Speaker 1: General, Welcome to the late base.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm Kayla Bond
Speaker 2: with Frei Leitch and Caroline Marcus. Of course you've just
Speaker 2: heard the news there from Paul there were no survivors
Speaker 2: on that Air India flight. Will cross shortly to London
Speaker 2: with Sophie Illsworth where the plane was headed. In the papers,
Speaker 2: a children's hospital backing a doctor who was excoriated by
Speaker 2: the family Court over transgender medicine, and later in the
Speaker 2: show Chris Min's the New South Wales Premier responds to
Speaker 2: news that magic mushrooms have been growing the New South
Speaker 2: Wales Parliament. Now, of course, as I just mentioned, Paul
Speaker 2: just showed you the grab on air of government spokesman
Speaker 2: from India saying that there were no survivors on this
Speaker 2: Air India flight aa AI. I should say one seven
Speaker 2: one the basic details, of course, there are one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty nine Indian nationals on the flight, fifty three Britain,
Speaker 2: seven Portuguese nationals and one Canadian. Earlier in the day,
Speaker 2: the Health Minister in India had said that there were
Speaker 2: many killed. Of course, repeating that news that we now
Speaker 2: hear there are no survivors on board the flight. The
Speaker 2: plane came down in a civilian era era area sorry,
Speaker 2: just minutes after takeoff. At least thirty bodies have been
Speaker 2: recovered from a building into which the.
Speaker 1: Plane is said to have crashed.
Speaker 2: That building, according to authorities, was holding doctors. According to
Speaker 2: the flight radar data, the plane was seen on the
Speaker 2: ground at three thirty one thirty sorry local time. Four
Speaker 2: minutes later it was preparing to take off, and then
Speaker 2: at one thirty eight it started to take off. It
Speaker 2: made it to six hundred and twenty five feet. That
Speaker 2: was when they lost signal from the plane. Shortly after
Speaker 2: they issued a may day, and about five minutes later
Speaker 2: the plane came down. Now this footage year will be
Speaker 2: distressing to some viewers, but this is the moment that
Speaker 2: you can, of course see the plane appears to be
Speaker 2: losing power and then comes down towards the ground and
Speaker 2: crashes and you can see the explosion. There will cross
Speaker 2: now to Sophie Ellsworth, europe correspondent in London where this
Speaker 2: flight was headed towards Gatwick Airport. Sophie, thank you for
Speaker 2: joining us. What do we know, if anything about the
Speaker 2: people who were on board? Of course, we know there
Speaker 2: were no survivors, but have there been any further details.
Speaker 3: But Caleber, as you can appreciate, this story is developing
Speaker 3: very quickly, so the updates are rolling in. But at
Speaker 3: the moment, we have just heard that news that you've
Speaker 3: reported about no survivors. Just listening to the British reports here,
Speaker 3: there's very much significant concern because there were fifty three
Speaker 3: British nationals on that flight. The Indian Commission here is
Speaker 3: just announced they'll fast track any visas to allow next
Speaker 3: of kin and journalists to quickly get on board flights
Speaker 3: and make their way to India. But Caleb, this is
Speaker 3: obviously a tragedy that has rocked the world, but very
Speaker 3: much Britain, as you would expect given that there were
Speaker 3: many British passengers on board. The flight was due to
Speaker 3: arrive here London Gatwick this evening, and people are just
Speaker 3: in shock of what we have seen and what we're
Speaker 3: witnessing what we saw and asked screens there, Caleb, and
Speaker 3: they're also trying to work out very quickly, you know,
Speaker 3: what is the status with the passengers, because there are
Speaker 3: conflicting reports at this point. Now I have asked the
Speaker 3: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia if there
Speaker 3: are any Australians on board or if they know of
Speaker 3: any that were on board, and at this stage they
Speaker 3: haven't been able to say if there is, but they
Speaker 3: are very much looking into that. So, Caleb, a shocking
Speaker 3: situation that has rocked the whole world and very much
Speaker 3: here in the UK.
Speaker 2: Are we expecting to hear from Suki Stama, the British
Speaker 2: Prime Minister anytime soon?
Speaker 3: So sa Kirs Starmer and also the Foreign Secretary David
Speaker 3: Lammy have sent their condolences following this crash. They've put
Speaker 3: posts on social media site x So yes we have
Speaker 3: heard from them, Caleb, but we're just waiting for more
Speaker 3: information to filter through. But just listening to some of
Speaker 3: the commentators here in the UK, Caleb, they've described it
Speaker 3: as an incredibly complex crash site because of where it landed.
Speaker 3: In the scenes that you can see, it's gone into
Speaker 3: a building, there's a lot of vegetation around, so it's
Speaker 3: a very complicated site to try and retrieve bodies. There's
Speaker 3: emergency services flooding in to get people out. So yes,
Speaker 3: this is a developing story but one that we are
Speaker 3: now concerned there may be no survivors.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, as I said before, Sophie, of course that
Speaker 2: the Indian authorities are saying there are no survivors from
Speaker 2: the flight. But there's also the matter of the building
Speaker 2: that the plane we believe has crashed into, which local
Speaker 2: authorities are saying was a building that was accommodating doctors.
Speaker 2: Now the authorities have said that they've recovered at least
Speaker 2: thirty bodies from that building and there are more people
Speaker 2: trapped inside, so one imagines there will be more deaths
Speaker 2: to be announced there as well, which is of course sad,
Speaker 2: but many people will be wondering how something like this
Speaker 2: could happen. And this plane was a Boeing seven eight
Speaker 2: seven Dreamliner. Now, from my understanding, this is the first
Speaker 2: time there's ever been a crash involving a seven eight seven,
Speaker 2: But Boeing, as we know, has had a choppy record
Speaker 2: of late. What has Boeing said so far about this.
Speaker 3: So there hasn't been much come out of Boeing at
Speaker 3: this point. We have obviously had the airline common and
Speaker 3: we've also obviously had government officials, but the commentators here
Speaker 3: in the UK, the transport expert Berts are saying that
Speaker 3: it is known as a very reliable aircraft and these occasions, sadly,
Speaker 3: where there are fatalities and deaths involving aircraft are thankfully
Speaker 3: incredibly rare, Caleb.
Speaker 4: But the flow on effect.
Speaker 3: From this not only will be the devastation of those
Speaker 3: impacted in this tragedy today, but also it will make
Speaker 3: many people nervous, Caleb about flying. And then that's when
Speaker 3: we'll start to learn more of what actually went wrong.
Speaker 3: When the pilots are leading this aircraft made the may
Speaker 3: Day calls shortly after they took off, what actually went
Speaker 3: wrong here and is there any fault on the aircraft
Speaker 3: and the airline itself. So there's a lot of things
Speaker 3: to weigh up here, and we have to be careful speculating,
Speaker 3: but incredibly concerning. We're all involved, and very concerning for
Speaker 3: people now who may be nervous flying on these aircrafts
Speaker 3: until we get a good understanding of what did happen.
