Speaker 1: Lately, gentle man, welcome the late base.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Staurer and Caleb Bond coming up.
Speaker 3: Remember as a kid, those nesle quality street chocolates, the
Speaker 3: big tins he used to get. I'm going to show
Speaker 3: you a little later how those tins have shrunk over
Speaker 3: the past forty years. If you're not a believer in
Speaker 3: shrink flation, trust me, by the end of the program
Speaker 3: you'll be a believer. Plus, when we look at what's
Speaker 3: making news tomorrow, the Herald Sun has a front page
Speaker 3: update on that murderer who's being released from maximum security
Speaker 3: to get IVF treatment.
Speaker 2: There's been the development in that story.
Speaker 3: We'll have that, plus the Australian newspaper on how Catholic
Speaker 3: schools are topping the napland results.
Speaker 2: I wonder why.
Speaker 3: All of that when we look at tomorrow's papers. But
Speaker 3: first we've got to start with this extraordinary story, and
Speaker 3: I promise you we are not making this up. A
Speaker 3: Canadian town has been fined ten thousand dollars for refusing
Speaker 3: to celebrate Pride Month, and the town's councilors who voted
Speaker 3: against Pride Month have been ordered to undergo human rights training.
Speaker 3: The saga began when a gay rights group asked the
Speaker 3: EMO council, that's the name of the town, not a
Speaker 3: descriptive of the council. They asked the EMO Council in
Speaker 3: Ontario to proclaim June as Pride Month and to fly
Speaker 3: a Pride flag.
Speaker 2: Now, they asked the council to agree that.
Speaker 3: Sexual orientations and diverse gender identities should be celebrated. Well,
Speaker 3: the council voted three to two against the motion. The mayor,
Speaker 3: during the break observed that flags aren't flown for straight people,
Speaker 3: so he didn't see why they should be flown for
Speaker 3: gay people. Well, the gay rights group took exception to
Speaker 3: this and went straight to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal
Speaker 3: and get this, It resulted in a five day hearing,
Speaker 3: paid for.
Speaker 2: Of course, by taxpayers. Here's the result of the hearing.
Speaker 3: In the decision handed down last week, the Human Rights
Speaker 3: Tribunal of Ontario ruled that EMO, its mayor, and two
Speaker 3: of its counselors had violated the Ontario Human Rights Code
Speaker 3: by refusing to proclaim June as Pride Month. The town
Speaker 3: was also cited for failing to fly an LGBTQ two.
Speaker 3: The two stands for two spirited rainbow flag, despite the
Speaker 3: fact they didn't have an official flagpole. Now, as I said,
Speaker 3: the council was fined ten thousand dollars. That money went
Speaker 3: to the Pride Group. The mayor was personally fined five
Speaker 3: thousand dollars also sent to the Pride Group, and those
Speaker 3: who voted against Pride Month were ordered to undergo human
Speaker 3: rights training and to provide written proof that they had
Speaker 3: done the training within thirty days to the Pride Group. Now,
Speaker 3: this thing has got problems everywhere, but just off the
Speaker 3: top of my head, firstly, calaber list, no one has
Speaker 3: the right to be celebrated. You might celebrate yourself, but
Speaker 3: you don't have the right to demand I or anyone
Speaker 3: else celebrates you. In fact, to demand that I celebrate
Speaker 3: you is to overrule my rights of free speech, free thought,
Speaker 3: my right of conscience. Beyond that, when you are forcing
Speaker 3: people to celebrate you, you're not creating acceptance, you're creating animosity.
Speaker 3: There may well be celebration, but it'll be through gritted teeth,
Speaker 3: and that certainly doesn't help your cause. But tempting as
Speaker 3: it is, to get really upset at the gay rights group,
Speaker 3: in this instance and the activists, I think the real
Speaker 3: blame lies with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
Speaker 2: It's almost a given now that any.
Speaker 3: Organization that has human rights in the title won't be
Speaker 3: upholding human rights, they'll be violating them, and Caleb, that's
Speaker 3: exactly what they've done in this instance.
Speaker 1: It's just obscene.
Speaker 4: I don't think I can even describe how obscene this
Speaker 4: decision is, because if we're talking met human rights here,
Speaker 4: surely freedom is a fundamental human right as well, and
Speaker 4: so a counsel ought to have the freedom to decide
Speaker 4: what flags it wants to put up the flagpole that
Speaker 4: doesn't exist, by the way, and what months it chooses
Speaker 4: it's going to celebrate.
Speaker 1: And if it says, oh, well, we don't particularly think.
Speaker 4: That in our town of one three hundred people, it's
Speaker 4: going to make too much of a difference if we
Speaker 4: celebrate Pride month or.
Speaker 1: Not, who cares.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is what happens when the long arm
Speaker 4: of the law is allowed to tell us what we
Speaker 4: can and cannot say. I mean, this is veering into
Speaker 4: thought crime territory really, because it wasn't only that they
Speaker 4: didn't have the month decreed as Pride month. It was
Speaker 4: that they had, as you pointed out, even dared to say, well,
Speaker 4: we don't do this for other people, therefore we're not
Speaker 4: going to do it for this group of people. If
Speaker 4: you think that they're going to start coming after you
Speaker 4: and the law is going to be used to do it.
Speaker 4: This is in Canada, but you'd be stupid to think
Speaker 4: that this is not going to hit the shores of
Speaker 4: Australia and every other Western nation very soon. If these groups,
Speaker 4: these boards, these human rights commissions are willing to hold
Speaker 4: a gun to your head and charge you money for
Speaker 4: not doing.
Speaker 1: What activists tell you to do, it is insane.
Speaker 5: And the group, this Borderland Bride group, their militants over
Speaker 5: this cannot be overstated.
Speaker 6: Check out this.
Speaker 5: Quote from Borderland Pride director Douglas Judson. He said, as
Speaker 5: a lawyer who does this work, that means I'm going
Speaker 5: to start taking people's houses and their vehicles and their
Speaker 5: toys and draining their bank accounts and garnishing their wages
Speaker 5: because no one is going to stop behaving this way.
