Speaker 1: Lately the general man, welcome to the late Base.
Speaker 2: It's great to have your company. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2: I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond coming
Speaker 2: up tonight. Huge crowds q at Sydney's Botanic Gardens to
Speaker 2: get the smell of a new plant, not because of
Speaker 2: its fragrancy, but because it's quite putrid. We'll show you
Speaker 2: that a little later. Plus, when we look at what's
Speaker 2: making news tomorrow, the Courier Mail have an exclusive story
Speaker 2: about gender clinics prescribing puberty blockers for children without parental consent.
Speaker 2: That's a huge scandal brewing there. Will bring you that.
Speaker 2: Plus The Australian has a story about the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: of Fiji saying that Australia should not be blamed for
Speaker 2: climate change. All of that when we get to tomorrow's news.
Speaker 2: But I want to start by posing a question. Should
Speaker 2: clubs that exclude members of the opposite sex be allowed
Speaker 2: to operate in twenty twenty five or are they a
Speaker 2: relic of a bygone past that should be banned. That's
Speaker 2: a question being asked in Victoria at the moment after
Speaker 2: a woman was denied membership of the Sandringham Club. That's
Speaker 2: a club on Melbourne's Bayside. The club was established in
Speaker 2: nineteen twelve and it features an array of sporting facilities.
Speaker 2: We might be able to show you some of those.
Speaker 2: They've got tennis courts, bowling greens, cricket pitchers and golf courses.
Speaker 2: And while membership is open only to men, their families
Speaker 2: are allowed to join them on site. That, however, was
Speaker 2: not good enough for one Melbourne woman, who, after being
Speaker 2: denied membership, now insists these clubs should be banned. The problem,
Speaker 2: of course, is they're perfectly legal, as was pointed out
Speaker 2: by Monash University professor Dominic Allen. Professor Allen said it's
Speaker 2: unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex under Victoria's
Speaker 2: anti discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services,
Speaker 2: but there's an exception in the legislation which means clubs
Speaker 2: can exclude members of the opposite sex from membership if
Speaker 2: membership of that club is only available to one sex. Now,
Speaker 2: interestingly enough, there are thirty clubs or around that number
Speaker 2: in Australia that offer membership only to one sex, and
Speaker 2: they include Sydney, Melbourne's Alexandra Club and Sydney's Lyceum Club,
Speaker 2: both of which are open only to women. Curiously enough,
Speaker 2: no one is asking for those clubs to be shut down.
Speaker 2: Victorian's Women's Minister, Natalie Hitchins, she got involved in this
Speaker 2: debate and she said that clubs like the Sandringham Club,
Speaker 2: which is for men only, have no place in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. A relic from the past, she said, which
Speaker 2: always makes me curious when people think that by quoting
Speaker 2: the date they're making an argument, the fact that it's
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five has no bearing on whether something is
Speaker 2: moral or immoral. In fact, that's based on the rather
Speaker 2: modern conceit that somehow, because we're alive today, we are
Speaker 2: automatically more morally evolved than say, our grandparents, which isn't
Speaker 2: always the case and probably not the case in Natalie
Speaker 2: Hutchins instance. Here she is the women's Minister can't even
Speaker 2: define what a woman.
Speaker 3: Is because the quality is not negotiable here in Victoria's speaker,
Speaker 3: and the rights of trans Victorians is not negotiable here
Speaker 3: in Victoria. As Minister for Women, I proudly stand up
Speaker 3: for all women, that includes trans women.
Speaker 2: So a women's Minister Caleb, who proudly stands for all
Speaker 2: women that includes men who identify as women, should probably
Speaker 2: just sit this debate out as to whether sex exclusive
Speaker 2: clubs should or should not exist in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is true.
Speaker 4: Counterpoint though, is that if she believes that men should
Speaker 4: be allowed into women's clubs, perhaps she also has a
Speaker 4: point saying that women should be allowed in the men's clubs,
Speaker 4: by which I mean the men being allowed at the
Speaker 4: women's clubs as those claiming they are women. But you
Speaker 4: pointed out before the Alexandra Club and the Lyceum Club,
Speaker 4: and there's a Lyceum Club in Sydney. There's also a
Speaker 4: Lyceum Club in Melbourne which is right next door to
Speaker 4: the Melbourne Club, right, so you know a couple can
Speaker 4: walk up and the man goes in that door and
Speaker 4: the woman goes in that door.
Speaker 1: I don't see what the problem is here.
Speaker 4: And this woman who tried to sign up to the
Speaker 4: Sandringham Club, I mean, how dopey do you have to
Speaker 4: be as a woman to try and sign up to
Speaker 4: a men's only club and then get outrage that they
Speaker 4: didn't accept.
Speaker 1: Your membership application.
Speaker 4: If you go on the Sandringham Club's website and click
Speaker 4: on the about section. The first thing it says Sandringham
Speaker 4: Club is a private men's sporting club, so she must
Speaker 4: she should have known that when she went to a plan.
Speaker 1: Oh. I can't believe they didn't let me in.
Speaker 4: I mean, if we can't have men's only spaces, I've
Speaker 4: never heard of anyone say that we can't have women's
Speaker 4: only spaces. Apart from transgender activists of course, but no
Speaker 4: one ever says that we can't have the Alexandra Club,
Speaker 4: or we can't have the Lyceum Club. It's always we
Speaker 4: can't have the Adelaide Club, we can't have the Melbourne Club,
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera, because it's all when men go
Speaker 4: and do things on.
Speaker 1: Their own that is bad. We must let women in there. Well,
Speaker 1: it's up to the club.
Speaker 4: If the membership of the club says they want to
Speaker 4: let women in, that is their prerogative. If they don't
Speaker 4: want to let women in, that is their prerogative. Why
Speaker 4: as a man can I not have a space where
Speaker 4: I can go and hang out with other men without
Speaker 4: being bothered by women. I don't see what the problem is,
Speaker 4: and I don't see why women can't do the same thing.
Speaker 5: It's a quality of the story for all men's clubs
Speaker 5: is just ban women entirely.
Speaker 6: Look what happened. You gave them an inch this lady
Speaker 6: once a mile. Just ban them entirely.
Speaker 5: Make it an exclusively only men's club, because I swear
Speaker 5: for women like this.
Speaker 6: Can't believe this makes the news.
Speaker 5: One person finds something offensive these days, and oh it's
Speaker 5: front page news and let's write a whole article on it. Meanwhile,
Speaker 5: it's just nothing from nobody from nowhere, being like, oh
Speaker 5: I found this offensive, and I'm just I just want
Speaker 5: everyone to know. If we just ignore these people, all
Speaker 5: these problems wouldn't exist. But okay, it's happened. So and
Speaker 5: so is upset. What do we do about it? I
Speaker 5: just reckon ban them entirely, because what a lot of
Speaker 5: women like this find far more offensive than a men's
Speaker 5: only space is those spaces.