Speaker 2: Indeed, so feels worth thank you so much for your time,
Speaker 2: and of course stay tuned too SCA News where we
Speaker 2: will inform you of any further updates on this this
Speaker 2: evening and after the late debate tonight there will be
Speaker 2: extended coverage. Let's get into some of the other news
Speaker 2: of the day. Try this one on for size. Every
Speaker 2: time I see one of these stories, I wonder why
Speaker 2: I can't get one of these government contracts. Mean, it's
Speaker 2: just another day ending, and why it would seem with
Speaker 2: a government wasting money. This time it is the federal
Speaker 2: government where they have spent one hundred and eighty thousand dollars,
Speaker 2: or to be specific, one hundred and eighty thousand, six
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty eight dollars and eighty cents revamping the
Speaker 2: Net Zero Economy Agency into the Net Zero Economy Authority
Speaker 2: because of course it's so important to change that one word,
Speaker 2: this one hundred and eighty grand. They blew on three things.
Speaker 2: A few social media pages when went up on LinkedIn,
Speaker 2: went up on Facebook, and a logo now this is
Speaker 2: the old logo here that they so desperately had to replace.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could have mocked that one up. I
Speaker 1: suppose in.
Speaker 2: Microsoft word this is the new logo that they spent one.
Speaker 1: Hundred and thousand dollars off.
Speaker 2: I mean I could have probably done that in Microsoft
Speaker 2: paint for one hundred and eighty dollars Freyer, Seriously, why
Speaker 2: do we do this stuff?
Speaker 5: Oh honestly, I mean, there seems to be a consistent
Speaker 5: culture within certain elements of the bureaucracy that just view
Speaker 5: the taxpayer. As one person described it as an endless ATM.
Speaker 5: You say you might have been able to do it
Speaker 5: on Microsoft Word before the show. I had a little
Speaker 5: go at doing it on chat GPT in thirty seconds.
Speaker 6: This is what I managed to create.
Speaker 5: I reckon that's better then the low spend one hundred
Speaker 5: and eighty thousand dollars creating.
Speaker 6: I literally just said, at.
Speaker 4: Least you can see what it's about. There's authority from
Speaker 4: your logo. You have no idea from a few squares.
Speaker 5: You've got your windmills, your solar panels. It's perfect.
Speaker 4: I don't care what logo you have on this thing,
Speaker 4: on this agency, this authority, whatever it is. Calem you
Speaker 4: cannot polish a turn Natzio is a terrible idea in
Speaker 4: any agency or authority that's set up to try and
Speaker 4: sell it to people and help convince people to sign
Speaker 4: up to this or whatever they're supposed to do. It's
Speaker 4: still not entirely clear. Despite the one hundred and eighty
Speaker 4: ground they've spent on this thing. It's just I mean,
Speaker 4: obviously we've said it before many times. It's a concept
Speaker 4: that we're not going to reach by the time we've
Speaker 4: set the target to But regardless of that, it is
Speaker 4: a waste of time and money and effort, and it's
Speaker 4: people who are going to be paying the high bills
Speaker 4: when we put out you know, on a global scale,
Speaker 4: relatively very little emissions and countries like China and India
Speaker 4: the biggest producers don't have to do anything.
Speaker 2: But how far behind the eight ball can the public
Speaker 2: service be? Like if you can mock something like that
Speaker 2: up in chet GPT in about two seconds flat, why
Speaker 2: do they still spend one hundred and eighty grand on
Speaker 2: some morbien sea there They were called folk the mob
Speaker 2: that got this contract. There are quote unquote strategic design consultancy.
Speaker 1: I mean, why are we.
Speaker 2: Not all just setting up strategic design consultancies and getting
Speaker 2: government contracts and then putting it.
Speaker 1: Through jet GPT and turning it around.
Speaker 5: Into second it's a great business model. You heard it
Speaker 5: here first, guys. And that's the funniest part. Part of
Speaker 5: the role of the net zero Authority is to guarantee
Speaker 5: jobs and provide a job transition for people who are
Speaker 5: being displaced by net zero transition of like, the only
Speaker 5: jobs they're guaranteeing is for sou lat drinking Inner West
Speaker 5: lefties who work at the Folks Strategic consult It's such
Speaker 5: a waste of money.
Speaker 4: And it is in the Inner West from Lena in Fidney,
Speaker 4: which has that reputation as you would both well know
Speaker 4: having been there, very much to go against the grade
Speaker 4: in the Inn West.
Speaker 1: When I get around with my mega hand.
Speaker 4: I'm sure they love you for that. I mean, that
Speaker 4: is one very very expensive word change from you know,
Speaker 4: from agency to authority. That has got to be the
Speaker 4: most expensive word out there.
Speaker 1: Indeed, Now, in case you've been calling you, yes, yes.
Speaker 4: This is a fascinating case. It's a landmark trial that's
Speaker 4: taking place this week in Sydney in the Federal Court.
Speaker 4: Wraps up tomorrow and it involves this radical Islamic preacher
Speaker 4: with some haddad who is accused of anti Semitism, basically insulting, offending,
Speaker 4: humiliating Jews in a series of sermons he delivered a
Speaker 4: few weeks after the October seven terror attacks in Israel,
Speaker 4: in which he said very slave Jews and the descendants
Speaker 4: of pigs and monkeys. There's they're vile, treacherous people. And
Speaker 4: then he said this.
Speaker 7: Towards in the times when the Muslims will be fighting
Speaker 7: the Jews, the trees will speak, the soul will speak,
Speaker 7: and they'll say, believe there is a Yohodi behind me.
Speaker 5: Come.
Speaker 4: So what's interesting about this case is it fell on
Speaker 4: a Jewish group, the Executive Council of Australian Jury, the
Speaker 4: peak Jewish group in fact in Australia to pursue mister
Speaker 4: Haddad Civilly because New South Wales police and the Federal
Speaker 4: Police investigated him over these speeches and decided they couldn't
Speaker 4: do anything that wasn't worth pressing charges. It didn't meet
Speaker 4: whatever threshold there was for incitement to violence. So he's
Speaker 4: landed in the Federal court being pursued in the civil matter.
Speaker 4: Now he today they're closing up case. He's tried to
Speaker 4: argue a number of defenses for this. First of all,
Speaker 4: that it's based largely on a religious foundation. He's just
Speaker 4: quoting scripture, just quoting the Koran or Islamic text. Then
Speaker 4: he said he didn't mean all Jews when he said
Speaker 4: things like yehood and the Jews, he meant just the
Speaker 4: religious ones or just the ones in the Israeli government.
