wouldn't talk about it, just even
Speaker 3: to me, who you know, even on a podcast, it's
Speaker 3: really intimate and blah blah blah chatting away. He just
Speaker 3: sort of talks generally about importance of the Pope and
Speaker 3: blah blah blah. So I think it actually is something
Speaker 3: he does like to keep quite private and considers quite personal,
Speaker 3: which I respect. The other thing, of course, is that
Speaker 3: if you're swearing an allegiance to the if you're swearing
Speaker 3: an allegiance on the strong part, imagine the Bible they
Speaker 3: bring out. It would be a Church of England, it
Speaker 3: would be this, It would be the King James version,
Speaker 3: wouldn't that? And so obviously it's a true Catholic. He
Speaker 3: could only swear on the revised standard version about James.
Speaker 3: That's a pretty Bible both.
Speaker 2: You could swear on the message versions. Yeah, I'm not
Speaker 2: questioning Albanese's faith. His suspicion faith is certainly a matter
Speaker 2: for him. But I mean, when you swear the oath
Speaker 2: of allegiance, that's not on behalf of the Australian public.
Speaker 2: That's your promise to the highest authority that you know
Speaker 2: of that you are going to do a good job.
Speaker 2: So I still don't understand him saying, will I represent
Speaker 2: people of all faiths and no faiths? Therefore I don't
Speaker 2: swear on the Bible. But it's not about everybody else.
Speaker 2: It's about you and what you consider to be the
Speaker 2: highest authority that you can promise your fidelity.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and look, I hate to be skeptical about a
Speaker 4: person's religion. You never want to be skeptical, and I'm
Speaker 4: not being skeptical. If the Prime Minister is a true Catholic,
Speaker 4: as he says he is, then that's totally fine. But
Speaker 4: the problem I have with this is that the Prime
Speaker 4: Minister himself actually made this almost into an election issue
Speaker 4: when he paused campaigning on the day that the Pope died. Now, firstly, look,
Speaker 4: I've got to be honest, I think it was a
Speaker 4: bizarre decision. I don't know why you need to pause
Speaker 4: campaigning on the day that the pope died, but to me,
Speaker 4: it seemed like it was a deliberate attempt to win
Speaker 4: over Catholic voters. Now why do I think that this
Speaker 4: was absolutely ridiculous, Well, because he cancels campaigning on that day,
Speaker 4: and then about an hour later, he held a press
Speaker 4: conference in which he was asked about his Catholic faith.
Speaker 4: At that press conference and he said, well, I have
Speaker 4: three faiths actually, the Labor Party, the Catholic faith and
Speaker 4: the South Sydney rabbit Os. And that in itself sounded
Speaker 4: like a sheer slogan to me. So again, I'm not
Speaker 4: questioning that he is a Catholic, but he didn't even
Speaker 4: go to a Good Friday service. You might remember he
Speaker 4: did not go to church on Good Friday. So if
Speaker 4: you have that devout why didn't you go to church?
Speaker 1: No one likes the bad news days. Everyone just wants
Speaker 1: to go to the Sunday.
Speaker 4: Well, it doesn't matter, but Peter doesn't. It doesn't win
Speaker 4: church on Good Friday. So if you are such a
Speaker 4: devout Catholic, why didn't you go? That's the question.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that Look, I don't think I don't think he
Speaker 3: is a I don't think he's like a huge in evautiation.
Speaker 3: But again, like of course you would pause, but with
Speaker 3: the Pope queen. Imagine if Queen Elizabeth had died and
Speaker 3: you still.
Speaker 4: Keep I personally think it's different. I don't. I think.
Speaker 4: Look again, it.
Speaker 2: Worked for him electorally, but it's still.
Speaker 4: He was He was an election, but I think it
Speaker 4: was an electoral point. It was deliberately to win over
Speaker 4: the Catholic vote. I don't think. I personally do not
Speaker 4: think he needed to put during it during the middle
Speaker 4: of it, because.
Speaker 2: The pope his agenda was to win over the Catholic vote. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it makes sense then for when he's on your podcast,
Speaker 2: Joe and you ask him to go into his faith,
Speaker 2: not to them.
Speaker 3: And again just that like because some people the whole
Speaker 3: thing of Albow saying it was raised with three faced
Speaker 3: the Australian Labor Party, Catholic Church in the South sitting
Speaker 3: rabbitis that is the oldest cliche in the book. That
Speaker 3: is that is him talking about his childhood and how
Speaker 3: he was raised and he was.
Speaker 4: It's an election, but it's just proved it was all electoral.
Speaker 1: That has been a slogan that has been around about him.
Speaker 1: It's like all the day.
Speaker 4: That the Pope died.
Speaker 1: Then it's like because it's for truth.
Speaker 3: Justice in the American wife, it doesn't mean But why
Speaker 3: say it on the day of the Pope's driver died.