Speaker 6: In which they can access, just like.
Speaker 5: The Australian Club, as long as they are accompanied by
Speaker 5: a man. A man has to get you in the door,
Speaker 5: and for certain women that is very triggering, which speaks
Speaker 5: to the fact that you don't have any man to
Speaker 5: get you in the door. Do you, because you're the
Speaker 5: exact kind of women that has driven men to make
Speaker 5: men's only spaces in the first place. So look, I
Speaker 5: think that is the moral of the story. These men's
Speaker 5: clubs need to go, oh, we've upset you.
Speaker 1: Let's double down.
Speaker 5: From now on, No women, under any circumstances can cross
Speaker 5: this hallowed ground. And I think society as a whole,
Speaker 5: whether it's women's spaces or men's only space, need to
Speaker 5: double down on this.
Speaker 6: I think we should have way more of them.
Speaker 5: Because in today's society where they are deriding everything feminine,
Speaker 5: everything exclusively female, and likewise for masculine everything, trying to
Speaker 5: convince us it's all just a spectrum. We're all, they them,
Speaker 5: It's just a hodgepodge of whatever, and you can switch
Speaker 5: depending on however you feel like it, and we're all.
Speaker 5: Equality isn't sameness, period, Tattoo that on your forehead. Equality
Speaker 5: isn't sameness. Men and women will never be equal in
Speaker 5: the sense of sameness.
Speaker 6: That is what they're trying to achieve.
Speaker 5: So anything like single sex spaces, which highlights our differences.
Speaker 5: Women love to get together and be women and talk
Speaker 5: about all the women and stuff that would make the
Speaker 5: men be like, oh dear God, why.
Speaker 6: And likewise I love it.
Speaker 5: It's a celebration of masculinity to just be like, here's
Speaker 5: where we smoke our cigars, we talk about manly things,
Speaker 5: we play the sports, we do, all the stuff that
Speaker 5: women aren't remotely interested in. I think we need more
Speaker 5: of them, because it thumbs. They flips the bird to
Speaker 5: this lefty Marxist idea.
Speaker 2: Of all, no, we're all the same, and so what
Speaker 2: do you say to the counterpoint? There was one university
Speaker 2: professor who said the problem with these men's clubs is
Speaker 2: that men sit down and they talk business my bed
Speaker 2: and they make deals, but the women aren't there. So
Speaker 2: women are excluded from you know, corporate Australia. Because these exclude.
Speaker 5: Why would these women agree with you us? I think
Speaker 5: about why would these women want to do business? Why
Speaker 5: would they want to be in the room doing business
Speaker 5: with men who would obviously rather do business with other men,
Speaker 5: not women.
Speaker 6: Like if if you've got a pile of men who
Speaker 6: are like, we'd rather do business with.
Speaker 5: Men, we choose to hang out at a men's only
Speaker 5: club and conduct our business here, what kind of stupid
Speaker 5: half wit woman is going to be like, well, I.
Speaker 6: Want their business and I want a seat at the table.
Speaker 5: It's like, you are exactly the kind of women men
Speaker 5: don't want to work with, and you're damaging our cause.
Speaker 1: Get out.
Speaker 4: And if you're going to have a business meeting at
Speaker 4: a men's club like the Melbourne Club or the Adelaide Club,
Speaker 4: et cetera, and it pertains to a deal that would
Speaker 4: involve a business woman, you can invite her into the
Speaker 4: club for the meeting. So there's no reason she can't
Speaker 4: go to business meetings. Just like if the CEO of
Speaker 4: Quantis these days is a woman. I mean, what if
Speaker 4: she goes down to the Lyceum Club in Melbourne and
Speaker 4: starts doing business deals in there with other women?
Speaker 1: Why can't I get it on that?
Speaker 4: Oh, she could just invite a man in if he
Speaker 4: had to go to the meeting for heaven say, and
Speaker 4: Mac showed you before Natalie Hutchins, the Minister for Women
Speaker 4: in Victoria, she doesn't know what a woman is.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you who else does know what a woman is.
Speaker 4: The police in the UK, in fact, probably the police everywhere,
Speaker 4: but the police in the UK have been dumb enough
Speaker 4: to actually write it down and put out a Handbook
Speaker 4: to all the coppers the plods over there, saying this
Speaker 4: is how you must now speak about everything, and they
Speaker 4: go into all sorts of nonsense about you know, there's
Speaker 4: no such thing as there being only two genders. Gender
Speaker 4: is a social construct. There's much more than male and female,
Speaker 4: et cetera. But it gets even worse. You can no
Speaker 4: longer say if you are a Bobby in the UK.
Speaker 4: You can't say black sheep. You can't say blacklisted. You
Speaker 4: can't say something's got a black mark on it, because
Speaker 4: it suggests that black is bad, and therefore that is racist.
Speaker 1: This is directly out of the handbook.
Speaker 4: It's is don't say any expression that uses black in
Speaker 4: a negative way, for example, black sheep, blacklisted, or black mark. Now,
Speaker 4: as far as I'm aware, there's no racial connotation to
Speaker 4: the use of.
Speaker 1: Black in that circumstance. It refers to death, etc.
Speaker 4: Which comes to all of us regardless of race. So
Speaker 4: I don't really see what the issue is. There. Can't
Speaker 4: call depression the black dog anymore. In fact, black dogs
Speaker 4: all have to be killed now because it is racist to.
Speaker 1: Even acknowledge that they exist. I mean black cats.
Speaker 4: Remember, you can't have a black cat walk under a
Speaker 4: ladder because it's bad luck.
Speaker 1: We're going to kill all the black cats now work. No,
Speaker 1: don't you dare do that, because that's discriminatory against the
Speaker 1: short blacks as well. That you could also order one
Speaker 1: of those if you go into a cabe.
Speaker 4: The handbook goes on, well, many people who are pregnant
Speaker 4: or have given birth identify as women. There are some
Speaker 4: non binary, trans and intersects. People who do not identify
Speaker 4: as women, and who may be.
Speaker 1: Pregnant and give birth.
Speaker 4: Try to use gender neutral language such as pregnant person
Speaker 4: or expectant parent where possible. And then it gives possibly
Speaker 4: the most common sense thing in this entire thing.
Speaker 1: Never ask someone if they are pregnant.
Speaker 4: I'm not quite sure how that relates to the paragraph
Speaker 4: before it.
Speaker 1: I thought that was just common sense.
Speaker 4: If you don't want to get yourself in trouble with
Speaker 4: a woman who's put on a few kilos, don't ask
Speaker 4: her if.
Speaker 1: She is pregnant. The thing goes on.
Speaker 4: It says some there's a difference between non racist and
Speaker 4: anti racist, and the police, for some reason or another,
Speaker 4: need to acquaint themselves with the definition of those two terms.