Speaker 4: And finally he tried to argue that this was really
Speaker 4: more a private speech he gave to his religious center,
Speaker 4: even though he knew that it would be uploaded onto
Speaker 4: YouTube and Facebook and rumble and so on.
Speaker 1: Next job, your private business.
Speaker 4: But he's been called interestingly by the prosecute, by the
Speaker 4: barrister for the Jewish group, want to be influencer, want
Speaker 4: to be online celebrity. And I think, look, I think
Speaker 4: there's some truth in that he filmed a live stream
Speaker 4: heading into court that I just want to show people
Speaker 4: at home talking about his case to his followers on
Speaker 4: his Instagram page, and look at what he said.
Speaker 8: This is actually a really big case that's going on
Speaker 8: here in Australia anyway, So come with, Well, know, we
Speaker 8: would perfectly have said in the past publicly that we
Speaker 8: disbelieve in these courts.
Speaker 4: I mean he said there that he doesn't believe and
Speaker 4: we don't believe. I think he's referring to his own
Speaker 4: followers here. We do not believe in the courts. So
Speaker 4: why is he even defending this matter? Is a question here.
Speaker 4: I mean, he didn't stand all bow for the judge
Speaker 4: in any of that. I was there for two full days.
Speaker 4: The first two full days he did not follow the
Speaker 4: customs of the court everyone else did. I mean, obviously
Speaker 4: that is a sign of extreme disrespect. I'm not sure
Speaker 4: the judge didn't comment on it, but it raises all
Speaker 4: sorts of questions this case.
Speaker 2: Well, the fact that we're here in the first place,
Speaker 2: I think is a large part of the problem, right
Speaker 2: because this case is being run under section eighteen C
Speaker 2: of the Racial Discrimination Act. And I've said for a
Speaker 2: long time that I don't think eighteen C of the
Speaker 2: Racial Discrimination Act should exist. It is a part of
Speaker 2: the Racial Discrimination Act that says it's illegal to offend
Speaker 2: or insult someone on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality,
Speaker 2: skin color, etc.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that.
Speaker 4: No skin color and nationality is not part of that race.
Speaker 2: It does not exist to protect the law should not
Speaker 2: exist to protect people from offense or insult. But you
Speaker 2: found yourself in a position where the criminal law that
Speaker 2: I think ought to be applied in this case. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're saying that a tree is going to instruct
Speaker 2: you to kill someone I would argue that that is
Speaker 2: a case that could potentially or should be run on
Speaker 2: the basis of incitement to violence. Now the police investigated
Speaker 2: it and said that they weren't going to do that.
Speaker 2: I've said many times that there should be a test
Speaker 2: case round to run it up a flagpole.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't get up in.
Speaker 2: Court, then you'll have a mandate to change these laws.
Speaker 2: So I can understand why the Executive Council of Australian
Speaker 2: Jury has done this, because they've taken the law that
Speaker 2: is available to them. But is it not true or
Speaker 2: at least I think anyway that this should be a
Speaker 2: criminal matter rather than a civil way.
Speaker 5: Well, there has been a consistent theme throughout the last
Speaker 5: eighteen months when we have seen a really unprecedented explosion
Speaker 5: in anti semitism in Australia, where police have seemingly investigated things,
Speaker 5: but very few people have actually been prosecuted. Where it's
Speaker 5: still really waiting for any meaningful prosecution. From the Opera
Speaker 5: House protests, there are so many instances where there's simply
Speaker 5: been very little response from the police. So I don't
Speaker 5: blame the Executive Council of Australian Jury for taking this
Speaker 5: into their own hands. It seems at this point this
Speaker 5: civil law is the only defense they really have to
Speaker 5: protect themselves with. But you're right, there have been consistent
Speaker 5: concerns raised around is insult and defense really a high
Speaker 5: enough threshold to actually limit people's speech. I think it
Speaker 5: was the Turnbull government that tried to raise the threshold
Speaker 5: to harassment, but that didn't pass the Senate.
Speaker 6: And the other.
Speaker 5: Interesting aspect that the preacher raised in his defense was
Speaker 5: that he was just quoting the Quran. And it does
Speaker 5: raise this interesting question of if elements of a religious
Speaker 5: text do offend insult a specific racial group, and Jews
Speaker 5: are treated as a racial group under Australian law as
Speaker 5: well as a religious group, will that then be outlawed
Speaker 5: bi section eighteen C And does that then conflict with
Speaker 5: our right to religious freedom? And so there is this
Speaker 5: interesting tension there, and I looked into a little bit
Speaker 5: and it looks like because Australia doesn't have a Bill
Speaker 5: of Rights like the US, the courts would likely uphold
Speaker 5: Section eighteen C even if it does limit your religious freedom,
Speaker 5: because the law is not specifically designed to limit religious freedom.
Speaker 5: So if limits on religious expression is an indirect consequence
Speaker 5: of the law, then the law is still constitutionally valid.
Speaker 5: So I don't think he has a leg to stand
Speaker 5: on in that sense. But it does raise, I guess,
Speaker 5: more broadly, this concern around what are the limits on
Speaker 5: our freedom of speech?
Speaker 4: Well, that is one of the things a lot of
Speaker 4: people raise concerns over eighteen C. But I think in
Speaker 4: this case, I mean, it wasn't just the Qur'an he said,
Speaker 4: he was quoting from Islamic scholars, Like, how far can
Speaker 4: you take that? You know, just because someone who was
Speaker 4: religious said something at some point doesn't mean you can
Speaker 4: get away with whipping up hatred for another group, especially
Speaker 4: in like he's using examples in history from the seventh
Speaker 4: century of battles to whip up hatred for all Jews today.
Speaker 4: That's the argument against him.
Speaker 2: But the law's responsibility to prevent hatred. I think it's
Speaker 2: the law's responsibility to prevent someone being physically and I don't.
Speaker 4: Think that can prevent it. It's happened at this point,
Speaker 4: but it's.
Speaker 1: Relationship to punish it.
Speaker 2: I mean, is it the law's responsibility to say you
Speaker 2: can't be racist?
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's a really interesting question. But I
Speaker 4: think I agree more with your point than in the
Speaker 4: absence of effective laws to crack down on incitement to violence,
Speaker 4: where the threshold is way too high to actually prosecute
Speaker 4: accused hate preachers, then we need something, something to protect
Speaker 4: a community which has experienced skyrocketing levels of anti Semitism.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a very interesting there's a very interesting tension
Speaker 5: always between freedom of speech and security and safety. We're
Speaker 5: learning in a multicultural twenty first century society.
Speaker 6: What some of those tensions are. Let's move on now.