Speaker 4: If you're not if you say if you're going to
Speaker 4: cancel or I'm going to cancel campaigning because I'm a
Speaker 4: Catholic and we need to respect this. Why whip out slogans.
Speaker 1: Because it's something that is just universally known about him
Speaker 1: and has been for his entire life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm like very I'm very sceptical.
Speaker 4: I'm very very skeptical. Now, look we've got to talk
Speaker 4: about the Greens leadership because today, of course they elected
Speaker 4: their new leader after Adam Bant lost his seat, which
Speaker 4: was obviously some of the best news. The only good
Speaker 4: news I've got to say out of this campaign, but
Speaker 4: Larissa Waters, who is a Queensland Senator, has been elected.
Speaker 4: She was elected unopposed. She ran against Marine Ferouki, who
Speaker 4: remains as the deputy. I mean, God helped the Greens,
Speaker 4: but also Sarah Hansoon Young. But when she held her
Speaker 4: press conference today, the first thing that I thought was, well,
Speaker 4: here we go. It's the say Greens, but with a
Speaker 4: different face. Have a listen.
Speaker 7: We've got a lot of work to do because people
Speaker 7: are really hurting and the planet is hurting, and we
Speaker 7: need a parliament that actually delivers for people and has
Speaker 7: the courage and the boldness and the heart to deliver
Speaker 7: some help to people. So I'm calling today for a
Speaker 7: progressive parliament and a politics with heart.
Speaker 4: Now, if someone can please explain what a progressive parliament
Speaker 4: looks like, that would be absolutely fantastic because I think
Speaker 4: that the Greens have a very different view on what
Speaker 4: progressive parliaments look like, based on their track record over
Speaker 4: the last three years of anti Australia, anti Israel and
Speaker 4: bizarre climate alarmism. And it looks like we have another
Speaker 4: three years Underliverous the waters of the same old rhetoric.
Speaker 7: Where the Greens. So, of course we stand firm always
Speaker 7: on social justice and human rights, whether that's First Nations justice,
Speaker 7: whether that's a free Palestine, whether that's peace and human rights. Globally,
Speaker 7: we will always be there calling out atrocities, calling out
Speaker 7: a genocide and standing strongly on social justice and human rights.
Speaker 4: Again, as I say, it is the same old Greens,
Speaker 4: the same old loopy Greens, except under a new leader,
Speaker 4: a very dangerous brand. It's certainly the Bob Brown days
Speaker 4: are long gone. Now we've got to talk about Marine Ferruki,
Speaker 4: who has remained as the Deputy. Now we know that
Speaker 4: Marine Ferruki, for example, has in the past she's worn
Speaker 4: a kefire in the Senate. She's also called for reparations
Speaker 4: for Pakistan, and she's been particular very anti Israel in
Speaker 4: a lot of her sentiment. And that didn't stop.
Speaker 5: Today migrant and multicultural communities have in the tens of
Speaker 5: thousands across Sydney, across Brisbane, across Melbourne backed our strong
Speaker 5: stand against the genocide in Gaza and for us telling
Speaker 5: the truth about what is happening.
Speaker 4: So here we go again. It's the same old from
Speaker 4: the Greens. I don't think anything based on that press
Speaker 4: conference is going to change, even though they have a
Speaker 4: different leader. And it's very bizarre when you've got somebody
Speaker 4: like Sarah Hanson Young, who's probably one of the more
Speaker 4: well in this case, maybe a bit more sensible, though
Speaker 4: I think Larissa Waters is well probably the most sensible
Speaker 4: out of those three. The other interesting aspect.
Speaker 2: To come out of all that, did you just use
Speaker 2: Greens and sensibility?
Speaker 4: I know, but I mean I'm trying that twice.
Speaker 1: I think the journey looking for is at least crazy.
Speaker 4: Well probably least loopy, I mean lease loopy. Out of
Speaker 4: the three would have to be Larisa Larissa Waters. But
Speaker 4: what I thought, but what I found interesting today was
Speaker 4: that Lydia Thorpe there was reports that the Independence she
Speaker 4: used to she used to be a Greens. Of course
Speaker 4: that she apparently, according to sources who told the Australian,
Speaker 4: wants to go back to the Greens. So you've already
Speaker 4: got an absolute cluster. Can you imagine if Lydia went back,
Speaker 4: I mean, good green.
Speaker 2: It drives me nuts, is Larissa Warters, God blessed it.
Speaker 2: She says, you know, we're going to bring back heart
Speaker 2: to politics, and it's this this moral pre as if
Speaker 2: we are the righteous ones, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party,
Speaker 2: Pauline Hanson, none of them have heart, but we we
Speaker 2: have heart. Well, I would say the Greens have got
Speaker 2: so much heart that there's room for a little more,
Speaker 2: you know, thinking, and they're very soft hearted before, so minded.