Speaker 4: It talks about white frigility, which is apparently when white
Speaker 4: people don't want to hear that racism exists. I would
Speaker 4: have thought suggesting that that was exclusive to white people
Speaker 4: is in and of itself racist. It says don't generalize
Speaker 4: about people. For instance, as an example, saying that older
Speaker 4: people are boring and grumpy, or that women in their
Speaker 4: fifties are men a pausal. I'm not entirely sure what
Speaker 4: that has to do with policing. I didn't know the
Speaker 4: coppers were walking around sizing up fifty year old She
Speaker 4: did that because she's mean a pausal. It also says
Speaker 4: not to refer to mature adults, because that would be
Speaker 4: to suggest that a younger person couldn't be mature.
Speaker 1: But of course you would use maturer adults where you.
Speaker 4: Didn't want to call someone old because you thought that
Speaker 4: might be offensive. So the long and short of it is,
Speaker 4: there's nothing you can say anymore if you're a policeman
Speaker 4: in Britain, I mean police person or police stay then.
Speaker 2: And also, for the long and short of it, I
Speaker 2: found you are very good, very good, But.
Speaker 4: I mean this is utterly absurd. I mean, imagine you've
Speaker 4: signed up to be a copper and you thought, okay,
Speaker 4: I'm going to stop some crimes, and then they lobb
Speaker 4: this handbook in front of you, telling you you can't
Speaker 4: say that someone's got a black mark on them because
Speaker 4: it's racist.
Speaker 2: The bad news is there's a lot of knife crime
Speaker 2: in the UK. The good news, though it's hurty, words
Speaker 2: are not in use anymore. I would have thought police
Speaker 2: have a lot more important things to do. But this
Speaker 2: advice caleberin Liz, I would have thought is racist in
Speaker 2: and of itself because it implies that black people are stupid,
Speaker 2: in that black people can't differentiate between a racial slur
Speaker 2: and a perfectly innocuous mark such as this person has
Speaker 2: been blacklisted. It implies that black people are emotionally fragile,
Speaker 2: that they're going to get triggered at the first word
Speaker 2: that implies anything about them, and that they're easily offended.
Speaker 2: And it's also racist because no one's banning things like
Speaker 2: whitewashing or white board those things about we know the
Speaker 2: difference between a racial slur and that because we're white,
Speaker 2: the inference being we're more intelligent, and of course worse
Speaker 2: than being insulting to black people, it's just downright dangerous.
Speaker 2: The UK is in the middle right now of trying
Speaker 2: to unpick this grooming gang scandal where Muslim men predominantly
Speaker 2: from Pakistan, over a period of a decade, raped thousands
Speaker 2: and thousands of young girls and it was allowed to
Speaker 2: happen primarily because police and government officials were so afraid
Speaker 2: of offending people of a different race that they talked
Speaker 2: in vagaries about these crimes rather than got specific about
Speaker 2: them and the rest of the perpetrators. So this is
Speaker 2: the last sort of advice that police in the UK
Speaker 2: should be worrying about.
Speaker 5: And certainly should make it into the news. Right now,
Speaker 5: the UK is a tinder box when it comes to
Speaker 5: racial tension. They've had one too many terrorist attacks and yes,
Speaker 5: the latest being these Pakistani grooming gangs, where it has
Speaker 5: been shown that people that the community is told to trust,
Speaker 5: these very policemen, care more about being accused of racism
Speaker 5: than protecting vulnerable British natives in their country girls from
Speaker 5: these Pakistani grooming gangs. This is, like I say, worse
Speaker 5: than tone deaf. If I was in the UK, I
Speaker 5: think this might be my dipping point because the fact
Speaker 5: that they are still paying attention to this, putting this
Speaker 5: out in their guidelines, pouring over their handbooks, does my
Speaker 5: head in You guys have far worse problems. Do your
Speaker 5: jobs for crying out loud. But as a wider issue,
Speaker 5: what really boils my brains about issues like this is.
Speaker 6: The same people who laugh.
Speaker 5: At measures like this and just be like, this is
Speaker 5: so ridiculous, I pose it are the same people who
Speaker 5: do advocate for hate speech laws if and when it
Speaker 5: suits them. You can't have it both ways. If you
Speaker 5: are going to concede worse, legislate that words are hurty,
Speaker 5: some of them too hurty to be used, some of
Speaker 5: them must be eradicated all together, then you are going
Speaker 5: to end up with this because once you have ceeded
Speaker 5: that ground, you have ceded that ground to people who
Speaker 5: are then in charge of deciding which words are hurty,
Speaker 5: which words are classified as hate speech, and therefore can
Speaker 5: be wiped off the entire societies lexicon. So just remember
Speaker 5: next time you're like, yes.
Speaker 6: Well, actually I think it should be illegal to say
Speaker 6: this or this.
Speaker 5: Because cancel culture is siding with your opinion on one
Speaker 5: very rare day. If you're a conservative, then just remember
Speaker 5: you're seeding ground to that very same side.
Speaker 6: Who are like well, marvelous hate speech laws. This is bad,
Speaker 6: this is banned.
Speaker 5: But speaking of institutionalized hate speech laws and banning this
Speaker 5: and we kind of information all, especially on the socials,
Speaker 5: Guess what the EU have done. I know you're not
Speaker 5: not expecting anything good to come out of that parliament
Speaker 5: anytime soon.
Speaker 6: No one's holding their breath.
Speaker 5: But goodness me, they have doubled down on laws that
Speaker 5: were introduced last year.
Speaker 6: It's called the Digital Services Act.
Speaker 5: Came into force last year and it's only twenty twenty five,
Speaker 5: but they've already decided to make it worse. Here are
Speaker 5: there renewed guidelines under this revised code that they've come
Speaker 5: up with regarding who can post what on social media
Speaker 5: platforms and how they are to be censored under the
Speaker 5: revised code. Companies these are the platforms like X like
Speaker 5: Meta that are signed up must allow a network of
Speaker 5: monitoring reporters that are nonprofit or public entities with expertise
Speaker 5: on illegal hate speech.
Speaker 6: Is that opposed to legal legal speech.
Speaker 5: Even legal guys, to regularly monitor how the signatrees these
Speaker 5: platforms are reviewing hate speech notices. They will have to
Speaker 5: review at least two thirds of h speech notices. Received
Speaker 5: from monitoring reporters within twenty four hours. No, there's no
Speaker 5: speaking to the magnitude within twenty four hours. Any platform
Speaker 5: could receive one thousand, five thousand, one hundred thousand, and
Speaker 5: they're expected to address over two thirds of those within
Speaker 5: twenty four hours. And now the EU has ensured that
Speaker 5: this process is being monitored. So any platforms that have
Speaker 5: signed up to this, and they all have by the way,
Speaker 5: they're forced to if they want their platforms to be
Speaker 5: operational in Europe. So they all have X meta, you
Speaker 5: name it. They've signed up. They want to be operational
Speaker 5: across Europe. Now the EUS like, ea, EA, you signed
Speaker 5: up on it.