Speaker 5: Britney Higgins, of course everyone would remember, was paid two
Speaker 5: point four million dollars by the Commonwealth in a settlement
Speaker 5: for the use and mistreatment she suffered during the whole
Speaker 5: Brittney Higgins, Bruce Lherman Saga. Linda Reynolds, naturally, the outgoing
Speaker 5: senator who was accused of misconduct and painted with this brush,
Speaker 5: was rightfully quite upset about the payment and referred it
Speaker 5: to the National Anti Corruption Commission, saying that labor potentially interfered.
Speaker 5: It was not fair, she wasn't given a chance to
Speaker 5: participate in the mediation. But the National Anti Corruption Commission
Speaker 5: has come back and said nothing to see here.
Speaker 6: This was all totally above.
Speaker 5: Board and there was no corruption whatsoever. I mean, I
Speaker 5: do find that particularly strange, given how the entire saga
Speaker 5: was politicized by Miss Higgins and her partner David Chraaz,
Speaker 5: and then Labor as well used it as an attack
Speaker 5: point against the Coalition, trying to paint them with this
Speaker 5: broad brush of being terrible party, sexist, treating women badly, etc.
Speaker 6: Etc.
Speaker 5: And then Drayfus himself, who was Attorney General when this
Speaker 5: payment was made, had made previous comments in Parliament quoting
Speaker 5: Miss higgins version of events. So I don't know, does
Speaker 5: this stuck up?
Speaker 4: No, not at all. I don't think it passes the
Speaker 4: pub test. And it's not just you saying that, Fray,
Speaker 4: I mean the Federal Court Judge Michael Lee made a
Speaker 4: number of findings. I mean, he did find that Brittany
Speaker 4: Higgins was raped on the balance of probabilities, which is
Speaker 4: of course a much lower standard than in a criminal matter.
Speaker 4: But he also found that the allegations that there had
Speaker 4: been a political cover up, that Linda Reynolds and the
Speaker 4: Chief of Staff Fiona Brown had not supported her, that
Speaker 4: they'd tried to discourage her from reporting it had absolutely
Speaker 4: no basis whatsoever, and he was scathing about the fact
Speaker 4: that that had been put forward. So I think that's
Speaker 4: a really important part of the case that can be
Speaker 4: forgotten here. Of course, the payout was made, the compensation
Speaker 4: was made, I think before even the verdicts came down
Speaker 4: in this after one day of mediation. Linda Reynolds wasn't
Speaker 4: allowed to participate. She said they wouldn't pay any of
Speaker 4: her legal fees, so she couldn't and as a result
Speaker 4: she is now suing the Commonwealth. I mean, this is
Speaker 4: not ending, but a big part of the payout, to
Speaker 4: just quickly make this point, a big part of the
Speaker 4: two point four million was that the idea that Britdany
Speaker 4: Higgins would never be able to work again. And of
Speaker 4: course she has gone on to hold a number of jobs,
Speaker 4: some of them unpaid, and now is working as a
Speaker 4: director in a boutique PR agency. So obviously that was
Speaker 4: not true. I mean, maybe she didn't know what would happen,
Speaker 4: but it was a big wild punt to take that
Speaker 4: someone would be so traumatized they could never work again.
Speaker 2: I mean, the na double c the knack as they
Speaker 2: call it. As far as I'm concerned, should be sent
Speaker 2: to the knackery. It shouldn't have existed in the first place,
Speaker 2: and it is clearly impotent in these sorts of things.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, the point, as far as I
Speaker 2: can see, for this payout being given, beyond the reasons
Speaker 2: that Dreyfus gave, was that it gave a very convenient
Speaker 2: way for the Labor government to attack the then opposition,
Speaker 2: the previous coalition government. I will point out that Scott
Speaker 2: Morrison didn't do the Coalition any favors when he stood
Speaker 2: up in the midst of a criminal trial that of
Speaker 2: course was later aborted as a mistrial and apologized to
Speaker 2: Britney Higgins on the floor of Parliament. Because that is
Speaker 2: to suggest that something happened and that was done before
Speaker 2: this payment was made and before any judgment was made
Speaker 2: in a criminal trial. I can't believe that that even
Speaker 2: happened in the first place.
Speaker 1: So you can add you made your bed and you've
Speaker 1: got a lie in that.
Speaker 2: But the point you raise, I think is the most
Speaker 2: important one here that a significant sum of money two
Speaker 2: point four million dollars is paid out on the basis
Speaker 2: that you have lost a lifetime of income and if
Speaker 2: you have then gone on to hold other jobs. Be
Speaker 2: they paid all voluntary. Surely you were demonstrating that you
Speaker 2: have the capacity to hold down a job. And on
Speaker 2: that basis, how can you then say that this payment
Speaker 2: is justified. I mean, of course, this money was then
Speaker 2: taken and invested in a property in France. They're now
Speaker 2: back in Australia. That's all by the bye. But this
Speaker 2: is tax pays money that was spent on the proviso
Speaker 2: that she couldn't hold down a job.
Speaker 5: Well she has, yes, And not only was the money
Speaker 5: spent on a French chateau, was also locked up in
Speaker 5: a secure trust so that it could basically not be
Speaker 5: touched in the event she had to pay other people.
Speaker 4: But you know what, I don't blame her because she
Speaker 4: would taking the money that was offered to her. What
Speaker 4: the fault lies with the government. The blame should lie there,
Speaker 4: because really they shouldn't have offered that much in the
Speaker 4: first plastation have swallowed the story, hook line and sinker
Speaker 4: without hearing from anyone else's evidence. Look, let's move on
Speaker 4: to Greta Thumberg, because that's someone we all love to hate,
Speaker 4: son't we. Now. The latest out of this whole saga
Speaker 4: of her on the selfie yacht going to deliver a
Speaker 4: symbolic amount of aid to supposedly starving gardens. And there
Speaker 4: are a lot of starving gardens people who are genuinely
Speaker 4: in need. I'm not trying to mock that purely. My
Speaker 4: mockery is directed at Greta and her fellow Instagram activists
Speaker 4: and the supposed delivery of this aid. The latest scandal
Speaker 4: is that she was filmed and photographed arriving at an
Speaker 4: airport in France, and she appears to at least according
Speaker 4: to people on the Internet, but it does appear that
Speaker 4: she's faking being handcuffed. Take a look at some of
Speaker 4: this footage. She's walking with her hands behind her back,
Speaker 4: and if you look at her from the side of
Speaker 4: the front, it does look like she's hankter. She's walking
Speaker 4: with authorities there, and people are saying, look, it's just
Speaker 4: part of more part of the acting for Greta Thumberg.
Speaker 4: I mean, you could give her the benefit of the
Speaker 4: doubt here, I think, And at first I looked at him, thought,
Speaker 4: oh no, she's walking with her hands behind her back.