Speaker 2: That's what I was trying to avoid. The other thing
Speaker 2: that she said that got my attention was she says
Speaker 2: we are the Greens, so we are very firmly always.
Speaker 2: She got outside of and I was expected to say
Speaker 2: the environment, but then she started talking about social justice,
Speaker 2: human rights. And so they've missed a great opportunity, I
Speaker 2: think to reset here, because there's no question they were
Speaker 2: punished electorally. They lost four of the three of their
Speaker 2: four seats in the Lower House. They were punished because
Speaker 2: of their divisiveness. People saw that heard that rejected that.
Speaker 2: They had a beautiful opportunity here with Adam Bant gone
Speaker 2: to reset and put front and center the environment, that
Speaker 2: if they were serious and sensible about the environment, a
Speaker 2: lot of pe people would listen to them and pay attention.
Speaker 2: But as you said, it's just the same old Greens
Speaker 2: with a different face in chart.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're not actually interested in the environment, to be honest,
Speaker 3: they're there. They are purely interested in extreme left identity politics.
Speaker 3: You've got the Victorian Greens currently tearing themselves apart over
Speaker 3: trans issues. And I think someone someone recently got booted
Speaker 3: out of the party for some comments they made years ago,
Speaker 3: for about saying, oh, you know, maybe this could conflict
Speaker 3: with you women's rights in some you know, some sectors.
Speaker 1: They're they're just bonkers and they I mean, if you
Speaker 1: and they and they're far they're so far gone from
Speaker 1: being the part of the environment. All the people who
Speaker 1: were the.
Speaker 3: Greeny green Greens have basically been purged. There's a couple
Speaker 3: maybe left, one or two in you But Sarah Hanson
Speaker 3: Young is actually the most moderate of that triumvirate. And
Speaker 3: uh and even though she would have the highest profile
Speaker 3: you would think and be the most obvious candidate for leader,
Speaker 3: she she obviously never going to get it because the
Speaker 3: extreme hardliners have so completely got a stranglehold on the party.
Speaker 3: We don't know what the exact numbers are because, of course,
Speaker 3: for all the Greens talk about transparency, they don't reveal
Speaker 3: how their elections work, what the final numbers were for
Speaker 3: each candidate, how their state conferences or their party machinery works.
Speaker 3: They don't let anyone in. It is completely shut down
Speaker 3: and blacked out. And speaking of being blacked out, the.
Speaker 1: Greens are also racist because of.
Speaker 7: Course, we will give you the numbers in the Senate
Speaker 7: to pass good reforms that helps people and helps the planet. Okay,
Speaker 7: people elected us to get done, and that's what we
Speaker 7: intend to do.
Speaker 3: And so if you just saw that clip there, no,
Speaker 3: you weren't watching two polar bears fighting in a snowstorm.
Speaker 3: You're watching something even whiter, which is the blondeheaired, blue
Speaker 3: eyed Larissa Waters. They love their identity politics in the Greens,
Speaker 3: and they love to point out institutionalized racism and they
Speaker 3: support critical race theory. And there they have elected the
Speaker 3: whitest possible candidate of the three women who were running
Speaker 3: for the leadership, and they locked out the one woman
Speaker 3: of color, Marine Farouki, who has already raised accusations of
Speaker 3: racism about this country and in this country, and her
Speaker 3: very own party has shown that they are still not ready.
Speaker 1: To have someone of color lead them.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it has anything to do with
Speaker 3: the fact that half of their current party room now
Speaker 3: has double barreled hyphenated surnames.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's just a coincidence. I don't know, but I.
Speaker 3: Am sick of the abject racism of the Greens rearing
Speaker 3: its ugly head in this country, which, as Laura Tingle
Speaker 3: already told us, is racist because an invisible Peter Dutton
Speaker 3: is hovering around at house auctions and making people think
Speaker 3: things that they don't want to think about, you know,
Speaker 3: foreign buyers buying up their homes. And the Greens have
Speaker 3: demonstrated just how incredibly racist they are by overlooking a
Speaker 3: historic opportunity to put Marine Ferouki leader, the first woman
Speaker 3: of color as a leader of a major party in
Speaker 3: this nation. And the Greens have turned their noses up
Speaker 3: at history, and they have deprived Australia of what would
Speaker 3: have been, without doubt, the funniest three years all our
Speaker 3: ancient history, because Marie Ferruki as leader would have just
Speaker 3: made amazing. It would have been the funniest thing, and
Speaker 3: they couldn't even do that.