Speaker 6: Until there were real consequences.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, well, I can't understand why everyone wouldn't just
Speaker 5: be rolling over to keep you happy mate. These guys
Speaker 5: once they won the case fifteen thousand dollars in total,
Speaker 5: they said to this, council will donate a third of
Speaker 5: our award to the public library if you guys agree
Speaker 5: to host a drag Queen's story time at a date
Speaker 5: of our choosing. Now the Council, it would appear, has
Speaker 5: said no to this point. They're not desperate for a
Speaker 5: handout for the people who have effectively sued them you
Speaker 5: using the Commission, but now this them then being sent
Speaker 5: off to the Commission's own retraining education camp for human
Speaker 5: rights one oh one. As someone who has a master's
Speaker 5: degree in human rights, I'd love to attend this course because,
Speaker 5: as Matt just said, it's not a human right that
Speaker 5: you must be celebrated for all your life choices, especially
Speaker 5: by people who haven't made those same life choices and
Speaker 5: just want to be left alone to live their own lives.
Speaker 5: Check this out quote out from the training manual. It says,
Speaker 5: it doesn't matter if you didn't intend or mean to discriminate,
Speaker 5: it's the impact on the person that matters. Oh well, okay,
Speaker 5: well they're just all hostages. Then to the feelings of
Speaker 5: anyone who decides I've been discriminated against, but spare a
Speaker 5: thought for Canada.
Speaker 6: This has been going on for thirty years.
Speaker 5: Back in nineteen ninety five, Hamilton Mayor was fined five
Speaker 5: thousand dollars for refusing to proclaim Pride week remember when
Speaker 5: it was just a week. Back In also nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 5: London Ontarigo fined ten thousand dollars for refusing to officially
Speaker 5: recognize Pride weekend. It it goes to show this has
Speaker 5: been happening for a very long time. And this particular
Speaker 5: lobby group, Borderland Pride, this is the second time in
Speaker 5: four months they've won a five FI award. The last
Speaker 5: time was thirty five grand out of some blow you'd
Speaker 5: gone online. It was his own Facebook account and tweeted, well,
Speaker 5: not tweeted. Facebook posted something to the effect of quote
Speaker 5: not quote yet No. He was saying that Borderland Prides
Speaker 5: all ages, drag Queen show was a quote pedophile show.
Speaker 5: End quote. Now that's an opinion. People are jumping online
Speaker 5: sharing their opinions. This guy had cost him thirty five
Speaker 5: thousand dollars. That's how militant they are in Canada. And
Speaker 5: it does make you wonder because we have plenty of
Speaker 5: councils here who do all these kinds of things.
Speaker 6: Corporates as well.
Speaker 5: They fly the flag you name it, Waverley Council, I
Speaker 5: believe it is. I remember attending one of their ends
Speaker 5: a day parades and they had painted around their entire
Speaker 5: building like the road is a rainbow, just to.
Speaker 6: Get the council chambers.
Speaker 5: I thought, Wow, these these guys are going full hog.
Speaker 5: But it makes you wonder how many of them are
Speaker 5: doing this kind of thing just to avoid somebody like
Speaker 5: this lobby group here in Australia approaching the Human Rights
Speaker 5: Commission and getting them done similarly?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, how many of us, when I say us,
Speaker 3: I'm in the Royal US censor our own speech every
Speaker 3: day so we don't have get in trouble from someone
Speaker 3: or some organization or its life in our community. And
Speaker 3: God bless emo counsel for having the courage of their
Speaker 3: convictions and saying no, we're.
Speaker 2: Not doing this, and that's consequence.
Speaker 1: That's the point.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is a warning shot to everyone else, right,
Speaker 4: because sure a council can afford to stump up the
Speaker 4: ten grand, and the me can probably afford the five
Speaker 4: grand that's put upon them. But a lot of people
Speaker 4: the right pay well, exactly exactly the right pay is
Speaker 4: you know, an average person, if you were told you
Speaker 4: had to hand over ten grand because you'd committed some
Speaker 4: sort of you know, thought crime like that, a lot
Speaker 4: of people, most people wouldn't have ten grand in the
Speaker 4: bank to be able to pay that. That is the
Speaker 4: point they are trying to call you into silence. The
Speaker 4: game mafia in this case is trying to call you
Speaker 4: into silence. To a similarly crazy story, this time a
Speaker 4: little further south into the United States, There's been a
Speaker 4: bit of a hullabaloo going on in the US in
Speaker 4: a particular volleyball league because one team has tried to
Speaker 4: get a transgender player to join their team, and other
Speaker 4: teams in response have said, well, no, we're not going
Speaker 4: to sign up and play anymore. They're boycotting against the
Speaker 4: San Jose University because of course they're trying to get
Speaker 4: a biological mail to play against women. His a little
Speaker 4: explanation from Fox News.
Speaker 7: Boise State University women's volleyball team announcing it will forfeit
Speaker 7: it's semifinal match in the Mountain West Tournament against San
Speaker 7: Jose State University Boise State, saying quote, they should not
Speaker 7: have to forego this opportunity while waiting for a more
Speaker 7: thoughtful and better system that serves all athletes. San Jose
Speaker 7: State come under fire for allowing a biological male to
Speaker 7: compete on their women's volleyball team. We spoke to a
Speaker 7: competing volleyball team captain from the same conference as San
Speaker 7: Jose stee about the choice teams are facing.
Speaker 6: They're faced with something really hard.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of stakes now.
Speaker 5: Forfeiting during the conference season is one thing, but now
Speaker 5: the sticks are much higher now.
Speaker 4: As you heard there. It has caused a lot of
Speaker 4: travel within the league. Has also caused a lot of
Speaker 4: trouble within their own team. There are players who are
Speaker 4: now refusing to go on the court. They're even suing
Speaker 4: their own team for the decision to include a transgender
Speaker 4: woman a biological male in the team. So The New
Speaker 4: York Times wrote an article going into the back room
Speaker 4: turmoil within the team that's been going on since this
Speaker 4: decision was made. And get this, why would you use
Speaker 4: one word when you could use three? The New York
Speaker 4: Times published an article on the current controversy sweeping through
Speaker 4: the women's college volleyball after multiple teams forfeited games against
Speaker 4: San Jose State University and transgender player Blair Fleming.
Speaker 1: In the article, the outlet used the.
Speaker 4: Term non transgender women to refer to biological females when
Speaker 4: discussing the varying levels of testosterone.
Speaker 1: Yes, there's a word. I'm trying to think, what is a.
Speaker 6: Woman?
Speaker 1: Woman? That's what it is, But they use non transgender woman.
Speaker 4: I mean, seriously, Freddie Mercury, take it away.
Speaker 2: I'm girling slightly, man and going slightly.
Speaker 4: I mean, the world has truly lost the plot. We
Speaker 4: all know what a non transgender woman is. It's a woman,
Speaker 4: for heaven's sake. Why can't you just say woman? And
Speaker 4: I was going to say natural rattleover. Martina navrattlover, of course,
Speaker 4: famous female tennis player, hit out at this on X,
Speaker 4: saying New York.