Speaker 6: We don't trust you. Now we've got these extra layer.
Speaker 5: To ensure that not only are you doing it, but
Speaker 5: you're doing it in a timely fashion. And to us,
Speaker 5: timely fashion is addressing two thirds of any number of
Speaker 5: complaints within the last twenty four hours. It is utterly
Speaker 5: ludicrous and it's just bald place censuship. I mean, this
Speaker 5: is not just hate speech. This is anything that they
Speaker 5: deem disinformation.
Speaker 6: Don't we love that word. It just keeps popping up.
Speaker 2: So one of these not for profits that will be
Speaker 2: monitoring our tweets for disinformation is Amnesty International. So they
Speaker 2: have been nominated by the EU to go through our
Speaker 2: Twitter feeds and make sure it's all you know, true
Speaker 2: and correct. This is an organization that tweeted in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two that abortion is a human right. Amnesty International
Speaker 2: can tweet that, so you get no idea of maybe
Speaker 2: their bias. When reading your.
Speaker 6: I can tell you a lot more about a speech.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty three, they tweeted non binary rights human rights.
Speaker 2: I would have thought non binary people have human rights.
Speaker 2: It's a bit of a nonsense. And in last year,
Speaker 2: in April ten, Amnesty International made a big deal about
Speaker 2: a terrorist leader responsible for the death of an Israeli
Speaker 2: nineteen year old who was abducted, held for ransom, then
Speaker 2: when he wasn't ransomed by the Israeli government, he was tortured,
Speaker 2: sexually assaulted, he was castrated, his eyes were gouged out.
Speaker 2: Then he was shot dead and the terrorist leader who
Speaker 2: was responsible for that died in an Israeli prison. An
Speaker 2: Amnesty International called that an example of Israeli cruelty that
Speaker 2: they allowed this man to die in prison. And this
Speaker 2: is the organization at the EU. They're so concerned about
Speaker 2: this information, they've put Amnesty International as one of the
Speaker 2: key umpires of people's social media posts. Who will Amnesty
Speaker 2: International answer to and how will they define aid speak
Speaker 2: subs information according to their worldview, which, as you can see,
Speaker 2: is i'd say pretty different to ours and most of
Speaker 2: the people watching tonight.
Speaker 4: Well, well, if it's up to Amnesty International, I mean,
Speaker 4: if you said Jewish women should should not be raped
Speaker 4: and taken hostage on over the seventh twenty twenty three,
Speaker 4: they'd say that was hate speech, given the way they
Speaker 4: carry on, And it's much like they are being forced
Speaker 4: into a position that social media companies for a while
Speaker 4: put themselves in them. And you think of here in Australia,
Speaker 4: Facebook was signed up with the RMT fact check right,
Speaker 4: and we know, particularly during the Voice debate, what was
Speaker 4: going on there where they were claiming that whatever the
Speaker 4: nose side of the campaign said about the campaign was
Speaker 4: somehow disinformation, and so Facebook was censoring that because it
Speaker 4: was either wrong or it was hate speech.
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 4: But anything that was of the Yes campaign just got
Speaker 4: a green flag. There was no problem there whatsoever. So
Speaker 4: the social media companies had actually tried this out before
Speaker 4: and it didn't work. They got rid of it. Facebook
Speaker 4: got rid of r MIT fact Check. The ABC used
Speaker 4: to have an association with rimat fact Check. They've also
Speaker 4: stopped that because they've worked out that this stuff doesn't work,
Speaker 4: because these people just have a bent that they keep
Speaker 4: trying to put forward. And so the EU has gone fantastic.
Speaker 4: They tried it for themselves and it didn't work, So
Speaker 4: now we're going to make it law.
Speaker 1: How much better could it get?
Speaker 4: And see, it's no different from what was suggested here
Speaker 4: in Australia, which was a misinformation Disinformation Czar or whatever
Speaker 4: it was going to be down at AKMA, the Communications
Speaker 4: and Media Authority, which would have done exactly the same thing,
Speaker 4: but just at a governmental level. The EU now gets
Speaker 4: to say, well, this is not happening as a tool
Speaker 4: of the governor. We've got nonprofits coming in to do
Speaker 4: it for us. Who do you think they choose the
Speaker 4: people who agree with them, and the idea that they
Speaker 4: have to assess all of the complaints within a twenty
Speaker 4: four hour time frame. If I decide now that I've
Speaker 4: got a particular bent against X, an X would be
Speaker 4: the most likely one to face this kind of thing
Speaker 4: given at c Elon Musk running the show. We just
Speaker 4: get a campaign of people together to just report every
Speaker 4: post as a piece of hate speech. I mean by law,
Speaker 4: they are forced to assist them within twenty four hours.
Speaker 5: Tell me how then the EU would say, oh, this
Speaker 5: isn't happening, We'll have to take over this function.
Speaker 6: Ladies and gentlemen. We gave them a chance. It's not working.
Speaker 5: I also don't think it's coincidental that these kind of
Speaker 5: measures we just finished talking about the UK police they
Speaker 5: can't even mention blackmail, black this, black anything that these
Speaker 5: kinds of institutionalizing thou shalt not say fill in the
Speaker 5: blank is rife in the UK and in Europe. Why
Speaker 5: because these are countries that are being absolutely pummeled with immigration,
Speaker 5: whether illegal or illegal, and that is going to result
Speaker 5: in people noticing and writing things, inventing online as they
Speaker 5: can and should be able to on their socials. But no, no,
Speaker 5: we're going to call that hate speech. We're going to
Speaker 5: take you're just noticing something. You don't even have to
Speaker 5: be derogatory about it. You're just noticing something, and we're
Speaker 5: going to make sure you don't dare mention it because
Speaker 5: we are doing this, We are orchestrating the takeover in
Speaker 5: your own countries, this invasion by design. But hey, we
Speaker 5: don't want you guys talking about it and actually finding
Speaker 5: each other getting together and going, hey, what can be
Speaker 5: done to keep my country my country?
Speaker 2: And the clue is when officials start banning things like hate,
Speaker 2: which is an emotion. One of the EU officials said
Speaker 2: there's no place for hate online or offline in Europe. Well,
Speaker 2: the definition of what hate is, of course, is in
Speaker 2: the eye of the beholder, and typically that means government
Speaker 2: will decide what they want to be said and everything
Speaker 2: else is banned. But it just gets better and better
Speaker 2: in Europe, of course, where they keep cracking down on
Speaker 2: free speech. Open borders continue to be propagated. But there's
Speaker 2: a new sheriff in town, and that's Donald Trump. Three
Speaker 2: days into his presidency, he addressed the meeting and your
Speaker 2: meeting in Davos of the World Economic Forum. I just
Speaker 2: imagine all the World Economic Forum people. They're gritting their
Speaker 2: teeth as Trump is beamed in on the big screen.