Speaker 2: So maybe if Marine Ferruki had had the courage to
Speaker 2: say on insiders that HERMAS should be disbanded. Do you
Speaker 2: remember she refused to say whether or not they could
Speaker 2: be disbanded. She might have had a chance of leading
Speaker 2: a political party. Thank god she's only the deputy, but
Speaker 2: I agree had she been for us for months. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the UK now, where the transgender debate has
Speaker 2: been front and center in the news for quite some
Speaker 2: time now. Remember the Tavistock Gender Clinic was closed down
Speaker 2: after a scathing review by doctor Hillary Cass on the
Speaker 2: treatment of children with gender dysphoria. She found that many
Speaker 2: were being pushed towards sex changes by this affirmation model,
Speaker 2: where if a child believed that they were in the
Speaker 2: wrong body, they were automatically assumed to be right and
Speaker 2: encouraged to take action regarding that. Well, the clinic was
Speaker 2: closed down, and then the Health Secretary was streeting. He
Speaker 2: came out and told Parliament that puberty blockers should be
Speaker 2: banned completely because there was no evidence that they were safe.
Speaker 2: In fact, there was evidence that they were quite harmful.
Speaker 2: And of course, then more recently, the UK Supreme Court
Speaker 2: ruled that the definition of a woman is biological therefore
Speaker 2: men claiming to be women are not. So you would
Speaker 2: have thought that the whole transgender issue in the UK
Speaker 2: and radical gender theory was starting to return to assemblance
Speaker 2: of normal, where biology was being recognized and supported. But
Speaker 2: we read this headline in the UK Telegraph today trans toddlers.
Speaker 2: Now just those two words should get your attention because
Speaker 2: that seems an absolute anomaly. Trans toddlers allowed gender treatment
Speaker 2: on the National Health Service. The article reads that children
Speaker 2: are not given powerful drugs such as pubity blockers at clinics,
Speaker 2: but are offered counseling and therapy along with their family.
Speaker 2: Up to ten children of nursery age are currently being
Speaker 2: treated in the UK, according to data, while as many
Speaker 2: as one hundred and fifty seven children aged nine or
Speaker 2: younger have been referred to these gender clinics now. The
Speaker 2: government originally proposed a law that would make it illegal
Speaker 2: for children under the age of seven to receive any
Speaker 2: sort of treatment, even counseling, regarding gender theory, but that
Speaker 2: was scrapped after consultation with transactivists groups. As the article says,
Speaker 2: no children are being given drugs, but they are persisting
Speaker 2: with this affirmation model, where if a child's says I
Speaker 2: think I'm the opposite gender to my body. Then they
Speaker 2: are believed to be telling the truth and they are helped,
Speaker 2: at least socially to start to transition that way. I
Speaker 2: couldn't believe this, Danika. Do you know currently there are
Speaker 2: six two and twenty five children on a waiting list
Speaker 2: in the UK to have gender treatment. That's twelve percent
Speaker 2: up on last year. Doctor Hillary Cass said, Cognitively, how
Speaker 2: does a nursery aged child able to process anything to
Speaker 2: do with gender? They don't have the comprehension to have
Speaker 2: a conversation with a health professional, let alone the communication skills.
Speaker 2: If you're eighteen and you believe you're in the wrong body,
Speaker 2: well then okay, that's a problem that you have, I
Speaker 2: would argue, respectfully, if you're eight and arguing you're in
Speaker 2: the wrong body, that's a problem that your parents have.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this is I actually find this whole story
Speaker 4: extremely disturbing because they said nursery age children or toddlers
Speaker 4: are receiving this sort of treatment. Now they can't talk,
Speaker 4: some of them probably can't even eat, they can't think
Speaker 4: for themselves, and yet what they're receiving some sort of
Speaker 4: gender affirming care or being primed for for potential puberty
Speaker 4: blockers at a certain age. I'm sorry, but I'm going
Speaker 4: to be up front. The parents should be locked up
Speaker 4: for this, because I think that is an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 4: Your child can barely speak.
Speaker 1: For goodness, I mean, they're older than they're not said
Speaker 1: it said.
Speaker 4: Correct me if I'm wrong. It was nursery agent, toddlers
Speaker 4: and three.
Speaker 1: Three and four years, that's right, okay, but three and four.
Speaker 4: But you still can't think for yourself with three.
Speaker 3: Of course, it's ridiculous, but I can't speak any I
Speaker 3: want to. People can rest on that and then and
Speaker 3: they're not getting it's only talking like it's self stilly.
Speaker 3: They're not getting any actual medical interventions or any treatment.
Speaker 4: But the fact that the thought is there, and the
Speaker 4: fact if a parent took a child of that age
Speaker 4: to any sort of clinic, that the parents should be
Speaker 4: locked up. I think that's an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 3: Well, I think the problem is that we don't know
Speaker 3: how much of this is contagion, as Richard Dawkins described it,
Speaker 3: and how much of it is genuine. So I've spoken
Speaker 3: to people who were clearly trans and new from a
Speaker 3: very young age that they were, and even they sort
Speaker 3: of said, but just because you know it doesn't mean
Speaker 3: you should actually begin doing anything.
Speaker 1: You should you need to be able to hear it.
Speaker 3: But by the same token, there are clearly kids who
Speaker 3: are very young who are tomboys or boys that will
Speaker 3: you know, will muck around dressing up in girls clothing.