Speaker 1: Times, you stink. We are women.
Speaker 4: We are not transgender women, just women will do in
Speaker 4: the future. Another account on X Women Are Real pointed
Speaker 4: out the ridiculousness of this. Hey, in New York Times,
Speaker 4: don't call us non transgender women.
Speaker 1: Just stop it.
Speaker 4: Stop all the offensive terms for us, such as birthing parent, uterus,
Speaker 4: ha menstrue waiter, my personal favorite vaginal presenting, whatever the
Speaker 4: hell that is. Apparently from the Olympus spa hearing we
Speaker 4: are women, I mean we have well and true well
Speaker 4: not we not here on the late debate, but some
Speaker 4: people have well and truly jumped the shark if some
Speaker 4: journalists just sitting there and genuinely thinks non transgender woman
Speaker 4: is an app description for a woman.
Speaker 5: Later on in the article, this same journo uses the
Speaker 5: term athlete to signed female at birth. Once again, the
Speaker 5: words you're looking for is women.
Speaker 6: Those are women.
Speaker 5: That's why they were assigned female at birth. They have
Speaker 5: all the equipment of a war men. But you've got
Speaker 5: a feel for these volleyball players because while they're suing
Speaker 5: their own team and on that it's a bit of
Speaker 5: a class action type thing because groups volleyball teams that
Speaker 5: would be versing the Spartans that is the name of
Speaker 5: the team who are trying to include this transgender player
Speaker 5: are also joining this lawsuit saying well, were at risk
Speaker 5: as well. This is very much a risk to our
Speaker 5: well being and certainly could stand.
Speaker 6: To set us back in the state's ranking.
Speaker 5: Because if you guys win, while you've got a biological man,
Speaker 5: blang for you, how is that fair? All I think
Speaker 5: they really should be suing is their National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Speaker 5: which of course is the body in the United States
Speaker 5: of America that oversees all of this, and their website
Speaker 5: says trends volleyball players can play if their testosterone is
Speaker 5: less than ten nanimals per liter, which is four times
Speaker 5: more than the average females levels of testosterone, and the
Speaker 5: experts tell us, actually, ten animals per liter is very
Speaker 5: average for the everyday guy walking around. So basically, a
Speaker 5: biological male who's made no effort whatsoever to chip down
Speaker 5: on their testosterone levels, they're okay to play in the
Speaker 5: volleyball leagues. It's perfectly fine. These women are being told
Speaker 5: to give up their safe spaces because this means they're
Speaker 5: in the locker rooms, they're in the showers, they're in all.
Speaker 6: The rest of it.
Speaker 5: We have to give up our work, our sports, all
Speaker 5: the rest of it. Someone tried to convince me that
Speaker 5: this shouldn't just be called the misogyny movement because all
Speaker 5: it involves when it's and I'm sick of using the
Speaker 5: term trans women as well, because as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 5: you're not any kind of woman. Okay, I would know
Speaker 5: what it is to be a woman, what it means
Speaker 5: to be a woman.
Speaker 6: You do not and will never.
Speaker 5: You can dress up all you like, doesn't make your women,
Speaker 5: and to insinuate otherwise is just so unbelievably insulting. But
Speaker 5: to come after our sports, our safeguards, our words, our rights,
Speaker 5: and us being forced by sporting bodies like this, who
Speaker 5: should know better to relinquish those basic rights.
Speaker 6: It's a misogyny movement, that's it.
Speaker 3: I'm done that The New York Times would just casually
Speaker 3: insert this term non trans women, as if you know
Speaker 3: that's a thing. Shows you just how far this movement
Speaker 3: has gone and how low our culture has sunk.
Speaker 2: But it's actually quite logical.
Speaker 3: I feel it when you say, why don't they just
Speaker 3: use the word woman? But of course, and I know
Speaker 3: you know this, they can't use the word woman because
Speaker 3: if you have transgendered women being compared with that.
Speaker 6: We've got to stop using the term. It's like my
Speaker 6: partolgical men.
Speaker 3: If you have transgendered women as compared to the testosterone
Speaker 3: levels of women, well, implicit in that is that transgendered
Speaker 3: women aren't actually women.
Speaker 2: Therefore you can't have women.
Speaker 3: You can only have trans women or non trans women,
Speaker 3: and so women have now become.
Speaker 2: A subset of a class that used to.
Speaker 3: Be their own, or to put it another way, in
Speaker 3: order to reclassify themselves, men have declassified women completely. But
Speaker 3: the transgendered movement relies on obfiscation.
Speaker 2: They can't tell the truth.
Speaker 3: They have to manipulate and mangle language because otherwise it
Speaker 3: becomes plain that they're talking about someone who is other
Speaker 3: than a woman. Even the polite term cisgendered women. It's
Speaker 3: grossly consulting, because wherever you have to qualify what kind
Speaker 3: of woman this is, you are now implying that men
Speaker 3: can be women.
Speaker 2: So there's just women. And I agree with you.
Speaker 3: Even the term transgendered woman is in itself a lie.
Speaker 2: And we all perpetuate these lies.
Speaker 3: Because of fear or because of a well intentioned desire
Speaker 3: to be kind. But it's not kindness to end up
Speaker 3: with the result that you so eloquently described, where you've
Speaker 3: got women being raised, you've got unsafe spaces, you've got
Speaker 3: sports being completely bastardized.
Speaker 2: You've got all of.
Speaker 3: This happening in the name of kindness and inclusion. It's
Speaker 3: just wrong and it's just lies.
Speaker 6: Here here to a different kind of madness. And back
Speaker 6: to Australia.
Speaker 5: The Commonwealth Bank has sent an email out to anyone
Speaker 5: holding a complete access account saying, look, we've decided these
Speaker 5: accounts no longer exist, so we're moving you over to
Speaker 5: a smart access account.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 6: I hope everyone read the fine print.
Speaker 5: In this email because they would have discovered had they
Speaker 5: read on, that it's going to cost them from January
Speaker 5: sixth next year three bucks to withdraw their own money.
Speaker 6: Should they go to a bank branch, a.
Speaker 5: Post office or try and make a withdrawal over the phone?
Speaker 6: Three bucks up? Pop?
Speaker 5: What the heck is that covering admin costs? Does it
Speaker 5: really cost three minutes for someone to just grab the cash,
Speaker 5: which they're employed to do already and hand it over
Speaker 5: the counter.
Speaker 6: Now, the Commonwealth Bank wants.