Speaker 4: But this is a person who made a video saying
Speaker 4: if you see this video. We've been kidnapped and held
Speaker 4: hostage by the Israeli occupation forces, so I don't give
Speaker 4: her the benefit.
Speaker 1: I looked at her.
Speaker 2: Look frankly, I'm sick of giving this stupid girlier time.
Speaker 4: But here we are.
Speaker 1: She's walking with her hand behind her back.
Speaker 2: Like the Of all the things Greeter Tunberg has done,
Speaker 2: this is the one I am least concerned about, because.
Speaker 1: You could have taken that photo of me.
Speaker 4: She's not here, Caleb Bond. She's not a sixty year
Speaker 4: old man living in a twenty five year old body.
Speaker 4: She's Greta Thumberg. And she's done this before.
Speaker 6: And also, Caleb, I mean, who walks.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's a bit weird walking with your hands
Speaker 5: behind your back next to police officer, A bit suss
Speaker 5: and I would have simp your view.
Speaker 6: If that was the extent of it.
Speaker 5: But this is not the first time she has posed
Speaker 5: with authorities to maintain her victimhood complex. She was at
Speaker 5: a protest in Germany and pretended to get arrested. Look
Speaker 5: at her, She's smiling happily while the authorities lightly hold her,
Speaker 5: and she's literally posing for cameras as she's getting detained.
Speaker 5: But this is what the whole stick is about. It's
Speaker 5: all about maintaining this illusion that she is a oppressed
Speaker 5: girl fighting for justice against the evil system, when in
Speaker 5: reality it is all just one big PR stunt. So
Speaker 5: maybe it was a coincidence she just happened to be
Speaker 5: walking with her hands behind her back.
Speaker 6: But the fact that this is the first.
Speaker 5: Time and it does look a little strange makes me
Speaker 5: think this was all into You're.
Speaker 2: Right that it's a great PR stunt, But are we
Speaker 2: not giving her exactly what she want wants by talking
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 4: We are, i think, exposing how ludicrous she is. We're
Speaker 4: not giving her the positive populicity she wants. We're exposing
Speaker 4: what an act at all is.
Speaker 2: It's just as I've said before, I wish they just
Speaker 2: let her go into Gaza and sort of so it
Speaker 2: could have done the rest of us a favor. Over
Speaker 2: in New Zealand, you remember a little while ago they
Speaker 2: were debating legislation that would change the way that the
Speaker 2: Treaty of Waitangi was interpreted, and so in protest, a
Speaker 2: number of Maori politicians stood up in Parliament and performed
Speaker 2: the harker. He's a reminder, now you know, I have
Speaker 2: no issue with the harker at sporting events and whatever.
Speaker 1: I think it's quite a rousing sort of thing.
Speaker 2: The Parliament is not a place for this kind of protest.
Speaker 2: The parliament, any parliament anywhere in the world, is a
Speaker 2: place for civil debate, discussion, amending, passing legislation, etc. These
Speaker 2: are not the kinds of scenes that we should be
Speaker 2: seeing in any parliament.
Speaker 1: Of course they say, well, this is just.
Speaker 2: Our traditional way of communicating, so bugger you. But they
Speaker 2: have now been handed a record ban from the floor
Speaker 2: twenty one days for performing the harker.
Speaker 1: Caroline, you seem to disagree.
Speaker 4: With that, Well I do, I think. I mean, according
Speaker 4: to reports I've read, there have only been three people
Speaker 4: suspended prior to this in the past ten years. So
Speaker 4: two people, two of the MPs, were banned for twenty
Speaker 4: one days, the longest ever suspension in New Zealand Parliament,
Speaker 4: while another susmnded for seven days. I get your point
Speaker 4: about the protest. I mean I can't help it smile
Speaker 4: when I watched the hacker. I know it was done
Speaker 4: in protest in this case to this bill. But you
Speaker 4: know I have friends who are kiwis and Islanders and
Speaker 4: they do the hacker. We do it. They do it
Speaker 4: at birthdays and weddings and happy celebrations and obviously at
Speaker 4: the sporting games, and it's I mean, I just don't
Speaker 4: see that there was such a crime. I mean, what
Speaker 4: happened in Australian Parliament a couple of years ago after
Speaker 4: October seven when Green senators walked out in protests chanting
Speaker 4: three Free Palestine, Nothing, as far as I'm aware, happened
Speaker 4: to them. I think there was a censure motion. Yes,
Speaker 4: perhaps it should, but twenty one days suspension, that's overkill shortly,
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 6: The problem with it, and I agree the hawkers. Look,
Speaker 6: I'm no expert in the haka. I must say they
Speaker 6: didn't give us.
Speaker 5: I won't give you a live demonstration, but it can
Speaker 5: be used in a number of context. The issue here
Speaker 5: is that in parliament we do want to maintain a
Speaker 5: sense of decorum and clearly ripping up a bill and
Speaker 5: then threateningly advancing onto the floor or of Parliament while yelling,
Speaker 5: And there were also people in the gallery above yelling
Speaker 5: as well, like what does that actually do to advance
Speaker 5: any sort of productive discussion? If anything, I think it's
Speaker 5: a little bit threatening to the other parliamentarians in the room,
Speaker 5: and I also.
Speaker 1: It is Ward.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it is a will and I would have.
Speaker 5: A little sympathy for them, if you know, it was
Speaker 5: just an apology.
Speaker 6: And they could all sort of out.
Speaker 5: But it does sound like they got hauled before a
Speaker 5: parliamentary committee that was looking into this, but they refuse
Speaker 5: to even participate, so they've kind of blocked this process
Speaker 5: at every time.
Speaker 4: And one of them did do a gun symbol with
Speaker 4: their hand as well, which I can't adore. But yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't know. When we have Lydia Thorpe in parliament here,
Speaker 4: it's very difficult to look down your notice on what's
Speaker 4: happening in New Zealand exactly.
Speaker 5: Well, the LA riots are continuing to rage. Trump sent
Speaker 5: down the National Guard and then he sent in the
Speaker 5: Marines as well, and it looks like the protests are
Speaker 5: going pretty much unabated. They've made some arrests, but the
Speaker 5: violence continues even despite curfews in Los Angeles. Now, the
Speaker 5: narrative the media is running is that the mainstream media
Speaker 5: is that this is largely a group of peaceful protesters
Speaker 5: who've just spontaneously gathered to decry and oppose Trump's inhumane
Speaker 5: deportation of illegal immigrants.
Speaker 6: That's what they want you to believe.
Speaker 5: That's also the line they tried to run during the
Speaker 5: twenty twenty Black Lives Matter protests. Oh, it's mostly peaceful
Speaker 5: people just coming to stand against racism. Of course, we
Speaker 5: know how those protests ended with billions of dollars in
Speaker 5: property damage, wide scale looting, people lost their lives.