Speaker 3: And the problem is, I think if you have carers
Speaker 3: or there who leap on that and say, oh my god,
Speaker 3: do you think you might actually be a girl, and
Speaker 3: the kid thinks, oh, yeah, maybe I don't know whatever,
Speaker 3: And if they think that maybe that's a way to
Speaker 3: get special attention, or whether they just don't know what
Speaker 3: they're saying or whatever, you end up sort of pushing
Speaker 3: them down this absolute last way that they actually don't
Speaker 3: need to be on. So I think you can just
Speaker 3: you know, it is just ridiculous to be intervening, I think,
Speaker 3: in the kid's idea of their gender or their sexuality
Speaker 3: or anything like that, which obviously they don't actually have
Speaker 3: any idea of at all at such a ridiculously young age.
Speaker 2: And all the studies saying most kids, if they start
Speaker 2: thinking these thoughts when they're little, most of them just
Speaker 2: grow out.
Speaker 1: That's right exactly.
Speaker 2: But when they through the power of suggestion, and you're
Speaker 2: a parent, you know the power of suggestion is incredible
Speaker 2: when it comes to little kids.
Speaker 1: I go back to the Oreo story.
Speaker 2: There you go, it's incredibly dangerous. I would have thought
Speaker 2: to be encouraging an affirmation model for confused kids. That's
Speaker 2: a kids and be confused.
Speaker 1: So that's right.
Speaker 3: The last thing you want is to give an incentive
Speaker 3: or provide social reward for kids saying a certain thing
Speaker 3: which could end up leading them down a path for
Speaker 3: their life.
Speaker 1: It could be really, really difficult.
Speaker 3: And again, if kids are definitely feeling that way, I
Speaker 3: think you probably know. I think you don't actually have
Speaker 3: to sort of flip a coin and say maybe maybe,
Speaker 3: but yeah.
Speaker 2: And I guess that's the point of that story. There's
Speaker 2: been a lot of progress, I would argue, back towards
Speaker 2: normality when it comes to gender issues in the UK,
Speaker 2: but still a long long way to go. And of
Speaker 2: course Australia as a whole other story, big story.
Speaker 1: It's in the.
Speaker 2: Papers tomorrow here in Australia, but it's being reported overseas
Speaker 2: already out of the US that rogue communication devices have
Speaker 2: been found in Chinese solar power inverters. Now, US authorities
Speaker 2: have found radios and other communication devices that seem to
Speaker 2: have been hidden in these power inverters that are used
Speaker 2: to connect solar panels and wind turbines to the grid,
Speaker 2: and these communication devices would get around the firewalls that
Speaker 2: have been put in and technically could enable the Chinese
Speaker 2: to shut down the energy grid in the USA. Other
Speaker 2: anomalies have been found in batteries and in electric vehicle
Speaker 2: charges that have been exported from China to the United States.
Speaker 2: Mike Rodgers, who's the former director of the US National
Speaker 2: Security Agency, he told Reuters, we know that China believes
Speaker 2: there is value in placing at least some elements of
Speaker 2: our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption. I
Speaker 2: think that the Chinese are in part hoping that the
Speaker 2: widespread use of inverters limits the options the West has
Speaker 2: to deal with this security issue. Now the Daily Telegraph
Speaker 2: tomorrow Denika are reporting this on their front page because
Speaker 2: of course China creates most of the inverters that we
Speaker 2: now rely upon as we go down a renewable zone.
Speaker 4: Really great, this is a major security issue totally.
Speaker 2: We're insisting on renewables. Renewables come from China. China is
Speaker 2: a foe. We're likely going to have conflict with them,
Speaker 2: and yet no one seems to be doing anything about it.
Speaker 4: And this is just another string in the renewables only
Speaker 4: experiment is and it's going really, really well, James. And
Speaker 4: this is another reason why it's going so well well.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: we will look at what's making news tomorrow, including Canberra
Speaker 2: Burich perhaps rushing off to buy Quantus flights. I wonder
Speaker 2: why we'll tell you to start with the break. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: We'll take our summary of tomorrow's headlines, starting with the
Speaker 2: Northern Territory News, which never lets us down. They always
Speaker 2: have a great front page. Tomorrow's is no exception. The
Speaker 2: headline reads this means war. You can take our fireworks,
Speaker 2: but you'll never take our freedom. Do that properly, Joe.
Speaker 2: I would have done it with a.
Speaker 3: Freedom take our fireworks, but you can never take our freedom.
Speaker 2: That's how I should have done it. The article reads
Speaker 2: New South Wales authorities have engaged in an act tantamount
Speaker 2: to a declaration of war on the Northern Territory's freedom.