Speaker 5: You to know that as long as you keep using
Speaker 5: their ATMs it's free.
Speaker 6: You can still withdraw for free.
Speaker 5: But we all know this is another spoke in the
Speaker 5: wheel of making it harder and harder to use cash
Speaker 5: here in Australia. Because one of the Commonwealth Bank says, ah,
Speaker 5: don't worry. They just use a Commonwealth Bank ATM and
Speaker 5: your withdrawal is still free.
Speaker 6: They've closed over.
Speaker 5: Fifty four percent of their ATMs over the last five years.
Speaker 6: They've closed more than.
Speaker 5: Three hundred and fifty branches over the last five years.
Speaker 5: So while they try and make it sound like, oh,
Speaker 5: this actually isn't too bad, it's an absolute you know
Speaker 5: what show?
Speaker 6: Where do these banks get off? Everyone already pays banking fees.
Speaker 5: Most of us don't know where that goes either, because
Speaker 5: they get to play with our money for as long
Speaker 5: as it's in our accounts. That little figure on your
Speaker 5: screen when you log into your bank account ain't just
Speaker 5: sitting there waiting for you.
Speaker 6: They do stuff.
Speaker 5: They make the most of the money that you've invested
Speaker 5: with them while they've got it.
Speaker 6: So here they are making.
Speaker 5: The most of us choosing them as a bank, while
Speaker 5: flogging their own people who have chosen common Wealth Bank.
Speaker 6: It does my head in and no wonder.
Speaker 5: This is rightly released a massive backlash of thousands of
Speaker 5: Australians saying we're just going to change banks then, because
Speaker 5: you flogs can go jump.
Speaker 6: It's certainly right.
Speaker 3: I just want to know what would happen if you
Speaker 3: go to your local Commonwealth bank and you say to
Speaker 3: the teller, because you're down to your last three bucks, right,
Speaker 3: so I'd like to withdraw my three dollars please, and
Speaker 3: she would just look at you and smile and say,
Speaker 3: there you go, and that.
Speaker 1: Would slip from give you an eye.
Speaker 3: Commonwealth Bank just announced LUs. I mean the timing of
Speaker 3: this is brilliant, right they announced today we're going to
Speaker 3: charge you to get your own money. But less than
Speaker 3: four weeks ago they announced a two point five billion
Speaker 3: dollar first quarter profit. So it's not like they're doing
Speaker 3: it tough. I mean two point five billion that's not
Speaker 3: financial year, that's the first quarter. And now they're going
Speaker 3: to sting you to get your own money.
Speaker 2: The problem with.
Speaker 3: This is that when you got paid in days gone by,
Speaker 3: you get it in a little envelope and then you
Speaker 3: could decide to put it under your pillow if you're Italian,
Speaker 3: or you know, if you put it in the bank,
Speaker 3: if that's what you wanted to do or whatever.
Speaker 5: You're Italian or you're smart, but you're just jolly smart.
Speaker 6: Don't give them your money.
Speaker 3: But these days, your money goes straight from your employer
Speaker 3: to the bank. In this case the Commonwealth Bank of
Speaker 3: Australia and then you have to go and beg or
Speaker 3: pay to get it out. That's not a good deal.
Speaker 3: But I mean bank stopped providing service so long ago.
Speaker 3: I remember some time ago, I went to the Saint
Speaker 3: George Bank in my local area. I don't bank with
Speaker 3: Saint George, but I know that they have cash on premises.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: I had one hundred dollars bill I needed two fifties.
Speaker 2: I went in there. They wouldn't swap it for me.
Speaker 2: You're a bank, don't deal.
Speaker 1: You're not even one of us.
Speaker 4: Like money and what I mean it is just insane.
Speaker 4: I mean, I have been a long term Combank customer.
Speaker 4: I'm also a Westpac customer, and I'm seriously considering pulling
Speaker 4: my customers.
Speaker 6: Would you pay?
Speaker 4: Well, well, it's one's business related and one's personal.
Speaker 1: But I am.
Speaker 4: Seriously considering pulling everything out of CBA.
Speaker 1: I've got my mortgage with CBA, I've got all my.
Speaker 4: Savings accounts, my spending accounts is all with CBA. I'm
Speaker 4: seriously considering pulling out of there because they are taking
Speaker 4: people for a ride.
Speaker 1: I mean they say that you'll still be able.
Speaker 4: To go into the bank and do it for free
Speaker 4: if you've got a disability. But let's be real here,
Speaker 4: the majority of people who would still go into a
Speaker 4: bank branch to do their banking are older Australians. This
Speaker 4: is discrimination against and absolutely it is discrimination against older people.
Speaker 4: And the banks have had it so easy in this
Speaker 4: country for such a long time. I mean, look that
Speaker 4: the last couple of years with interest rates going up,
Speaker 4: that's why their profits are going through the roof, because
Speaker 4: us who have a mortgage are forced to give more
Speaker 4: and more of our income to them, and that just
Speaker 4: goes straight into their pockets.
Speaker 1: They love that off.
Speaker 4: It's going through the roof and at the same time
Speaker 4: they want to take three dollars away from you to
Speaker 4: take out your own money. But the banks in Australia,
Speaker 4: and I have said this before, are secured by the
Speaker 4: federal government. If the whole thing goes aover t the
Speaker 4: federal government posts the global financial crisis in two thousand
Speaker 4: and seven made a decision that it would secure the
Speaker 4: banks in order to secure our economic systems in Australia
Speaker 4: now in exchange for the federal government providing that security
Speaker 4: to the banks, essentially saying that you will never fall over,
Speaker 4: which means you have a lifetime in perpetuity profit as
Speaker 4: long as you run your business properly. The federal government
Speaker 4: should be able to call in some favors. And the
Speaker 4: federal government needs to grow a spine and start telling
Speaker 4: Combank and all the other banks to pull their heads
Speaker 4: in and not do this kind of thing. If you
Speaker 4: want the security of the federal government, which by extension
Speaker 4: is the security of the taxpayer, the security of the
Speaker 4: customers of Commonwealth Bank and the other banks, you must
Speaker 4: keep your branches open. You must provide a certain level
Speaker 4: of service. If you won't do that, then you don't
Speaker 4: get our security anymore.
Speaker 1: That is how things show.
Speaker 5: The irony that they've called the smart access account.
Speaker 6: You can't access it a smart access account.