Speaker 6: It was horrendous.
Speaker 5: But with these protests as well, it is not as
Speaker 5: simple as saying it's just spontaneous gathering of people, because
Speaker 5: the reality is the majority of Americans support Trump's actions
Speaker 5: to curb illegal migration, and the majority fifty two percent
Speaker 5: even support him.
Speaker 6: Sending in the National Guard.
Speaker 5: So where are all these really agitated protesters coming from.
Speaker 5: Apparently they're actually being organized by a couple key activist
Speaker 5: groups on the left, one of the main ones being
Speaker 5: the Party for Socialism and Liberation, also the Democratic Socialists
Speaker 5: of America and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. These
Speaker 5: are well funded, well established, large networks on the radical
Speaker 5: fringe left of politics that are coordinating the people to
Speaker 5: get to these protests, but also handing out things like masks,
Speaker 5: shields and those goggles even as well, which is similar
Speaker 5: to what they did during BLM.
Speaker 6: Now the cry especially.
Speaker 5: Of the Party for Socialism in liberal they genuinely want
Speaker 5: to dismantle America. They genuinely want a socialist revolution. They're
Speaker 5: also the ones that have been the driving force behind
Speaker 5: a lot of the pro Palestinian protests, where they've yelled
Speaker 5: things like inter finer revolution, which is we all say
Speaker 5: is a call for violent uprising. So they say all
Speaker 5: these things, they say they're for violent revolution. Now we're
Speaker 5: actually seeing them attempt a violent revolution.
Speaker 6: This is what these riots are.
Speaker 5: It is an attempt to overthrow the United States from within.
Speaker 6: Now my question is when will these groups.
Speaker 5: Be designated as domestic terror organizations?
Speaker 6: Because we have to believe what they say.
Speaker 5: When they say they want violent revolution, when they carry
Speaker 5: that out, we have to believe them.
Speaker 2: This is where the rabbit hits the road for people
Speaker 2: like Californian Governor Gavenison, who has been saying this week
Speaker 2: that Trump wants this, Trump wanted this civil war. It's
Speaker 2: not Trump who want the civil war. It's these left
Speaker 2: wing groups who want the civil war so that they
Speaker 2: can find a reason to then blame it on Trump
Speaker 2: and say, ah, it's all the dictatorial fascist Trump's fault.
Speaker 1: They whip it up.
Speaker 2: I mean, Trump simply tries to apply the law, which
Speaker 2: is to say that if you are an illegal migrant,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't be in the United States and you ought
Speaker 2: to be deported. And then you get these well funded
Speaker 2: left wing groups come through and say, well, we'll start
Speaker 2: a protest on this basis, and then all all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, that protest becomes much bigger than just being
Speaker 2: about us.
Speaker 1: And then you have either.
Speaker 2: Useful idiots or wilful accomplices like Gavin us saying this
Speaker 2: is Trump's fault. It is not Trump's fault. This is
Speaker 2: what they wanted, not what Trump wanted. Much like when
Speaker 2: people started attacking Tesla cars and Tesla dealerships and stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is meant to be the peaceful people, right.
Speaker 4: Well, exactly, no doubt. There are some peaceful people there,
Speaker 4: many peaceful people there, but there's rights have been completely
Speaker 4: overtaken by these anarchists. And let's face it, these communists
Speaker 4: who are trying to, as you say, make this into
Speaker 4: a revolution. We see it at protests here as well.
Speaker 4: Like it always is portrayed as the peaceful protest movement,
Speaker 4: but there's always elements of it whose goal is really
Speaker 4: to uproot society and cause further division. And I mean, look,
Speaker 4: it's not just this group. There's the Black Lives Matters people.
Speaker 4: I mean, they're all really they are links between this
Speaker 4: Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Black Lives Matter
Speaker 4: movement and the Program Mass movement, but they all take
Speaker 4: advantage of this omni cause and any excuse to hit
Speaker 4: the streets and cause discord.
Speaker 5: And I should also add that the FBI is now
Speaker 5: probing a lot of these well funded left wing activist
Speaker 5: groups because funnily enough, a number of them get US
Speaker 5: federal grants, get paid tax money to destroy the country,
Speaker 5: and also a lot of funding from overseas with links
Speaker 5: to the CCP and various foreign powers. So it'll be
Speaker 5: interesting to see them get unmasked.
Speaker 2: Who would have thought today now, if Trump's not getting
Speaker 2: in trouble for trying to deport illegal migrants, now he's
Speaker 2: getting in trouble for using his telephone. Yes, I wish
Speaker 2: I was joking. Aids within the White House are apparently
Speaker 2: so concerned about the President using his mobile telephone because
Speaker 2: they don't have a direct line to what he's saying
Speaker 2: on the phone. Apparently he talks to anyone and every one.
Speaker 2: Hundreds of people are said to have his personal mobile
Speaker 2: phone numbers so they can call him up at any time.
Speaker 2: Apparently he makes phone calls at all hours of the day.
Speaker 2: He sees someone on the telly they've said something, he'll
Speaker 2: call them up for a chat about it.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's difficult to get the.
Speaker 2: Man off the phone, which I think is a good thing,
Speaker 2: because you know, we always complain about the fact that
Speaker 2: politicians are not accessible. Well, here is a man saying,
Speaker 2: I'm so accessible, but if I see someone I want
Speaker 2: to talk to, I will pick up the phone and
Speaker 2: talk to them. He even warneders about this nine years
Speaker 2: ago when he appeared on Saturday Night Live. You used
Speaker 2: to call me on the cell phone.
Speaker 1: Call on the cell phone.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's complaining, you used to call me. Why
Speaker 2: are you calling me anymore? But Caroline, the problem apparently
Speaker 2: is that they're really worried that it's a security issue
Speaker 2: because they can't monitor what Donald Trump is saying on
Speaker 2: the phone. For goodness sake, the bloke is the president
Speaker 2: of the United States. You don't think he's taking some
Speaker 2: measures to make sure that he doesn't talk to them.
Speaker 4: Also, we know exactly what Trump is thinking at all
Speaker 4: times because he tweets it. Oh, he puts it on
Speaker 4: his strength social he is very black and white. He's
Speaker 4: an open book. I mean, he's not a politician, so
Speaker 4: I don't know why people are I mean, he is
Speaker 4: a politician now, but he's not a career politician, So
Speaker 4: I don't know why people are constantly surprised that he
Speaker 4: breaks all the rules. You know, he's Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: Now, Well this makes it even more embarrassing for Anthony
Speaker 5: Albanizi though, who can barely get a phone call with Trump.
Speaker 5: Apparently he's just calling everyone so much so they need
Speaker 5: to take the phone off him. But the one person
Speaker 5: who can't get a call for the life of him
Speaker 5: is our prime minister.
