Speaker 1: Lateens General, Welcome to the Late Debates.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm Caleb Bond
Speaker 2: with Liztora and Joe hildebrand Well. Electric vehicles may not
Speaker 2: be the great environmental panaser. Who would have thought it,
Speaker 2: But one university has a solution. Will tell you what
Speaker 2: it is later in the show when we get into
Speaker 2: the papers, will tell you the Australian suburb whose tapwater
Speaker 2: has the most cancer causing chemicals in the country. And
Speaker 2: two Russian women have been arrested on suspicion of murder.
Speaker 2: The reason they allegedly murdered this man will shock you.
Speaker 2: But first over at VIC Rhodes, it's been a case
Speaker 2: of wrong way go back because they've looked at all
Speaker 2: the regio renewal notices they have sent out for the
Speaker 2: next financial year.
Speaker 3: So these are.
Speaker 2: People whose regio are due in July and onwards, and
Speaker 2: they've worked out that one hundred and eighty thud thousand
Speaker 2: people have been undercharged and they are threatening that if
Speaker 2: you don't pay up the extra money they want from you,
Speaker 2: your car is going to be unregistered. Now, basically what
Speaker 2: happened was they were sitting there at VIC Rhodes, and
Speaker 2: of course, you know, we know, bureaucrats have got nothing
Speaker 2: better to do than not look at the work in
Speaker 2: front of them, so they just hit the button that
Speaker 2: sent off the regio renewal notices, which in Victoria usually
Speaker 2: come by email. What they failed to do was add
Speaker 2: on the price hike that comes for the new financial year,
Speaker 2: which is three point four percent. So people have received
Speaker 2: their renewal notice and gone, you see that looks like
Speaker 2: the same amount it was for the last three months.
Speaker 2: They've paid it, assuming that from July onwards their car
Speaker 2: will continue to be registered. But the Transport Department says, no,
Speaker 2: we actually want more money from you. People who got
Speaker 2: the email saying we need more money or your car
Speaker 2: is not going to be registered, they thought it was
Speaker 2: a scam. One motorist was quoted in the Herald sound
Speaker 2: Is saying there are so many dodgy emails and texts
Speaker 2: going around and then I got one from VIC Rhodes
Speaker 2: saying they want me to pay more. And you can
Speaker 2: understand why you would read that and go, hang on
Speaker 2: a minute, this smells a little bit. Vic rhads itself
Speaker 2: has said incorrect pressing on registration renewal notices was recently
Speaker 2: sent to some customers. This has now been fixed, but
Speaker 2: we apologize for any inconvenience. Cause now I'm sorry Joe.
Speaker 3: If Roads sends you.
Speaker 2: A renewal notice and you pay the amount was written
Speaker 2: on the renewal notice, you know, tough titties. If they
Speaker 2: didn't put the right amount of money on it, you
Speaker 2: paid it. You deserve to get what you paid all
Speaker 2: week money.
Speaker 4: Let's just have it so that it's fair for both parties.
Speaker 4: I'm going to give VIC Rhodes what I think I
Speaker 4: owe them, and then if they complained that it's not enough,
Speaker 4: oh no, I'm sorry, but that was what I felt
Speaker 4: that you were entitled to pay. This is just this
Speaker 4: is phenomenal. So just to recap, just to put this
Speaker 4: in context, we are in the middle of a cost
Speaker 4: of living crisis. The Victorian government is jacking up the
Speaker 4: price of its registrations to help fill the budget black
Speaker 4: hole caused by all its COVID lockdowns. It then forgets
Speaker 4: that it's actually doing this savage, just out of control
Speaker 4: cash grab, sends it for the previous amount, and then
Speaker 4: has to remind almost two hundred thousand people that it's
Speaker 4: actually charging them more, and that this then gets interpreted
Speaker 4: by said people as so hopelessly, transparently incompetent and such
Speaker 4: a malicious, bare face, shameless cash grab that it must
Speaker 4: be a scam from a Nigerian prince. This is the
Speaker 4: level we have gotten to in the People's Republic and
Speaker 4: it is just unbelievable.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you. Registration in Victoria is extortionate. I've had
Speaker 2: a car registered in Victoria.
Speaker 5: You can't be worse than New South What minds you
Speaker 5: to this state? I seriously, it gave me.
Speaker 6: Anxiety, the ridiculous system. Seriously, if New South Walians, yes,
Speaker 6: that is a term, because I keep using it.
Speaker 5: And you have a winning idea. How straightforward this is.
Speaker 6: In my home state of Western Australia, it would curl
Speaker 6: your hair. No pink slip, green slip, blue slip nonsense.
Speaker 6: You just pay your red Joe and included in that
Speaker 6: is your comprehensive insurance and none of this all the
Speaker 6: colors of the rainbow jolly slips.