Speaker 5: Oh it's smart to pay my bank three bucks to
Speaker 5: access my own money. These guys want to ensure that
Speaker 5: cash is dead in this country. But according to the
Speaker 5: later stats from the RBA, ossies in the last twelve
Speaker 5: months alone withdrew one hundred and seven billion dollars. In
Speaker 5: the last twelve months, we withdrew one hundred and seven
Speaker 5: billion dollars in cash. So cash ain't dead and you've
Speaker 5: got a long way to go before you're punished enough
Speaker 5: to make it happen.
Speaker 3: It'd be smart to take your money out of the
Speaker 3: smart access account. Indeed, banks aren't managing our money well,
Speaker 3: and neither other federal government.
Speaker 2: Of course, that's not news to you. But there's more
Speaker 2: bad news.
Speaker 3: Anthony Albanezi has planned to subsidize childcare so that parents
Speaker 3: are only paying ten dollars a day. The rest, of course,
Speaker 3: will be paid by the taxpayers. Now, I suppose parents
Speaker 3: will love this, certainly, childcare providers are going to love it,
Speaker 3: but economists are warning this is going to be a
Speaker 3: massive impost on the taxpayer. In a report examining pathways
Speaker 3: to universal childcare released in September, the Productivity Commission estimated
Speaker 3: that a ten dollars a day flat fee model for
Speaker 3: childcare would cost eight point three billion dollars. If they
Speaker 3: just had subsidies at ninety percent across the board, it
Speaker 3: would cost six billion dollars. So it's a nice sounding
Speaker 3: idea to help parents, but it's going to have a
Speaker 3: massive cost eight point three billion dollars to begin with.
Speaker 3: And I'm thinking, you know, aside from subsidizing childcare, are
Speaker 3: there some other things in this country that could do
Speaker 3: with eight point three billion dollars. I'm thinking our defense force,
Speaker 3: you could do with some ships. I mean, we couldn't
Speaker 3: even send one to the Red Sea to help secure
Speaker 3: global shipping. Eight point three billion dollars would be pretty
Speaker 3: handy there right now. Not only that, but demand for
Speaker 3: childcare is going.
Speaker 2: To outstrip supply.
Speaker 3: As soon as it's ten dollars a day, well, the
Speaker 3: childcare centers will be overrun. So obviously that's going to
Speaker 3: lead to increasing prices. It's hard to believe the government
Speaker 3: aren't going to create another NDIS with this thing. It
Speaker 3: starts off at eight point three billion and it just
Speaker 3: continues on and on, and it's one of those things.
Speaker 3: Who's ever going to wind it back. Who's going to
Speaker 3: tell mum and dad we're going then now start charging
Speaker 3: you more for your childcare. But beyond all that, and
Speaker 3: I reckon you'll be strong on this one, Liz. It
Speaker 3: undermines families because kids need parents, not minders. And the government,
Speaker 3: if they want to help families and want to do
Speaker 3: something for families, find a way to help mums and
Speaker 3: or dads be with their kids in those formative years
Speaker 3: rather than finding ways to help parents or floads.
Speaker 5: I find it utterly vomitous that your government wants to
Speaker 5: convince you.
Speaker 6: This is how we're helping families. No, you're not. You
Speaker 6: just want mothers.
Speaker 5: To get back to work to generate more tax dollars
Speaker 5: for you.
Speaker 6: That is all.
Speaker 5: You give a flying rip about seventy nine percent of
Speaker 5: women in this country return to work just twelve months
Speaker 5: after giving birth.
Speaker 6: And that's that's staggered.
Speaker 5: So some go back after three months, some go back
Speaker 5: after six, some go back after twelve, but all in all,
Speaker 5: within twelve months, seventy nine percent of brand new mums
Speaker 5: are back at their.
Speaker 6: Desk working for the man.
Speaker 5: And I tell you what, the vast majority of women
Speaker 5: wouldn't prefer that.
Speaker 6: It's not their preference.
Speaker 5: You're not empowering women by taking their children off them
Speaker 5: in infancy.
Speaker 6: To be raised by the state. That's what this really is.
Speaker 6: The government doesn't give a rip about you.
Speaker 5: It doesn't give a rip about your children, except that
Speaker 5: they're the little sheepies that have to keep their economy.
Speaker 6: Going in the future. We all know that John D.
Speaker 5: Rockefeller put together the more an education system in order
Speaker 5: to raise in order to breed conforming sheep.
Speaker 6: That was the whole point of it.
Speaker 5: Kids were smarter when they weren't educated in this cookie
Speaker 5: cutaway and earlier and earlier the state wants to take
Speaker 5: them off.
Speaker 6: You. You go back to work, you.
Speaker 5: Go generate tax dollars, will take your infants off, you
Speaker 5: will raise them.
Speaker 6: And how many.
Speaker 5: Times do we talk about the education system in this
Speaker 5: country and what a cesspool of indoctrination it is pretty much,
Speaker 5: whether it's primary school, whether it's high school, whether it's
Speaker 5: our universities. My gosh, that seems to be what their
Speaker 5: best at do. And I tell you what, we in
Speaker 5: the West aren't much better than the Soviet the Communists
Speaker 5: of years gone by, because they understood the power of
Speaker 5: taking the child, the state, taking the child at a
Speaker 5: young age and educating it. That's where we get the
Speaker 5: famous quote from Hitler saying, he alone who gains the youth,
Speaker 5: gains the future. It was Lenin who said, give me
Speaker 5: a child at the age of eight, and he will
Speaker 5: be a Bolshevik forever. Stalin also said education is a weapon,
Speaker 5: and what the impact that it has depends on who's
Speaker 5: holding that weapon and who he's aiming it at.
Speaker 6: The state knows the power of education.
Speaker 5: It's not just yeah, let's take the kid off the
Speaker 5: mum at a really young age and raise it ourselves.
Speaker 5: There is also this indoctrination bent you go back to work. Yep,
Speaker 5: we just want you for your tax dollars.
Speaker 6: You're just numbers to us.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, goodbye, will take care of the kid.
Speaker 5: But there is an agenda behind that. I don't care
Speaker 5: what anyone says.
Speaker 4: And the paradoxical problem for the federal government is that
Speaker 4: by doing that they actually shoot themselves in the foot
Speaker 4: because of course they want you to go back to
Speaker 4: work now so you can generate tax dollars. But in
Speaker 4: order for tax dollars to be generated in perpetuity, you
Speaker 4: need another generation to come through. And you look at
Speaker 4: the fertility rate in Australia, it's going through the floor,
Speaker 4: in no small part because it is so expensive to
Speaker 4: live now that people can't afford to have a child.