Speaker 6: No Australia.
Speaker 2: Well he said when Albanize was asked about it, I
Speaker 2: believe he said he didn't even know if the president
Speaker 2: had a mobile phone.
Speaker 1: Well, now that we know him.
Speaker 4: Now we know he has two or three exactly.
Speaker 2: The reports say that he has two or three people
Speaker 2: being interviewed as saying like he'll call you up and
Speaker 2: you expect it's going to be a short phone call
Speaker 2: because he's the president and he's got things to do.
Speaker 1: And no, he just wants to have a natter. And
Speaker 1: good on him.
Speaker 2: Because it means the bloke's talking to other people and
Speaker 2: getting differing points of view and he's available. It's all
Speaker 2: we can ask of a politician. After the papers will
Speaker 2: get into tomorrow's news, of course, will have more on
Speaker 2: that ere India crash. And on the front of the
Speaker 2: OZ tomorrow a seeing a gender medicine doctor for children
Speaker 2: who was excoriated by the family court as the support
Speaker 2: of her hospital. Don't go away, okay, let's get into
Speaker 2: the papers. On the front of the Courier Mail tomorrow
Speaker 2: and of course on the telegraph as well, they have
Speaker 2: this Air India crash on the Courier Mail. It says
Speaker 2: Air India plane crashes on takeoff. An Air India jet
Speaker 2: carrying two hundred and forty two passengers crashed at an
Speaker 2: airport India's western city of Metabad last night. The plane
Speaker 2: bound for London's Gatwick Airport crash during takeoff. Local media
Speaker 2: reported Flight AI one seven to one, operating our Metabad
Speaker 2: to London Gatwick, was involved in an incident today twelve
Speaker 2: June twenty twenty five, Air India seat in a statement
Speaker 2: on x At this moment we are ascertaining the details
Speaker 2: and we'll share further updates at the earliest flight A
Speaker 2: one seven one is listed as a Boeing seven eight
Speaker 2: seven eight Dreamliner. That same story is on the front
Speaker 2: of the Daily Telegraph tomorrow and of course these the
Speaker 2: first editions of the paper that we show you when
Speaker 2: we go to Weir and the deadline for first edition
Speaker 2: is eight pms. Of course the papers will have more
Speaker 2: detail on the front tomorrow and stay tuned to US
Speaker 2: after the late debate for all the latest from Sky UK.
Speaker 2: Sticking with the Daily Telegraph, though it says this is
Speaker 2: awkward heat on PM to save Orcas as Trump goes
Speaker 2: America first. The pressure on Anthony Albineasi to secure a
Speaker 2: face to face meeting with Donald Trump has drastically escalated
Speaker 2: after the US announced it would review the three hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty eight billion dollar Orcus nuclear submarine deal. The
Speaker 2: Prime Minister will today head off to Canada for the
Speaker 2: G seven summit, but it is yet to lock in
Speaker 2: a sideline meeting with the US President. Despite the Trump
Speaker 2: administration's shock decision to review the three way defense pack
Speaker 2: between the US, UK and Australia. I think we can
Speaker 2: pretty fairly say Caroline that we're not going to see
Speaker 2: Orcas ripped up.
Speaker 1: This is Trump doing I think we can I don't.
Speaker 4: Know that reps up, but they can walk it back
Speaker 4: a lot.
Speaker 2: I think this is Trump doing essentially what he's done
Speaker 2: with tariffs, which is to threaten and then perhaps implement
Speaker 2: a few nasty things in the hopes of getting something back.
Speaker 2: So he will advance an argument that he's more extreme
Speaker 2: than what he actually wants. Australia will sort of come
Speaker 2: to the table on something and then we'll come to
Speaker 2: an agreement, and then Orchest will beyond. And of course
Speaker 2: we have to take into account that the UK is
Speaker 2: involved as well as often that's.
Speaker 4: True, but Trump has been known to surprise people all
Speaker 4: the time. And you know, the people who are looking
Speaker 4: into this, who did the review didn't like the Orchest
Speaker 4: deal to begin with. I think we could see a
Speaker 4: very watered down deal. I don't know what that would
Speaker 4: look like, but people who are a lot closer to
Speaker 4: the administration have made that point. So I think there's
Speaker 4: a lot on the line here. But let's just take
Speaker 4: a moment to look at this headline. This is awkward.
Speaker 4: I think out of all the headlines I've seen tonight,
Speaker 4: this is definitely Let's just pay something to those headline
Speaker 4: writers of the Tello.
Speaker 6: I think that's the challenge with Orcisto.
Speaker 5: Trump loves a deal, he loves negotiating, but he also
Speaker 5: knows when America hasn't gotten a good deal, and he
Speaker 5: is looking at any allies that currently rely on the
Speaker 5: US for defense, if they're not pulling their weight, he
Speaker 5: is going to change that.
Speaker 6: And we've seen Albanesi refuse to increase.
Speaker 5: Defense spending despite explicit requests from the US.
Speaker 6: So I don't think this bodes well for US at all.
Speaker 2: And to be fair, we could buy submarines off the
Speaker 2: shelf from other places a lot faster than we get
Speaker 2: New York as submarine.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think we're going to get them from
Speaker 4: France anymore.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right, and let's move on to the Australia.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 5: Hospital backs exoriated TELFA. The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne has
Speaker 5: championed its chief of Medicine, Michelle Telfer, as a highly
Speaker 5: respected pediatrician, despite a judge finding she gave misleading evidence
Speaker 5: in support of a mother who wanted her child to
Speaker 5: be prescribed puberty blockers. The hospital declined to confirm if
Speaker 5: it would instigate a formal investigation into the findings of
Speaker 5: the Family Court judge Andrew Strum, who rejected the rch's
Speaker 5: diagnosis of the child with gender dysphoria after finding there
Speaker 5: were significant issues with how the confusion was the conclusion
Speaker 5: was created. Now, this seems particularly remarkable because we had
Speaker 5: an extraordinary intervention from a family court judge which essentially
Speaker 5: blew a hole, a giant hole in the entire gender
Speaker 5: affirming care paradigm that Australia has adopted. This doctor in particular,
Speaker 5: wrote the gender affirming care guidelines, and for a judge
Speaker 5: to say, this is all ideological evidence and there's very
Speaker 5: little substantial evidence that actually shows gender affirming care, which
Speaker 5: is puberty blockers and treatments that don't give the child
Speaker 5: any therapy, just affirm whatever their gender identity is they
Speaker 5: claimed to be.