Speaker 2: And Donald Trump did not hold back. He got stuck
Speaker 2: into the Biden administration, calling them a totally inept group
Speaker 2: of people, which is just beautiful because people like John Kerry,
Speaker 2: the Democrat, would have been sitting there in Davos listening
Speaker 2: to all of this, trying to maintain a smile. Donald
Speaker 2: Trump said that America is open for business, and then
Speaker 2: he had this to say about the Green scheme, so
Speaker 2: loved by all of those pushing for globalization, especially those
Speaker 2: in the World Economic Forum have listened.
Speaker 7: I terminated the ridiculous and incredibly wasteful Green New Deal,
Speaker 7: like all it the Green New scam, withdrew from the
Speaker 7: one sided Paris Climate Accord, and ended the insane and
Speaker 7: costly electric vehicle mendad.
Speaker 2: I mean kind of this disrupts everything. Right. Everybody at
Speaker 2: the World Economic Forum is all about globalization, what they
Speaker 2: call it, the rules based international order. And in comes
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, who says America first, if you want to
Speaker 2: do business with us, great, If you don't, you're prerogative.
Speaker 2: But we're not going to play nice guy and be
Speaker 2: rolled over anymore. We're going to stand up for what's
Speaker 2: best for us. And they've got four years of this.
Speaker 4: I mean, you love the balls on the guy, don't you.
Speaker 4: He just rocks up and says Look, this is how
Speaker 4: it's going to be. I don't care if you're not
Speaker 4: on board.
Speaker 1: Get stuffed, which is exactly what Harvey and Malay did
Speaker 1: last year.
Speaker 4: He was elected over in Argentina, and you look at
Speaker 4: Malay's track records since he went over there and basically said,
Speaker 4: everything is stuffed. I'm just going to completely rejig Argentina
Speaker 4: and we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: Well, it's worked. He's backed it up.
Speaker 4: And that's what Donald Trump now has to do and
Speaker 4: he will do. He goes and tells these people this
Speaker 4: is how things are going to run. And then in
Speaker 4: four years time when he walks away, everyone at the
Speaker 4: World Economic Forum will have to look even if they
Speaker 4: can't outwardly say it because we can't admit that we
Speaker 4: were wrong, but they will have to look at what
Speaker 4: Donald Trump has done during his term and but grudgingly
Speaker 4: admit that, yes, he was right. They'll never say it,
Speaker 4: but they'll have to think it.
Speaker 1: And that's the.
Speaker 4: Best part of it is that he can go in
Speaker 4: there and say, look, I know you're wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm going to show you that you're wrong, but you
Speaker 1: won't be man enough.
Speaker 4: I'm mad enough to come and talk to you and
Speaker 4: tell you how I see the world and that I
Speaker 4: think you're wrong. But you'll never be man enough to
Speaker 4: tell me that I'm wrong. You know why, because he
Speaker 4: won't be.
Speaker 1: He won't be.
Speaker 4: He's taking them on. He's taking them on at the WEF.
Speaker 4: He's taking them on in America, and much like the
Speaker 4: leadership you've seen from Donald Trump before he became president,
Speaker 4: since November, the way he's changed the culture in the US.
Speaker 4: We just have to hope that this flows on elsewhere
Speaker 4: and changes in countries like Australia and the UK, etc.
Speaker 4: That's how you bring down a big thing like the
Speaker 4: world economics. We can't bring him down, but you know,
Speaker 4: try to counter the world economics.
Speaker 5: Oh, they will just buy their time. They know what
Speaker 5: to expect because it happened the first time, and they
Speaker 5: have been dreading this for the previous four years under Biden.
Speaker 5: They've been talking about the possibility, especially once he announced. Obviously,
Speaker 5: they were quaking in their boots. In this time round
Speaker 5: twenty twenty five in DeVos, they've at least admitted, well, yeah, sure,
Speaker 5: we hate him, but Trump's one.
Speaker 6: And that means we at the WEF we've lost.
Speaker 8: Trump has done something no person in the world has
Speaker 8: ever done before. A dead band, a dead politician has
Speaker 8: risen somebody who the year were four years ago at
Speaker 8: the US he's buried dead politically known to me, he's
Speaker 8: now returned. This is the greatest comeback in political history
Speaker 8: of a politician. And then therefore he thinks he can
Speaker 8: do anything.
Speaker 9: We need to also factor in not only who's one,
Speaker 9: which is Trump, but whose loss.
Speaker 2: Which is to say US, And I guess.
Speaker 9: I would add throw into that that the epitome of
Speaker 9: the US who is losing here is Europe?
Speaker 6: Really did he become Europe's president? I miss that?
Speaker 5: But there they are, these world leaders, these elites that
Speaker 5: get together and shoulder rub every year to make our
Speaker 5: lives miserable worldwide. I'm just like, oh, big dog Energy's
Speaker 5: back in the White House. How are we going to
Speaker 5: pull this off anymore? But check out this guy. His
Speaker 5: name's Larry Fink. He's the CEO of Black Rock because
Speaker 5: they couldn't just name the thing evil af And he's
Speaker 5: got this fascinating take on AI that I'd never entertained before.
Speaker 5: Here he is speaking to Davos saying, essentially, these countries
Speaker 5: who are very tight immigration policies. They're very nationalistic. They
Speaker 5: don't let in huge wads of people from all over
Speaker 5: the world preaching to their people, say, oh, we've got
Speaker 5: to do it for GDP, we've got to do it
Speaker 5: for growth, we've got to do it for all these
Speaker 5: hair brained reasons. No, they are passionate about keeping their
Speaker 5: country exactly as it is. They're very nationalistic, they're very prideful.
Speaker 5: He's saying AI is going to work a treat for
Speaker 5: these people because governments who have implemented those policies once
Speaker 5: they have AI, which can do one hundred people's jobs.
Speaker 5: Just one computer doing one hundred people's jobs around the
Speaker 5: clock doesn't need to sleep or eat well that whole
Speaker 5: but we need it for manpower.
Speaker 6: Argument is going to go out the window.
Speaker 9: In my conversations with the leadership of these large developed
Speaker 9: countries that have xenophobic immigration policies. It'll allow anybody to
Speaker 9: come in, shrinking unemployment, excuse me, tricky demographics. These countries
Speaker 9: will rapidly develop robotics in AI and technology. And if
Speaker 9: the promise I didn't say it's going to happen, but
Speaker 9: as a promise of all that transforms productivity, which most
Speaker 9: of us think it will. We'll be able to elevate
Speaker 9: the standard of living countries and the standard of living
Speaker 9: of individuals even with shrinking populations. And so the paradigm
Speaker 9: of negative population growth is going to be changing, and
Speaker 9: the social problems that one will have in substituting humans
Speaker 9: for machines is going to be far easier in those
Speaker 9: countries that have declining populations.