Speaker 2: They've threatened to scuttle our beloved Territory Day by seizing
Speaker 2: around forty six tons of our fireworks. Now, apparently this
Speaker 2: is fireworks that was on its way to the Northern Territory,
Speaker 2: where Territorians on their day are allowed to set off
Speaker 2: fireworks however, whenever and to the extent that they like,
Speaker 2: and every year. Joe Hildebrand was telling me about this
Speaker 2: before the program, and I was like.
Speaker 1: Are you for real?
Speaker 2: I went online.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's also stories about like.
Speaker 2: Last year, thirty people injured when fireworks just went crazy.
Speaker 3: People they lose fingers, hands, you know, it's always a disaster,
Speaker 3: Buildings burned down.
Speaker 1: It is just absolute carnage.
Speaker 3: And if anyone dares suggest that maybe everyone in the
Speaker 3: Territory shouldn't be allowed to let out fireworks for just
Speaker 3: one day a year, whenever and wherever they want, there
Speaker 3: is it.
Speaker 1: Like what are you talking about? How dare you? No way?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not, this is absolutely sacred.
Speaker 2: So illegal fireworks on the way.
Speaker 3: To the illegal So they're illegal in everywhere else in
Speaker 3: the country except in the Northern Territory on Territory Day,
Speaker 3: and that's when everyone can.
Speaker 1: Just go hell for lace. It's just like there are
Speaker 1: no rules and you would have said the Chief Minister
Speaker 1: there and her Mel Gibson brave heart attire and it
Speaker 1: is just the most absolutely ridiculous, insane thing in the world.
Speaker 1: And it just makes me so proud to be in Australia.
Speaker 2: Have you been there for?
Speaker 1: Have I been there for territory? I'm not sure. I've
Speaker 1: had my wife, had my wife lived.
Speaker 2: It's just you sounds like so excited about this yet,
Speaker 2: amos yah, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I love the territory. I've been their heats.
Speaker 3: My wife worked there for five.
Speaker 1: Years mysteriously without me, now that I think about movement,
Speaker 1: and so she just knows all about it. So every
Speaker 1: time was territory. Every journal up there go right here
Speaker 1: we go and yeah, anyway, there you go. In tradition,
Speaker 1: don't dare touch it.
Speaker 4: I know what We're going. From one exciting story to
Speaker 4: a bizarre story on the front page of the Canberra Times.
Speaker 4: Surge for double status. Public servants are lining up flight
Speaker 4: bookings to take advantage of Quantus's double status credit period,
Speaker 4: with previously unreleased figures showing bookings surging during the week
Speaker 4: long promotions. Analysis by the camera times of public servant.
Speaker 4: Domestic flight booking data finds that daily average bookings with
Speaker 4: Quantus rose by twenty percent in the latest double status
Speaker 4: credit period in March twenty twenty five. The release of
Speaker 4: the data obtained through freedom of information comes as a
Speaker 4: re elected Albanezi government moves to crack down on travel
Speaker 4: spending departments, with flights and hospitality spending part of the
Speaker 4: promised six point four billion dollars in savings announced since
Speaker 4: the election. That's just I mean, that's just.
Speaker 3: Just a pure coincidence, Denika. Look, you're so cynical. You've
Speaker 3: but you know what, You've been working in the media
Speaker 3: too long.
Speaker 2: I'm way too long.
Speaker 4: I'm way too cynical of everything at this point. And
Speaker 4: you question everything, Joe, everything.
Speaker 3: It just so happens that the exact same time that
Speaker 3: public servants suddenly need to do urgent face to face
Speaker 3: business meetings. I'd be done over.
Speaker 4: It has to be done.
Speaker 1: Just happens to coincide when Quantus is of double status
Speaker 1: status Qua.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's nothing about that.
Speaker 1: You conspiracy theorists, you'll see, no.
Speaker 2: No, highly So people understand there's a difference between frequent
Speaker 2: flyer points.
Speaker 4: Correct and double status and status are actually the ones
Speaker 4: that they're the hard ones.
Speaker 1: That's one I really.
Speaker 4: Really want because when you get it up to those,
Speaker 4: when you climb the status platinum, the benefits you gave
Speaker 4: you get into the loud. You just get your benefits,
Speaker 4: so much playing for you. Yes, so you actually want
Speaker 4: to get your status credits over your frequent flyer points.
Speaker 1: That's right, you can't add that's the thing. So you can't.
Speaker 3: Actually you don't actually keep your status gets the clues
Speaker 3: in the name if you don't get enough status credits,
Speaker 3: and that involves you physically having to get on the plane.
Speaker 3: Points you can do all sorts of stuff. You can
Speaker 3: go to coals and get your fly bys or whatever
Speaker 3: it is, and you can accumulate points EASi as pie,
Speaker 3: but the status credits you actually have to be on
Speaker 3: the plane and take the trip yourself in order to
Speaker 3: get them all.
Speaker 4: And you also get more luggage allowance, which is always
Speaker 4: very handy.
Speaker 3: That's good to see public servants finally showing some initiative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, seems to be less than a coincidents Joe's.