Speaker 5: You again, forget different.
Speaker 4: Things from green slip mechanic. He's going to grease. I
Speaker 4: don't know if he's coming back.
Speaker 5: It is a cash strap.
Speaker 6: He just made up the most complex system that they
Speaker 6: possibly can, so New South Wales can pocket all this rubbish.
Speaker 5: Rubbish. You're raising money on rubbish. A pink slip.
Speaker 6: Now you need a blue slip, the green slip. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 6: that one's needed. But just call it what it is instead.
Speaker 3: Of at least to South Wales they rip you off
Speaker 3: to your face.
Speaker 2: True, but they have a slip. It's called that we
Speaker 2: got it wrong slip here it is coming under your door,
Speaker 2: please pay us more money. I don't know how they
Speaker 2: can legitimately get away with this because if your sension,
Speaker 2: if you perform a job for someone, or someone performs
Speaker 2: a job for you, and they send you the invoice,
Speaker 2: and the invoice is it's payable by this date. It's
Speaker 2: two thousand dollars to have your plumbing done. Right, you
Speaker 2: pay the two thousand dollars to your plumber.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's a good deal.
Speaker 2: Argument, It is a good deal. But for argument's sake, right,
Speaker 2: then the plumber comes back to you a month later
Speaker 2: and oh, sorry, mate, I undercharge you for that.
Speaker 5: Yeast.
Speaker 2: The government, the government can just say, oh, we got
Speaker 2: it wrong, we want to charge you more money.
Speaker 6: Is firstly a ginormous bungle that they have not given
Speaker 6: any explanation for not that we need one.
Speaker 5: It's government. We know that you're incompetent.
Speaker 6: Above all else, but you wouldn't think that in the
Speaker 6: middle of a cost of living crisis.
Speaker 5: You just save face.
Speaker 6: And be like, you know what, I just thought you
Speaker 6: wo'd help you guys out.
Speaker 4: In the message explaining how much they've stuffed it up,
Speaker 4: they almost try to get some credit by fixing the
Speaker 4: screw up that they did in the first but they say,
Speaker 4: you know, incorrect pricing and registers was recently sent some
Speaker 4: cases this has now been fixed.
Speaker 3: Well done.
Speaker 6: You store in Australia, if something is unclearly priced, you
Speaker 6: are more than entitled to buy it for the.
Speaker 5: Lower price or to steal it again. If you've invoiced
Speaker 5: me twice.
Speaker 3: Just take that.
Speaker 5: Surely I'm under Do you remember to cough up the rest?
Speaker 4: Do you remember when they first introduced the scanners and
Speaker 4: everyone said, oh, those to check out scanners.
Speaker 3: They're never going to work. That's a rip off.
Speaker 4: It's never going to catch on. We need to check
Speaker 4: out chicks and all the supermarkets said, you know what
Speaker 4: if it scans the wrong price. Every says, how do
Speaker 4: we know it's the right price. They said, it scans
Speaker 4: the wrong price, and it's less. That's it. That's yours
Speaker 4: for that price.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 4: If it doesn't scan properly or whatever, it's yours for free.
Speaker 4: What happened to that?
Speaker 5: Try to try not know about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they said it everywhere.
Speaker 6: I'm literally just going to camp out in the self
Speaker 6: serve checkouts now and every time someone puts their hand
Speaker 6: up because another one of those babies is malfunctioning, I
Speaker 6: will just be like, did you know they promise this
Speaker 6: would be free?
Speaker 5: Because it's just stuffing up in.
Speaker 2: Human Rights Warrior moving on now.
Speaker 5: Too, Yes, no, I am. I love this stuff.
Speaker 6: Did you know that if a store has their policy saying, oh,
Speaker 6: after thirty days you can't return this, or it's on sale,
Speaker 6: you can't return this. Both those things are complete bogus.
Speaker 5: Ladies, especially tune in.
Speaker 3: If you were in the Consumer Watch, I would be.
Speaker 6: Checking more than thirty days, literally, and I've never lost
Speaker 6: once when I go to the counter and I say, look,
Speaker 6: I understand that's what you're taught.
Speaker 5: To say, and that's your store policy.
Speaker 6: But according to Australian consumer law, you've got to give
Speaker 6: me my money back because I'm bringing your product back.
Speaker 6: End of the manager refunds you every single time because they.
Speaker 5: Know you're right. But to more fury.
Speaker 6: Now in the state of Victoria, this one is truly unbelievable. So,
Speaker 6: as we all know, we have concurrent crises unfolding, the
Speaker 6: housing crisis, the cost of living crisis. So what has
Speaker 6: the Victorian government decided to do in the middle of
Speaker 6: these rolling out making everyone bleed, landlords can barely breathe
Speaker 6: as it is, with inflation, with interest rates.