Speaker 5: Well well, well, I love how we call nationalist countries,
Speaker 5: which is an awesome thing. In my opinion, I think
Speaker 5: every country should be nationalists. I think every country should
Speaker 5: be filling the blank First, when did it become a
Speaker 5: sin to stand up for your own interests? For crying
Speaker 5: out loud? Love that he calls them xenophobic countries?
Speaker 1: Like how dare they?
Speaker 5: But I'd never thought of this take on AI before, right,
Speaker 5: because this is what the Australian government certainly preaches to us,
Speaker 5: and we're just having big Australia foisted on us. None
Speaker 5: of us voted for this, but we wake up in
Speaker 5: a country every day now we're only a third of
Speaker 5: us born here, Like, how do we end up here?
Speaker 6: How did this happen?
Speaker 5: But to our government has always preached to us, Oh,
Speaker 5: we've got to do this.
Speaker 6: It's for growth, it's all about GD But most.
Speaker 5: Australians don't even know what gross domestic product is, but
Speaker 5: that this is what they water board the public with
Speaker 5: and say, look, we have no other choice. We've got
Speaker 5: to do this. Once AI gets kicking, that's simply going
Speaker 5: to go out the window, unless you're talking about tradees,
Speaker 5: because I think it's.
Speaker 6: Going to take her while before AI can build your house.
Speaker 2: So he's saying countries like Japan that are wealthy countries,
Speaker 2: highly developed countries, they've got a declining population, but they're
Speaker 2: going to be okay because AI will mean they don't
Speaker 2: need to import labor force, computers will do it. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, those countries that have been listening to
Speaker 2: people like him in the World Forum and have gone
Speaker 2: for diversity and important huge numbers of people, they're going
Speaker 2: to not only have problems with social cohesion, but when
Speaker 2: AI comes in, they're going to have millions of migrants
Speaker 2: have imported who no longer have jobs to do. So
Speaker 2: they've got social cohesion problems and they're going to have
Speaker 2: massive economic problems and what to do with all these
Speaker 2: people who no longer have jobs?
Speaker 4: Correctamen and I do wonder the argument makes sense, but
Speaker 4: there is a point at which AI can go too far.
Speaker 4: And I get the idea that AI can replace potentially
Speaker 4: a lot of office jobs and menial types of work,
Speaker 4: but there is a point where it puts too many
Speaker 4: people out of work. Even in those countries where they
Speaker 4: have type immigration policies, potentially you could have so many
Speaker 4: people out of work that you just can't cope with it.
Speaker 4: I mean, you can't possibly have everyone in the country
Speaker 4: building houses, because if your popularity, your popularity, your population
Speaker 4: is declining, then you've got no one to build the
Speaker 4: houses for, right That's the only work that will be
Speaker 4: left over, potentially is physical labor of some description. So
Speaker 4: I buy the argument, and I get the argument, and
Speaker 4: I think that's fine as long as as we know
Speaker 4: at which point to stop AI from taking everyone's job away.
Speaker 4: If it own, if it means that you don't need
Speaker 4: to bring in extra people to service the population, great
Speaker 4: that makes sense. But if it goes too far and
Speaker 4: you end up replacing the jobs of the people who
Speaker 4: are already there, then yes, you're going to end up
Speaker 4: in a lot of trouble. And of course we talked
Speaker 4: about Donald Trump before and his power being able to
Speaker 4: go to the WEF and tell him exactly what he thinks.
Speaker 4: How's this for Donald Trump exerting a bit of power.
Speaker 4: Of course, he said, first day back in the job,
Speaker 4: as present, we will have mass deportation, and he is
Speaker 4: delivering on that promise. They sent two planeloads of illegal
Speaker 4: margrants back to Colombia. Now, when the plane's got to Columbia,
Speaker 4: the president said, no, we're not taking them.
Speaker 1: You can't do this.
Speaker 4: So Donald Trump got on social media and said, well,
Speaker 4: I know what I'm going to do about that. I'm
Speaker 4: going to whack on you a twenty five percent tariff,
Speaker 4: which within a week will be fifty percent. Anything that
Speaker 4: Columbia imports into the United States. I'm assuming HIPT cocaine
Speaker 4: because that comes in away from taxation, et cetera.
Speaker 1: We'll have a fifty percent teriff on it.
Speaker 4: And so within two hours, the president of Columbia changed
Speaker 4: his tune and said, actually, yes, you can deport the
Speaker 4: illegals back to Colombia. I'll even send my own presidential
Speaker 4: plane to collect them for you. I mean, you talk
Speaker 4: about the big dog energy of Donald Trump, this is
Speaker 4: it or it large he's gone not having it.
Speaker 1: He may just have to fall off.
Speaker 5: It has got to be the shortest trade war in
Speaker 5: three of the universe. He never actually got to take place.
Speaker 5: So first Donald Trump said, I'll start out with a
Speaker 5: twenty five percent tariff all the goods that you sent us.
Speaker 5: But within a week it's going to go to fifty percent.
Speaker 5: And not only did the President fold and be like, okay, okay, okay,
Speaker 5: we'll take them, he then shared on here his own
Speaker 5: social media that he was you he was offering his
Speaker 5: own presidential plane to help ferry these criminals out of
Speaker 5: USA and back into Columbia.
Speaker 6: What a win.
Speaker 5: Trump's been very firm on this and saying, hey, look.
Speaker 6: We want to be friends with all our neighbors.
Speaker 5: We're a very friendly country here, but friends don't leave
Speaker 5: each other's rubbish in.
Speaker 6: Each other's backyards, and you only take your criminals back.
Speaker 5: Don't you wish that we had something similar here in Australia.
Speaker 5: How many times have we talked about these detainees, etc.
Speaker 5: And so on, those who have re offended, those who
Speaker 5: should have never been here in the first place. But
Speaker 5: Australia's just like, oh, well, what can we do We've got.
Speaker 6: To keep him.
Speaker 5: He's just like mate, by the jet load. We are
Speaker 5: sending your back and.
Speaker 2: You only had to do this once. He's made an
Speaker 2: example of Columbia. Every other South American country will have
Speaker 2: taken note, and I suggest he probably won't have any
Speaker 2: more problems. Good to see a present actually take action too.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden would have had to go on a trip
Speaker 2: to the beach, take a nap, consulted committee before he
Speaker 2: would have done anything about this. We're going to go
Speaker 2: to a break. When we come back, look at what's
Speaker 2: making news tomorrow, including an exclusive in the Career Mail
Speaker 2: about Queensland children being prescribed puberty blockers without parental consent.