Speaker 4: And so you look at the circumstances and you go, well,
Speaker 4: why would I have a kid. It's too expensive, We've
Speaker 4: got to go straight back to work. So they've actually
Speaker 4: created a situation where they don't have another generation coming through,
Speaker 4: which is why we rely so much on immigration and
Speaker 4: the economics of this, and economists are simply pointing out
Speaker 4: the plain obvious truth here. This thing is a ponzi scheme.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm sitting here thinking, so I should look
Speaker 4: into opening a childcare center because it has been operating
Speaker 4: as a ponzi scheme for years. Whereby they go, Okay,
Speaker 4: the cost of childcare is going up, so we as
Speaker 4: the government will increase the subsidy. So the childcare center
Speaker 4: then goes, excellent, the subsidy's gone up ten percent, so
Speaker 4: we'll just whack our fees up ten percent. So the
Speaker 4: following year, the government goes, oh my god, the price
Speaker 4: of childcare has gone up.
Speaker 1: We better jack up the subsidy, and on and on
Speaker 1: and on it goes.
Speaker 4: It is an endless money pit, essentially for childcare centers,
Speaker 4: because the government just keeps topping up whatever the childcare
Speaker 4: centers asked for. I mean, is that not the greatest
Speaker 4: business model you've ever heard of in your life?
Speaker 5: And there's plenty of mums who are saying, I'm basically
Speaker 5: what I'm earning by going back to work is being
Speaker 5: so consumed by my childcare costs. I'm literally paying the
Speaker 5: state to raise my child. I might as well just
Speaker 5: stay at home, but of course mums can't do that
Speaker 5: because they want to be able to keep their jobs,
Speaker 5: so by the time maternity comes up, unless they've got
Speaker 5: a sport system that means well, I have got the option,
Speaker 5: which sadly nowadays is a luxury of staying at home
Speaker 5: with my children. Then I have to go back to work.
Speaker 6: Because I don't want to lose my job. It's absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 5: I hate how they market this to women as we're
Speaker 5: empowering you. Now you can go back to work. Do
Speaker 5: not assume what we want. If you actually listened to
Speaker 5: what women want, why don't you pay them what you're
Speaker 5: paying the daycare centers to stay at home and raise
Speaker 5: their own children, because you'd get far healthier generations coming
Speaker 5: up through the ranks who were raised properly at home
Speaker 5: before reaching school age and then going off to school at.
Speaker 6: The age of five.
Speaker 5: Why don't you do that government, It wouldn't cost you
Speaker 5: anymore and women around the nation would be very grateful
Speaker 5: and no doubt take you up on the offer.
Speaker 6: Staying here in Australia. Remember when we were told there
Speaker 6: are no.
Speaker 5: Payfasts in the water systems here in Sydney. No, actually
Speaker 5: there's none because we haven't tested for it.
Speaker 6: So we'll do a little test for it. Oh, we
Speaker 6: tested for it. There is alarming levels of prefas up
Speaker 6: in these water.
Speaker 5: Catchments in the Blue Mountains, So sorry about that. Not
Speaker 5: telling us what they're doing in terms of testing any
Speaker 5: other water sources here in the state. But it looks
Speaker 5: like we may have a small win on this score.
Speaker 5: Forever chemicals to be filtered from tap water or believe
Speaker 5: it when I.
Speaker 6: Actually see it. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Speaker 5: The state government will commission a new mobile filtration plant
Speaker 5: to clean up tap water supplies in the Blue Mountains
Speaker 5: that have been tainted by a plume of cancer linked
Speaker 5: forever chemicals. The three point four million dollar filtration unit
Speaker 5: is already being installed in the Cascade Water Filtration Plant
Speaker 5: in Kotomba, which supplies drinking water to nearly fifty thousand
Speaker 5: residents across the area.
Speaker 6: On the World he List, I've said it a thousand
Speaker 6: times before. This is a big bug bear of mine.
Speaker 5: You can find pfas in your everyday products.
Speaker 6: It is in your cooking implements.
Speaker 5: It is in all the frank And food that they
Speaker 5: stuff our supermarkets full of it costs.
Speaker 6: It costs the US.
Speaker 5: They estimate two hundred and fifty billion dollars a year
Speaker 5: in the health side effects of people who have just
Speaker 5: consumed pfas all their lives unbeknownst to them, aren't we all?
Speaker 5: And that's to say nothing of microplastics. So what really
Speaker 5: gets me about this is the government doesn't give a
Speaker 5: toss And this is something without a doubt, There are
Speaker 5: mountains of research on this now, without a doubt, is
Speaker 5: affecting people's everyday health. But they might be, They might
Speaker 5: be diagnosed with any number of issues and wouldn't think
Speaker 5: twice to blame it on pfas.
Speaker 6: And even if they could make the link.
Speaker 5: Who you're going to sue? Who you're going to sue?
Speaker 5: I mean, where the heck would you go for justice?
Speaker 5: And the fact that your health's been ruined for the
Speaker 5: rest of your life, Well.
Speaker 4: Want to know what they do that once they filtered
Speaker 4: it out, because you know, forever chemical rather implies that
Speaker 4: you can't.
Speaker 1: Get rid of it, So we.
Speaker 4: Fever out of the water, and I mean we still
Speaker 4: have acceptable quote unquote levels of pfas allowed in drinking
Speaker 4: water in Australia that is significantly higher than what the US.
Speaker 5: Forty times higher than the acceptable level.
Speaker 2: The US have said no level is safe.
Speaker 4: It's the easiest thing that the government could turn around
Speaker 4: and fix tomorrow, but they don't want to do it
Speaker 4: because it would be such a difficult task to clean
Speaker 4: up the mess.
Speaker 1: But we already have cases.
Speaker 4: You talk about compensation where the defense force has had
Speaker 4: to compensate people for the runoff from firefighting equipment that's
Speaker 4: been used on defense bases with properties next to it,
Speaker 4: and people and ground their vegetables in the soil that's
Speaker 4: been contaminated, et cetera. We already have compensation cases on
Speaker 4: the books and they will only continue to grow, particularly
Speaker 4: I think if the federal government is and state government
Speaker 4: a negligent in doing anything about it, because surely at
Speaker 4: some point someone will stand up and run a class
Speaker 4: action and say you knew the danger here and yet
Speaker 4: you did nothing.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what did happen with three MS, So they
Speaker 5: got some luck there.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break because we're going
Speaker 3: to look at what's making news in tomorrow's papers. But
Speaker 3: before we go to the break, well done to the
Speaker 3: Sydney Morning Herald pursuing that story. Don't get it change.