Speaker 1: Look at that increasing productivity.
Speaker 3: Joe, honestly, just the cynicism here onto the eyes now
Speaker 3: and a couple of great little yarns, Proboo has said
Speaker 3: to PM So the Prime Minister said that his first
Speaker 3: visit this year would be to Indonesia, where the Russians
Speaker 3: are coming in and the Russians are going to build.
Speaker 3: They have asked the Indonesians if they can use one
Speaker 3: of their air force baces.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't know if they are just because elbow
Speaker 2: won't see.
Speaker 3: I think it's been established that they did ask and
Speaker 3: that was reported, and that was neither confirmed nor denied
Speaker 3: by the government. I can tell you it ain't gonna happen,
Speaker 3: but there you go. I can exclusively reveal that your
Speaker 3: National security correspondent on the late debate, it is not
Speaker 3: going to happen, Todd.
Speaker 1: But anyway, we've got your back.
Speaker 3: Pmtel's Proboo Anthony Alberanezi has thrown Australia support behind Indonesia's
Speaker 3: bid to join one of the world's biggest trade agreements,
Speaker 3: as he again downplayed concerns over Jakata's ties with.
Speaker 1: Moscow see James.
Speaker 3: He downplayed them, so fine, nothing to see here and
Speaker 3: see here, but yes, I am reliably informed that that
Speaker 3: the Indonesians have been convinced that to allow the Russians
Speaker 3: to use any of their military facilities would be a
Speaker 3: very very bad idea.
Speaker 2: Just quickly as the laborman on the pen, when is
Speaker 2: ALBANIZI going to see Trump? Is he got a trip
Speaker 2: to America schedule?
Speaker 1: He has to he has to wait too.
Speaker 3: He was very lucky to get a phone call scheduled,
Speaker 3: and the phone call happened to be scheduled just twenty
Speaker 3: four hours after Trump and answered all those taffs things,
Speaker 3: so he was able to get on the phone.
Speaker 1: Before pretty much anyone else. But you have to, I mean,
Speaker 1: it just takes so much to organize a trip to
Speaker 1: see the president. Like you can't just say everyone's going
Speaker 1: on coming over. Yeah, yeah, but Trump's going.
Speaker 4: To see everybody, i mean, prop to the Middle East
Speaker 4: of the moment.
Speaker 1: Trump has to make time to see them.
Speaker 3: So you know, obviously the UK is going to have
Speaker 3: more sway, you know, Ukraine even is going to have.
Speaker 4: From ourbo from Australia is not going to have any sway.
Speaker 3: Oh some obviously, you know, you know it won't be
Speaker 3: up there with you know, China, India, you know, all
Speaker 3: these mega superpowers, we're still just you know, a little
Speaker 3: old Butler. Yeah, and another concerning story on the front
Speaker 3: page of the Odds No Israel. Sydney UNI students turn
Speaker 3: their backs on Jewish peers. I thought it wasn't about
Speaker 3: anti simmon. I thought it was just about you know,
Speaker 3: free guards. I wasn't about being.
Speaker 1: Jewish, was it.
Speaker 3: Scores of students at the nation's oldest university turned their
Speaker 3: backs on Jewish peers who were pleading for support to
Speaker 3: stamp out anti Semitism on campus and defending the existence
Speaker 3: of a Jewish state. That would seem to put the
Speaker 3: lie to the idea that this is just against those
Speaker 3: genocidal evil Zionus and not about Get.
Speaker 2: This, a student representative council said, it wasn't anti Semitic
Speaker 2: to call for the elimination of the state of Israel.
Speaker 2: But again it just where the Jews go if they
Speaker 2: don't have.
Speaker 4: It again once It just shows once again is how
Speaker 4: cowardice and how hopeless the universities have been since October seven,
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three. And if you were a Jewish student,
Speaker 4: can you imagine how fearful you would be on campus
Speaker 4: that now you're actually going you know what this is?
Speaker 4: This is just terrible. You go there to learn, you
Speaker 4: go there to learn, you don't get. You don't go
Speaker 4: there to be subjected to this sort of nonsense.
Speaker 1: To be honest, I went there to smoke bombs and
Speaker 1: have sex.
Speaker 4: But well, I mean no, But we're talking about and
Speaker 4: he Israel's sentiment here. That's very very different, Joe.
Speaker 1: It's very different from what I was doing. And it's
Speaker 1: quite creepy. I think, what is I think there's always.
Speaker 4: Been creepy what you were doing.
Speaker 3: It's being student radicalism. Now we were having a great time,
Speaker 3: but there's always been student radicalism, and I was crazy.
Speaker 1: How can Mark.
Speaker 2: Scott, the device chancellor tolerate a student representative?
Speaker 1: Cansel?