Speaker 2: All of that in just a moment. Welcome back. Let's
Speaker 2: take a look at what's making news in tomorrow's papers.
Speaker 2: The Career Mail has a front page exclusive. I should
Speaker 2: point out there's a cyclone bearing down on North Queensland,
Speaker 2: but there's about to be a cyclone hit promoters of
Speaker 2: gender ideology in Queensland. With this exclusive, clinic gave kids
Speaker 2: puberty blockers without parents consent. Children's gender scandal, reads the headline.
Speaker 2: The article says Queensland kids as young as twelve have
Speaker 2: been prescribed puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones without proper
Speaker 2: medical support and parental consent. The Chrisofoley government has been
Speaker 2: rocked by explosive claims that rogue gender services have been
Speaker 2: operating in Cans, with Queensland Health now launching an independent inquiry.
Speaker 2: The article goes on to suggest that the can Sexual
Speaker 2: Health Service has apparently delivered unauthorized gender care gender care,
Speaker 2: gender service to about forty two children, as I said,
Speaker 2: without proper medical supervision or parental consent. Now, of course,
Speaker 2: here in Australia, our politicians have resisted calls for an
Speaker 2: inquiry into the way kids with.
Speaker 6: Five times five times.
Speaker 2: Pauline Hanson five times, as Liz says, has called for
Speaker 2: such an inquiry, and our politicians have been completely incurious
Speaker 2: about what we're doing with kids. Just maybe this is
Speaker 2: the tipping point that might arouse the curiosity of some
Speaker 2: of our politicians who think maybe we should take an
Speaker 2: interest in how our kids are being.
Speaker 5: I don't think it's going to arouse anything for years now.
Speaker 5: Remember it was twenty twenty three when doctor Gillian Spencer a.
Speaker 6: Child syke in Queensland.
Speaker 5: There's been a concentration of Queensland doctors, pediatricians and child sikes,
Speaker 5: like doctor Gillian Spencer, who tried to speak out about
Speaker 5: this specific in Queensland, saying, these guys are just running
Speaker 5: a mark up here. We cannot back this gender affirming
Speaker 5: care that's going on and they knew, so.
Speaker 6: That's my point. This isn't going through. Oh yeah, maybe
Speaker 6: we'll finally get action. They've known for years.
Speaker 5: Doctor Gillian Spencer was stilled down in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 5: I've lost counter the amount of articles where Queensland has
Speaker 5: specifically will like cut this out and they were either
Speaker 5: stood down or penalized in other ways. That is how
Speaker 5: absolutely militant certain people are about driving this agenda. And
Speaker 5: like I say, five times, not once, not twice, not
Speaker 5: a third time, Senator Pauline Hanson has just tried to
Speaker 5: get up an inquiry.
Speaker 6: It's not like.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to pass a bill to ban gender affirm No,
Speaker 5: She's simply said I want an inquiry into this, especially
Speaker 5: since the CAST report in the UK where they.
Speaker 6: Banned this treatment.
Speaker 5: Nobody's getting puberty blockers anymore because had massive issues, rendering
Speaker 5: some kids infertile for the rest of their lives had
Speaker 5: bone density issues, you name it, it's got it. They
Speaker 5: banned it nationwide. Can I just get an inquiry into this?
Speaker 5: And the powers that be, those evil, evil individuals said
Speaker 5: no five times five times, So no, I don't think we're.
Speaker 6: Going to get any action on this.
Speaker 5: It wouldn't matter what the headline was, they will do nothing.
Speaker 4: But this is the thing, bugg of the inquiry. The
Speaker 4: inquiries have already been done.
Speaker 1: Overseas exactly know what's going on.
Speaker 4: Just skip to the part where we scrap it Like
Speaker 4: this shouldn't even be a discussion that we are having tonight.
Speaker 4: We shouldn't then be waking up tomorrow to hear politicians saying, oh,
Speaker 4: we're going to look into this and something has to
Speaker 4: be done. Just do it, Just do it like they
Speaker 4: could have done it years ago. The Cash report, as
Speaker 4: you said, the NHS scrapped it, the Tavistock clinic shut down.
Speaker 4: The UK has been through all of this, and Australia
Speaker 4: is so far behind the rest of the world. The US,
Speaker 4: I mean in New York Times, for heaven's sake, is
Speaker 4: publishing stories now about people who regret having transition when
Speaker 4: they were children that would not have happened.
Speaker 1: Five years ago.
Speaker 4: The culture, the talking points have changed so much overseas,
Speaker 4: and yet here in Australia we're in exactly the same
Speaker 4: place we have been for years. Just do something about
Speaker 4: it and stop it.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 5: It's like we're back in pandemic days. The science changes
Speaker 5: depending on which state you're in, sometimes which city you're in.
Speaker 5: Certainly which country you're in, the science is totally different.
Speaker 5: So in the UK it's banned, it's evil and they
Speaker 5: know it. But apparently here in Australia we don't even
Speaker 5: want to know their science, and we certainly don't know ours.
Speaker 5: We're just determined to push an ideology on innocent children.
Speaker 5: To the front page of the Townsville Bulletin, Now electricity
Speaker 5: meters ripoff Queenslanders.
Speaker 6: Oh, Queensland heavy.
Speaker 5: New electricity meters being rapidly rolled out. In the bush's slash,
Speaker 5: carbon emissions are quote enabling a ripoff end quote according
Speaker 5: to an economics professor that Federal Labor appointed to the
Speaker 5: Climate Change Authority, University of Queensland's John's Quiggin told the
Speaker 5: bullet In, many households with smart meters had been moved
Speaker 5: to demand tariff power plans that were just crazy.
Speaker 6: Wait a minute, so we've actually.
Speaker 5: Got these being rolled out which are ripping off Queenslanders
Speaker 5: like you wouldn't believe it. It's being done at the
Speaker 5: state's behest, of course, as everything is being done, and
Speaker 5: Queenslanders already have the most expensive power prices in the nation.
Speaker 5: It's been that way for I think well over a
Speaker 5: year at this point, and now they're finding out that
Speaker 5: the state is just like, look, while we're ripping.
Speaker 6: You off, let's just make it worse.
Speaker 2: And it's not small. It's, according to the towns Or
Speaker 2: bullet In, an extra eight hundred dollars a year on
Speaker 2: top of people's energy prices because of what the government
Speaker 2: is doing, supposedly to help them. What's that old thing government?
Speaker 2: Everything they touched, they make it worse? Was it wrong?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Who says are the worst words you can hear in
Speaker 2: your life after from the.
Speaker 4: Government here to help, which which Kevin rad Than reappropriated to.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm Kevin from Queensland and I'm.
Speaker 4: Here to help them when we're on about having a
Speaker 4: nice Bova with your cup of tea that night when
Speaker 4: he became PM two. But it's it is ridiculous that
Speaker 4: they create this system. Well, we know why they've created
Speaker 4: the system, because you know, it allows them to interfere with.