Speaker 3: It would not have happened without the Sydney Morning Herald
Speaker 3: and that report. And we're going to look at the
Speaker 3: papers in just a moment. Let's take a look at
Speaker 3: what's making headlines tomorrow. We'll start with the Herald's Son.
Speaker 3: You'd be familiar with the story of this convicted murderer
Speaker 3: wanting IVF for there's been a development in that exclusive
Speaker 3: vicious murderer ditches plan to leave maximum security prison for
Speaker 3: fertility treatment after huge public backlash.
Speaker 2: Pregnant Pause reads the headline.
Speaker 3: A brutal killer has abandoned plans to undergo IVF after
Speaker 3: a huge community backlash over her bid to have a
Speaker 3: baby behind bars. Convicted murderer Alisha Schiller had been given
Speaker 3: the NOD to be released from prison for treatment, but
Speaker 3: has withdrawn her application. Sources have revealed now it's not
Speaker 3: just the public outrage about this, but both Melbourne IVF
Speaker 3: and Monash IVF, two of the main IVF providers in Victoria,
Speaker 3: said they would not give her treatment and according to
Speaker 3: the Act, they're able to do that because the circumstances
Speaker 3: of the baby that will be created through IVF is
Speaker 3: taken into consideration, as well as the safety and wellbeing
Speaker 3: of other women in the IVF clinic who would find
Speaker 3: themselves sitting next to a convictor murderer on day release
Speaker 3: to get treatment. In addition to that, the killer's own
Speaker 3: mother said she would not be looking after any child
Speaker 3: born as a result of IVF treatment, and the cost
Speaker 3: to taxpayers of raising a child in a prison would
Speaker 3: just be extraordinary. So, with all of this backlash, this
Speaker 3: woman has decided she's not going to go ahead.
Speaker 4: What a lovely, community minded individual she must be. Let's
Speaker 4: not forget she murdered a mother for fifty dollars right.
Speaker 4: The fact that this was even possible in the first
Speaker 4: place is outrageous. And as we talked about last week,
Speaker 4: the precedent that allowed this was a case about ten
Speaker 4: years ago or a woman who'd been convicted of fraud
Speaker 4: and was in a minimum security prison was allowed to
Speaker 4: have IVF because she was already undergoing IVF before she
Speaker 4: was locked up. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that
Speaker 4: is an entirely different case to a woman who is
Speaker 4: behind bars, who is a murderer who is in maximum
Speaker 4: security prison who suddenly wakes up one day and decides
Speaker 4: that she wants to undergo IVF. How on earth that
Speaker 4: was allowed in the first place, I do not know,
Speaker 4: And it just makes a mockery.
Speaker 1: Of the justice system.
Speaker 4: If you can from behind bars go off and become
Speaker 4: a mother when there are so many other people in
Speaker 4: the world who desperately wish they could become a man
Speaker 4: and they can't afford IVR for whatever. But you're a prisoner,
Speaker 4: Go feel life, Go feel I've got to point out
Speaker 4: she can still change her mind and do it anytime
Speaker 4: she wants this as her decision. She's still within her
Speaker 4: rights legally to have this treatment if she decides to.
Speaker 5: Honestly, I don't think it would work anyway. Having seen
Speaker 5: the size of her. One of my friends had to
Speaker 5: know genuinely, one of my friends, who was half this
Speaker 5: woman's size, had to lose seven kilos in order for
Speaker 5: the IVF people to actually do the treatment, because they said,
Speaker 5: your body's understressed, you need to lose a bit of weight.
Speaker 5: And once she'd lost seven kilos that's when they did
Speaker 5: the IVF process.
Speaker 6: So having seen the initial photos.
Speaker 5: I was like, I'm not sure this is actually going to.
Speaker 6: Go ahead anyway.
Speaker 5: Anyway to the front page of the Odds Now return
Speaker 5: to old skilled teaching method sends students results through the
Speaker 5: roof blower. So over where a feather a Catholic school
Speaker 5: cluster go. The Catholics has shot to success in this
Speaker 5: year's nap Land results after abandoning failed teaching fads through
Speaker 5: the nation's biggest experiment in the science of learning. What
Speaker 5: is this radical change that they've made. Well here it
Speaker 5: is teachers direct and closely monitor students learning, a reversal
Speaker 5: of the failed fad of student directed learning that expected
Speaker 5: students to lead.
Speaker 6: Their own learning journey.
Speaker 5: Who the heck came up with that? What a pile
Speaker 5: of cocker, mamie. I mean what kids are like, yeah,
Speaker 5: so I will lad my own learning journey. They don't
Speaker 5: even know what they're learning. Gets you've got to tell
Speaker 5: them everything. At this age we're talking about primary school
Speaker 5: aged kids. So hats off to the Catholics for going.
Speaker 5: You know what, We're going to give this a go,
Speaker 5: so see how it goes. And look how quickly the
Speaker 5: results shot through the roots. Amazing they're leading and the
Speaker 5: act amazing.
Speaker 1: Isn't it.
Speaker 4: And the story goes on to say that just a
Speaker 4: quarter of the schools in the Act a Catholic, yet
Speaker 4: they now make up two thirds of a car's list
Speaker 4: of schools that outperformed others with a similar background on rental,
Speaker 4: occupation and education, and that for years Catholic schools had
Speaker 4: underperformed until the Archdiocese of Canberra and gold And embraced
Speaker 4: direct instruction also known as explicit teaching through the Catalyst
Speaker 4: Project in twenty twenty. They have proven what needs to
Speaker 4: be done to improve academic levels.
Speaker 1: Which lo and behold is what we were doing years ago.
Speaker 4: And thankfully this stuff is starting to come through now,
Speaker 4: you know, the phonics and all whatever. Right, what was
Speaker 4: going on when I was at school and was wrong?
Speaker 4: I mean, I look, I turned out right. I think
Speaker 4: some of you may disagree, but the numbers have just
Speaker 4: been going down and down and down and down.
Speaker 1: Fears.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're beaten by bl Vietnam, for heaven's sake,
Speaker 4: in terms of mathematics, etc. So many nations that are
Speaker 4: socioeconomically way lower than us have much better academic results
Speaker 4: because we've been teaching wrong.
Speaker 2: Who would have thought My favorite part of this. How
Speaker 2: did the Catholics do it? What's the secret?
Speaker 3: Well, they gave time for students to practice and repeat
Speaker 3: concepts until they mastered them.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 2: What an amazing concept called repetition.
Speaker 3: It's not sexy, but that's how you'll learn amazing.
Speaker 6: Back to old school and look at that. Old school
Speaker 6: is best.