Speaker 6: So then the hospital to double down on this seems shocking.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the judge felt so strongly about that that
Speaker 4: he agreed with the Australian I believe it was their
Speaker 4: application to have the identity of this gender expert made public,
Speaker 4: because usually witnesses and family carp matters are kept anonymous
Speaker 4: as much of the cases are as well. So the
Speaker 4: fact that he thought it was all public interest enough
Speaker 4: to expose this person is remarkable in itself. But then
Speaker 4: for the hospital to stand by her, well, I guess
Speaker 4: they made the appointment, they put her in that position,
Speaker 4: so that would be accepting some accountability on their part
Speaker 4: as well for the person that they gave the role to.
Speaker 2: It just shows how far behind the eight ball we
Speaker 2: are on this stuff in Australia.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at the rest.
Speaker 9: Of the world.
Speaker 2: Look at the cast report out of the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: The rest of the world is walking.
Speaker 2: Away from gender affirming care, particularly the use of puberty
Speaker 2: blockers for children, and for some reason, we seem to
Speaker 2: still be going headfirst into a tainment.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and the first duty of a doctor is to
Speaker 5: do no harm. I don't know how she can possibly
Speaker 5: look at herself when that's the.
Speaker 4: Oath she took, but anyway, I think she obviously doing
Speaker 4: the writing.
Speaker 2: And she's implementing that the rules that she has written.
Speaker 2: I think the point is though, that when the rest
Speaker 2: of the world is saying you're going the wrong way.
Speaker 2: Should at least tapes of introspection about that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, well yes, and not actually relying on substantial evidence
Speaker 5: is also very questionable. But also in the Australian no
Speaker 5: fund fervor for billionaire Mike cannon Brooks is forty billion
Speaker 5: dollars sun Cable Development has failed to secure funding to
Speaker 5: date and it's made in one hundred million capital raising
Speaker 5: as doubts grow that the billionaire is capable of delivering
Speaker 5: one of the world's largest renewable energy projects. I mean,
Speaker 5: this is what we're seeing time and time again, all
Speaker 5: of these huge renewable projects that require massive amounts of
Speaker 5: upfront investment.
Speaker 6: The investment has dried up.
Speaker 5: Because, funnily enough, one of the things driving investment was
Speaker 5: government policy banning new coal, gas, nuclear, et cetera, and
Speaker 5: massively subsidizing renewables. That is changing. Now the investment case
Speaker 5: is not there, and it's going to be interesting to
Speaker 5: see whether any of these things get built.
Speaker 4: Has Mike Cannon Books considered paying one hundred and eighty
Speaker 4: thousand dollars for a new logo.
Speaker 1: Just said private kit?
Speaker 6: True?
Speaker 4: Yeah that too. Let's move on to the Herald Sun,
Speaker 4: where they've got another story about this ambulance ramping crisis
Speaker 4: that's really taken hold. There no way to die. It's
Speaker 4: an exclusive story about how an elderly man was left
Speaker 4: bleeding to death despite phoning Triple zero twice, with five
Speaker 4: ambulances parked just a suburb of way, but on a
Speaker 4: able to respond to his call. He called for help
Speaker 4: just before eleven thirty. He'd fallen and split his head open.
Speaker 4: It was five hours almost before paramatics arrived at his place.
Speaker 4: Just absolutely incredible, but not that surprising when you see
Speaker 4: these stories of ramping and how many people are a
Speaker 4: full victim to this.
Speaker 2: Well, we call ourselves a first world country and for him,
Speaker 2: it's say you can't get an ambulance to someone within
Speaker 2: five hours both who's fallen and split there we just
Speaker 2: fall so far behind on these things very quickly. Before
Speaker 2: we go to a break on the front of the
Speaker 2: Mercury tomorrow, this never ending story about the election that's
Speaker 2: coming in Tasmania, Starter's Gun is the headline. Liberal leader
Speaker 2: During Rockliffe kicked off his party's election campaign in Launceston,
Speaker 2: announcing candidates in the electorate of Basting Winter has put
Speaker 2: the government's abandoned policy of asset sales at the center
Speaker 2: of Labour's election campaign and Greens leader Rosalie Woodroof and
Speaker 2: Dip the leader Vicker Bailey chose mcflory point to launch
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty five state election campaign on the foundation
Speaker 2: of blocking a stadium.
Speaker 1: On the site at all costs. And there is plenty more.
Speaker 2: To come on that after the break magic mushrooms growing
Speaker 2: near the front door of New South Wales parliament House.
Speaker 2: Chris Mins, the Premier, has weighed in I'll show you
Speaker 2: that next. We were discussing before who would do this
Speaker 2: story and Frae quote unquote I'll do the mushrooms.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I will tonight.
Speaker 5: A group of psychedel mushrooms have been found at Parliament.
Speaker 5: Chris Mint has joked this must be the work of
Speaker 5: an enterprising drug dealer to hide the contraband under the
Speaker 5: politician's noses, the.
Speaker 6: Last place anyone would look.
Speaker 5: He even joked about there potentially being a weed farm
Speaker 5: in the basement of Parliament.
Speaker 6: I do think someone should check.
Speaker 5: That one out because this guy's probably inspired some copycat.
Speaker 4: I do love how it was a legalized cannabis MPO
Speaker 4: that found these ushers. I mean, we're nowhere in the world.
Speaker 2: You know, if you've got magic mushrooms going out the
Speaker 2: front of Parliament and as you say, the legalized.
Speaker 1: Cannabis bloke abound it. But how do they actually get there?
Speaker 4: I know, well, someone is throwing them. I don't think
Speaker 4: they just sprout naturally, these things. But I mean, look,
Speaker 4: it's serious. If they find the person supply for magic
Speaker 4: mushrooms can get you life in prison if it's over
Speaker 4: one hundred grams. And this is serious joking.
Speaker 6: The magic mushrooms right outside and then across the road
Speaker 6: you legally to go what the heck is going on
Speaker 6: in his parliament.
Speaker 4: Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has thrilled soldiers by putting on
Speaker 4: his famous y m c A dance.
Speaker 10: Take a look, it's understand.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it is just so infectious. While we're talking
Speaker 2: about music, we have to, of course mark the death
Speaker 2: of Brian Wilson today, the founder of the Beach Boys.
Speaker 2: I mean, you go through their back catalog, it is
Speaker 2: literally hit after hit after hit, chief among them.
Speaker 9: I get around.
Speaker 2: And I think one of the best pop songs ever written.
Speaker 1: God only knows, Oh my.
Speaker 2: Goods and supposedly Paul McCartney, of course from the Beatles,
Speaker 2: heard that song and was so scared that it would
Speaker 2: be the best pop song ever that it then prompted
Speaker 2: him to write Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts.
Speaker 4: That's another amazing song. There's just so many great songs.
Speaker 4: You can't patriar you to the law.
Speaker 2: Barlay Brian Wilson. Stay with us now for live coverage
Speaker 2: of the Air and you Crash with Sky News, you
Speaker 2: play good Night