Speaker 1: Your air conditioners.
Speaker 4: They can turn it down when they're worried that the
Speaker 4: electricity is going to be turned off because there's not
Speaker 4: enough power to go around, et cetera. But they have
Speaker 4: a system that they say, well, this will be good
Speaker 4: because we know exactly at what times you're using power,
Speaker 4: et cetera. So you know, we can offer you a
Speaker 4: discounted rate during the day when people are less.
Speaker 1: Likely to be using power.
Speaker 4: So you should run your dishwasher and your washing machine,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Then, but of course it also means that
Speaker 4: they know when you're using power at night. So you
Speaker 4: go on this deal which they have sold to you
Speaker 4: is great, great, great, You'll get cheap power during the
Speaker 4: day and then at night they're just jacking it up
Speaker 4: to high heaven and pretending it was a good deal.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Let's go to the Australian where it says AI and
Speaker 4: g hotpot falls quiet on China.
Speaker 1: I wonder why China's answer to chat.
Speaker 4: GPT has plenty to say about Australia, labeling it's human
Speaker 4: rights record a mixed picture and the national holiday deeply divisive,
Speaker 4: but it draws blanks when asked about the ti Anaman
Speaker 4: Square massacre in nineteen eighty nine, Jijingping, the Cultural Revolution,
Speaker 4: or China's own record.
Speaker 1: On human rights. Gee, I wonder why that might be
Speaker 1: a So.
Speaker 2: If you ask, what's this thing called deep seek? If
Speaker 2: you ask it about Donald Trump, or about Anthey Albanesi
Speaker 2: or Peter Dutton, it will give you an opinion. If
Speaker 2: you ask it about Xijingping, it says, can we change
Speaker 2: the subject or talk about something else. So it just
Speaker 2: goes to show everyone in China is scared of the
Speaker 2: authoritarian leader. Even Ai is too scared to talk about him.
Speaker 5: So you say divisive device division yep, yep, okay.
Speaker 1: Well have you kel not on this one? I think
Speaker 1: both are okay, but I'll take this goes.
Speaker 2: To show why Trump's pursuit of pre eminence in Ai
Speaker 2: is so important, correct, because if China dominate, then it
Speaker 2: allows them to set the narrative for the whole world,
Speaker 2: which cannot be allowed.
Speaker 5: That's why the race, that's what TikTok's for, they've already done.
Speaker 5: It's maked into the next gener race.
Speaker 4: Have Ai and it'll all be over, including those jobs.
Speaker 4: Apparently another story very quickly before we go to the break.
Speaker 4: Pacific dose of green clarity for gen. Prime Minister Civitenni
Speaker 4: Rabuka has rejected claims by fellow Pacific leaders that their
Speaker 4: countries are being endangered by Australia's hypocritical expansion of gas
Speaker 4: and coal production, declaring we should not blame Australia for
Speaker 4: climate change, and he said that the transition to green
Speaker 4: energy must walk apace with development and affordability.
Speaker 1: I can't believe it.
Speaker 4: Someone actually making sense and saying, no, the little country
Speaker 4: with twenty seven million people is not the reason that
Speaker 4: you're supposedly going to end up underwater.
Speaker 1: I can't believe he's actually covering a.
Speaker 5: Sort After Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords, all
Speaker 5: these islander nations would be like, well, that's it, We're sunk.
Speaker 6: Where done, It's over. Like why at.
Speaker 5: This point would you ever berate Australia ever again.
Speaker 2: That the problem is the Albanizer government will jump on
Speaker 2: this and say, see, we're not responsible. But the Albaniza
Speaker 2: government are excited because they want to host COP thirty one.
Speaker 2: And one of the contentions is that Australia is not
Speaker 2: a good citizen. This will be proof that we are.
Speaker 2: Therefore we can host COP thirty one, which will just
Speaker 2: cost us a whole lot more money in climate change
Speaker 2: mitigation costs. Anyway, we're going to go to a break
Speaker 2: when we come back. Lots of people lining up at
Speaker 2: Sydney's Botanic gardens to smell a flower. Not because the
Speaker 2: fragrance is nice. It's futrid and people want to whiff
Speaker 2: that's coming up at.
Speaker 4: This a moment.
Speaker 2: Okay, welcome back. Well, huge crowds queuing out the botanic
Speaker 2: gardens to smell the flowers. But Caleb, this is slightly
Speaker 2: different kind of smell.
Speaker 4: Indeed, there is a big stink in Sydney, and I
Speaker 4: can report it is not James McPherson. That's just localized
Speaker 4: to mcquarie Park and this studio here at the Lake Debate,
Speaker 4: but the titan Arum, otherwise known as the corpse flower.
Speaker 4: I had to make sure I got the real name
Speaker 4: in there because my father is a horticulturalist. This thing
Speaker 4: takes ten years to first bloom, and then after that
Speaker 4: it blooms every three to five years. But when it does,
Speaker 4: the stink is absolutely putrid, so much so that people
Speaker 4: actually take time out of their day to go and
Speaker 4: smell something that apparently smells like rotten eggs. According to
Speaker 4: one boy who went to visit, it is a bizarre
Speaker 4: idea that you would be like, Okay, here is something
Speaker 4: that smells like something I don't want to go near
Speaker 4: at all, but I'm deliberately going to go near it
Speaker 4: because it is so unusual that this thing smells like
Speaker 4: it does. I can't make sense of it.
Speaker 5: So only when you can watch the good part online
Speaker 5: like this was live streams, you can sit in the
Speaker 5: comfort of your home smelling it. No one savory smells
Speaker 5: and watch the thing bloom.
Speaker 6: But no, they wanted to smell it.
Speaker 5: Funnily enough, the brother of the kid who said it
Speaker 5: smelt like rotten eggs, his little brother piped up and said,
Speaker 5: and poop, it smelled ape.
Speaker 2: Always the little brother. The ABC interviewed a woman who
Speaker 2: traveled an hour to smell it. I think that's the thing, right.
Speaker 2: You can watch it online and you can see it,
Speaker 2: but the experience is really sure to be smelt. This
Speaker 2: woman traveled an hour to smell it. She told the
Speaker 2: ABC it smelt like wet towels, and then advised after
Speaker 2: she got home she'd get friends and she'd come back
Speaker 2: to smell it all over again.
Speaker 4: Look, it must be such an enriching experience. I think
Speaker 4: we all have to go down and perhaps check it
Speaker 4: out for ourselves and love it and see and see
Speaker 4: how we go, and see whether or not it does,
Speaker 4: in fact smell worse than James McPherson.
Speaker 1: That might be a feat.
Speaker 2: I'm going to take Cale about back. We're going to
Speaker 2: have words, but you stick around. Coming up is the
Speaker 2: reader Penny Show. Couldn't I