Speaker 2: They're erectly calling for the elimination of Israel, turning their
Speaker 2: back on Jewish Yes, that's explaining to be about student
Speaker 2: welfare and allowing that sort of stuff to take place
Speaker 2: on camp.
Speaker 1: That's right. But the SRC is not a university body,
Speaker 1: it's a student. But yes, you're absolutely right, there are.
Speaker 2: Things kick those students out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they don't belong in your instage, that's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, he has been trying to and they've been
Speaker 3: really frustrated. I know people who work for Mark Scott
Speaker 3: and Mark himself and that they're very frustrated to find
Speaker 3: the actual mechanism, the actual legal mechanism they can deal
Speaker 3: with all this appalling behavior and.
Speaker 1: Just very quickly off target.
Speaker 3: ALPS Green undershoot Labelable Underscore undershoot it's two thousand and
Speaker 3: thirty renewable energy target by fourteen percentage points due to
Speaker 3: delays in delivering big solar and wind projects. Property Global
Speaker 3: Consulting Consultancy would McKenzie to warn the short form may
Speaker 3: imperil the Albanzi government's pledge to slash emissions this decade,
Speaker 3: as if Labour would ever fail to mat a pledge
Speaker 3: ahead of an electric Now.
Speaker 2: There you go. We to go to a break when
Speaker 2: we come back. The North Sydney toilet that if it
Speaker 2: goes ahead, we'll have a world heritage view. We'll show
Speaker 2: you where that toilet is destined to be located right
Speaker 2: after the break.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: I spent a lot of time on the Sunshine Coast
Speaker 2: and it's famous for its Loo with a View which
Speaker 2: has an amazing outlook onto the Milula Bar Beach. But
Speaker 2: that's nothing compared to the Loo with a View that
Speaker 2: North Sydney Council are proposing at McMahon's point. Look at
Speaker 2: this map here you can see there's the harbor of
Speaker 2: the bridge. You can see the arrow there pointing to
Speaker 2: this spot which has a World Heritage Listed view. North
Speaker 2: Sydney Council proposing to build a tour toilet there. If
Speaker 2: the toilet goes ahead. This is what you'll be able
Speaker 2: to see from the toilet. That's not a bad view
Speaker 2: at all. If you need to do a quick well,
Speaker 2: go to the toilet fast. Of course, there's outrage about this.
Speaker 2: How on earth could they build a toilet there, especially
Speaker 2: when there's a toilet block in existence about a one
Speaker 2: minute walk from there. But there are other toilets in
Speaker 2: Sydney that also have magnificent views, not least of which
Speaker 2: the Glenmore Hotel, which got a wonderful review on trip
Speaker 2: Advisor from someone who went to the toilet there. This
Speaker 2: is at the Rocks at Sydney. So here's the review
Speaker 2: on trip Advisor. Best view from a urinal in Sydney.
Speaker 2: The reviewer wrote, went to the men's room and there
Speaker 2: right next to the end urinal was a large window
Speaker 2: which affords the user amazing views over circular Key the
Speaker 2: urinal also overlooks another bar, so their patrons may be
Speaker 2: able to see you too. I don't know, go for
Speaker 2: a drink and if you're a bloke, a tinkle, but
Speaker 2: forget about ordering food. So the food didn't come out
Speaker 2: so well. But apparently the view we at the Glenmore
Speaker 2: that's currently the lou with the view. But McMahon's point
Speaker 2: may have an even.
Speaker 3: I have spent many, many, many a long hour at
Speaker 3: the Glenmore Hotel Europe. It is one of the best
Speaker 3: pubs in Sydney. It's right there in the rocks and
Speaker 3: there's a rooftop bar on the very top that you
Speaker 3: go after and if you and the problem is if
Speaker 3: your food doesn't come all to go get drinks you
Speaker 3: have to go down about three flight stairs and then
Speaker 3: go back up.
Speaker 4: And it's better than looking at graffiti and ridiculous ads
Speaker 4: on the back of the toilet door.
Speaker 3: Oh it's fantastic. You're just seeing that, you know. Unfortunately
Speaker 3: they chew's a bit of a bugger. But anyway, now
Speaker 3: this is another from.
Speaker 4: Dear that could have gone.
Speaker 1: From peeing to sleeping.
Speaker 3: Ryanair, you may know, is a super super low budge
Speaker 3: airline that operates in the UK and Europe, and it
Speaker 3: is basically a bus with wings and rhyanas passages. Bizarre
Speaker 3: sleeping position has been labeled extremely angerous. It's been labeled
Speaker 3: the Ryan Air mattress. Get it, but check out this guy.
Speaker 3: That's his feet on the seats there and then he's
Speaker 3: got his head under the chair the seat in front
Speaker 3: of him, which you wouldn't want to be a female.
Speaker 2: Flights, however, you can get comfortable, do whatever you come on.
Speaker 4: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: That's it from stick around. Coming up in just a
Speaker 2: moment is the Reader Penalty show. Good Night,