Speaker 5: Well, the Victorian government has.
Speaker 6: Gotten together and said we're going to make new minimal
Speaker 6: rental standards relating to energy efficiency across the state. What
Speaker 6: does this mean, do you ask, Well, it means that
Speaker 6: landlords will be forced to fork out an eye watering
Speaker 6: amount of money in the name of the state's climate communism.
Speaker 6: Get this, this is what landlords will be stuck doing
Speaker 6: if this goes ahead. They've made the proposal, and we
Speaker 6: know what proposals turn into. It will include things such
Speaker 6: as installing sealing installation where none exists, draft proving with
Speaker 6: weather seals on all external doors, four star shower heads
Speaker 6: in all showers, new electric hot water systems, and three
Speaker 6: star efficiency calling for systems in the main living area.
Speaker 6: At this rate, renters are going to be living in
Speaker 6: better homes than the poor mom and dad investors who
Speaker 6: actually bought the thing in the first place, hoping to
Speaker 6: get a little bitter head in life. Now, the state
Speaker 6: government estimates that this will save renters five hundred and
Speaker 6: sixty seven dollars a year off their energy bills. But
Speaker 6: where is the sense in this when by putting this
Speaker 6: on landlords, you're going to be bumping up the price
Speaker 6: of rent, aren't you. And I guarantee that whatever these
Speaker 6: people would save on their energy bills per year, they'll
Speaker 6: more than make up for because if the landlord's got
Speaker 6: to fork out that much for all these bells and
Speaker 6: whistles to make the climate communism party happy, then it's
Speaker 6: going to be reflected in what people are charged to.
Speaker 5: Rent the home. Someone explained this to me.
Speaker 3: I don't I don't think.
Speaker 4: While I don't agree with you that everything is communist,
Speaker 4: I think in this case we are getting perilously close
Speaker 4: to it because these guys just say.
Speaker 3: Understand.
Speaker 5: That everything is common.
Speaker 3: Try to agree.
Speaker 5: Tell me how this isn't Because.
Speaker 4: I think this is really problematic. It sounds to you
Speaker 4: with my own proper that's right. How I've agree with
Speaker 4: you you.
Speaker 6: So tell me how isn't it rather communisty that a
Speaker 6: government now takes it upon itself to say, because we
Speaker 6: believe that the world I've.
Speaker 4: Just said, I feel it right, that's what I'm trying
Speaker 4: to say.
Speaker 2: You're right, get onto the community.
Speaker 4: It won't be Obviously, people do not get into the
Speaker 4: rental market. People do not buy investment properties to lose money, right.
Speaker 4: That's something that communists do not understand, which is how
Speaker 4: capitalism works. And so therefore they are going to do
Speaker 4: one of two things. If these costs are imposed on them,
Speaker 4: they will either a pass them on to renters. As
Speaker 4: you say, of course, they will simply say, well, it's
Speaker 4: not worth my it's not worth my while I'm going
Speaker 4: to sell the property, which might be good news for homeowners,
Speaker 4: but at the moment, the homeowning crisis is on the
Speaker 4: back burner because we have a rental crisis that is
Speaker 4: far more acute and people literally not being able to
Speaker 4: get a roof over their heads. So either it increases
Speaker 4: the cost of renting, or it deprives the rental market
Speaker 4: of a potential property.
Speaker 3: And it is just absolutely.
Speaker 2: It's a lose if we may indulge, if we may
Speaker 2: indulge in in a short musical interlude, if I were
Speaker 2: a landlord in Victoria, this is how I would be
Speaker 2: feeling right now. And I am a landlord, but not
Speaker 2: in Victoria, thank god. And this is exactly what landlords
Speaker 2: are saying. I mean they're saying. You know, this is
Speaker 2: one landlord who quoted in the Herald son I reckon
Speaker 2: a mass exodus by landlords is coming from the rental market.
Speaker 2: They are making a serious rental problem. Even worse, the
Speaker 2: timing is appalling. And this is the problem is there's
Speaker 2: been this argument from the Greens in particular, and obviously
Speaker 2: this is a labor government, but the Greens argue we've
Speaker 2: got to have rental caps and all this sort of
Speaker 2: stuff because you know, all the evil landlords. The vast
Speaker 2: majority of rental sorry, the vast majority of landlords in
Speaker 2: this country are mum and dad investors. They have fewer
Speaker 2: than three properties, and they also own the majority of
Speaker 2: mental properties within the country. So if you do things
Speaker 2: around the edges to say, okay, we don't want these
Speaker 2: evil people owning rental properties. They either have to cop
Speaker 2: the increased cost, which they don't. As Joe said, it
Speaker 2: goes on to the renter, which is the last thing
Speaker 2: the renters need right now, or as you said, they
Speaker 2: sell it now. When you sell a property right now,
Speaker 2: the property is worth a fair bit of money. That's
Speaker 2: the market we're living in, which means that a lot
Speaker 2: of people who are currently renting. Let's say the person
Speaker 2: who is currently living in that rental property probably doesn't
Speaker 2: have enough money to stump up a deposit.