Speaker 5: Second splash on the front of the oars ALP's pick
Speaker 5: workers or activists. This is about the salmon saga unfolding
Speaker 5: in Tasmania.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 5: The Australian Workers Union boss Paul Farrow has joined senior
Speaker 5: Tasmanian labor figures in demanding that Environment Minister Tania Plebsk
Speaker 5: end uncertainty for salmon workers and put their livelihoods ahead
Speaker 5: of the quote exaggerated concerns of inner city activists and
Speaker 5: quote this is all about the preservation of the skatefish.
Speaker 6: Have you seen that thing? It's so ugly.
Speaker 5: Now it's salmon that generates hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 5: of revenue for Tasmania. It employs five one hundred people.
Speaker 5: These guys have had the entire industry in Tasmania have
Speaker 5: had this hanging over their head for twelve months already.
Speaker 5: And this labor government says we'll let you know what
Speaker 5: we decide after the election. I mean, how could you
Speaker 5: Based on that alone, I'd be like, well, I'm voting
Speaker 5: liberal then, because the Libs have already promised to overturn
Speaker 5: whatever labor does if labor does anything, so I'm safe
Speaker 5: voting liberal. If I'm in the salmon industry in Tasmania period,
Speaker 5: You're not even saving your votes by saying, oh, we'll
Speaker 5: leave it till after the election.
Speaker 3: It's funny what happens when you put a inner city
Speaker 3: MP in.
Speaker 2: Charge of the environment.
Speaker 3: The sort of result you get the same as when
Speaker 3: you put someone who's in a seat with a high
Speaker 3: Muslim population in charge of immigration and home affairs. You
Speaker 3: tend to get these interesting outcome back.
Speaker 1: I wonder if the more g and skate is good
Speaker 1: eating or not.
Speaker 4: Maybe we could revive the more g and skate by
Speaker 4: creating a farming industry in Tasmania.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Let's test someone sounds particularly.
Speaker 1: Someone.
Speaker 4: I want someone to catch one and tell me what
Speaker 4: it's like. Maybe there's an industry there. Let's go to
Speaker 4: the front of the inting news tomorrow where it says
Speaker 4: gas crisis threatens Aussie jobs, our looming gas shortfall threatens
Speaker 4: tens of thousands of jobs, and our food security manufacturers
Speaker 4: warn makes everything from bricks to chemicals are paying as
Speaker 4: much as four times more for gas than in other
Speaker 4: comparable nations. I mean, we just how can we be
Speaker 4: so energy rich. We've got uranium, we've got gas, we've
Speaker 4: got coal, and yet we pay through the nose for
Speaker 4: these products when the rest of the world is using
Speaker 4: them for next to nothing.
Speaker 1: It makes like literally no sea.
Speaker 3: It's called ideology, Caleb, and this country is full of it.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, will show you just how bad
Speaker 3: shrink inflation is. Looking at quality street chocolate tins, you'll
Speaker 3: be shocked at how they've changed over.
Speaker 2: The last forty years.
Speaker 3: And Oxford's Word of the Year has been announced. That's
Speaker 3: coming up, mister mum. Well, you would have heard of
Speaker 3: the term shrink flation to describe the fact that boxes
Speaker 3: and packets of produce gets smaller and smaller, but we're
Speaker 3: still paying the same amount or more.
Speaker 2: They reckon.
Speaker 3: A picture tells a thousand words. Will Photographs of quality
Speaker 3: street chocolate tins over the years have caused absolute outrage
Speaker 3: online as people realize just how much chocolate tins have shrunk.
Speaker 3: A look at this from nineteen eighty Wow, nineteen ninety
Speaker 3: the Zeros and then now how those tins. I remember
Speaker 3: when I was a kid and my nana in the
Speaker 3: eighties would buy that.
Speaker 2: You can see how big it is.
Speaker 3: You would take a handful of chocolates and you would
Speaker 3: never be caught because.
Speaker 2: They never look at the tin.
Speaker 3: Now you can't even take two or three without getting caught.
Speaker 3: That just demonstrates how much they have shrunk. And for
Speaker 3: five hundred grams of chocolate at Coals for a box
Speaker 3: thirty four dollars.
Speaker 4: It's insane believe that thirty four dollars for I only
Speaker 4: noticed this. Really, I don't eat a lot of chocolate,
Speaker 4: but every time I.
Speaker 1: Go think, oh I have a little choky, and then I.
Speaker 4: Go and look at a box of Favorites, so it's
Speaker 4: like twenty dollars, Like where the hell did this come from?
Speaker 1: But you look at that.
Speaker 4: The prices no, we're just discussing now, has not gone down.
Speaker 4: I mean seriously, the amount of chocolates you can get
Speaker 4: in one of those tins has gone backwards as fast
Speaker 4: as your hairline.
Speaker 1: James like it is.
Speaker 4: It is really incredible too far.
Speaker 1: I had to, I had to get it in there going.
Speaker 2: But I mean, those tins used to be able to
Speaker 2: put a whole lot of stuff in them.
Speaker 4: Now it's like, I know, I know, remember remember those
Speaker 4: those short reread biscuit tins and like man, they would
Speaker 4: always have the sewing equipment in the sets. Still happened now,
Speaker 4: I just that distinctly is a child before we go.
Speaker 1: The Oxford Word of the Year is brain rot.
Speaker 4: Yes, the definition the supposed deterioration of a person's mental
Speaker 4: or intellectual state as the result of over consumption of
Speaker 4: material considered to be trivial around challenging. Now, a brain
Speaker 4: rot is usually used to refer to online memes that
Speaker 4: basically make no sense whatsoever. It's very hard to describe
Speaker 4: exactly what brain rod is because it does literally rot
Speaker 4: your brain. Most of what you find on TikTok would
Speaker 4: qualify as brain rot. But if you are curious and
Speaker 4: you don't know what I'm talking about, look up a
Speaker 4: thing called skibberty toilet s k I b id toilet
Speaker 4: and it's literally it's like an animation of a man's
Speaker 4: head coming out of a toilet and then singing some
Speaker 4: weird songs.
Speaker 1: But this is what the kids scroll on.
Speaker 3: I've never heard of that until Senator Fatimah payment used in.
Speaker 2: A speed that's talk about brain rot. Yes, break to
Speaker 2: the Australian Senate. Talk to Senator Payment. She can tell
Speaker 2: you all about skibbity riz.
Speaker 1: And all this.
Speaker 3: That's all we got time for stick around. Coming up
Speaker 3: is the Reader Penalty Show.
Speaker 2: Good night