Speaker 3: To buy it.
Speaker 2: So who do you think comes in and buys that
Speaker 2: one bedroom unit in the city that this person bought
Speaker 2: as an investment Another investor, except that investor has lots
Speaker 2: of money because they can cop the increase in the
Speaker 2: cost of running the thing. So what you do is
Speaker 2: concentrate the number of landlords down from your average mum
Speaker 2: and dad investor to big investors. Happens is the communists
Speaker 2: actually end up supporting big business because the only person
Speaker 2: who will be able to be a landlord in this
Speaker 2: country is someone who has shed loads of money, and
Speaker 2: funnily enough, many of them profess to be close enough
Speaker 2: to communists because they will.
Speaker 4: Vote for the Greens well, plenty of Green's VMPs own
Speaker 4: mouthful investment properties. It's always a global to reveal. But yeah,
Speaker 4: perhaps side. But more to the point, what people do
Speaker 4: not understand, what people who believe in a command economy
Speaker 4: simply do not understand, is that the economy doesn't do
Speaker 4: what you tell it to. You can't just order the
Speaker 4: economy to do something.
Speaker 3: I'll do it.
Speaker 4: And this is a perfect example. Rental caps are another example.
Speaker 4: You can't put a gun to someone's head and say right,
Speaker 4: be an investment property owner because people will look at
Speaker 4: all these If you want more of something, you make
Speaker 4: it more attractive for people to invest in it, not
Speaker 4: less attractive. So you make it easier for people to
Speaker 4: get into the investment property market and easier for them
Speaker 4: to rent it out, and that will create more people
Speaker 4: investing in the property market, whether they're big or small investors,
Speaker 4: and it will create more investment properties. If you make
Speaker 4: it harder, put things like rental caps, rental freezers, you know,
Speaker 4: forcing people to put in capital works to make it
Speaker 4: more climate friendly, people will say, you know what, I'm
Speaker 4: just going to put my money out as well, and
Speaker 4: it might not even be and then another investment property
Speaker 4: owner coming in. It might be another homeowner, in which
Speaker 4: case that house gets taken over the market. And the
Speaker 4: people who would otherwise invest in property, which would provide
Speaker 4: more properties to the rental market, We'll say, I'm just
Speaker 4: going to invest in something else. Ilp CBA News Court
Speaker 4: my new podcast, The Real.
Speaker 2: Story with Joe Wants Shavelss.
Speaker 6: I love it, But how is it that average Joe's
Speaker 6: literally yes, I.
Speaker 3: Know this is a new memoir.
Speaker 6: By the way, it's so obvious, right, and yet our
Speaker 6: own government who's running the place, just seems hell bent
Speaker 6: on ruining the place. I mean, at such a time
Speaker 6: as this, you honestly think that the best state of
Speaker 6: play is to bankrupt landlords golf clap for you, government,
Speaker 6: You've simply.
Speaker 5: Got to be a hit.
Speaker 4: This is what the left. This is what the left
Speaker 4: does when they look at these things. So they'll look
Speaker 4: at things, and they will look at the starts, and
Speaker 4: they'll look at all these investment property owners and say,
Speaker 4: all right, but they've got all these people here, and
Speaker 4: if we just make them do this with the stroke
Speaker 4: of a pen, we'll deliver all this pile of money
Speaker 4: over here. And then we'll make a rule say that
Speaker 4: they can't job.
Speaker 5: To see the domino effects before.
Speaker 4: I don't understand if they don't understand human behavior, they
Speaker 4: don't understand that they don't understand respect individual behavior and
Speaker 4: how those kind of what Paul keating One's famously called
Speaker 4: animal forces influenced the market. But the bottom bottom line
Speaker 4: is if your own car in Victoria, you're screw and
Speaker 4: if you own a house in Victoria, you're screwed.
Speaker 6: Even a few months ago that we were talking about
Speaker 6: that patch in Victoria which had decided that every rooftop
Speaker 6: now had to be white.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think actually, I think it was a climate
Speaker 2: and it was one of the South Australia as well,
Speaker 2: where they've manned and you can't have dark rus. And
Speaker 2: that's not to mention that the landtek situation of Victoria
Speaker 2: at the moment as well, which is just out of control.
Speaker 2: I know people who have property and the money they're
Speaker 2: asking for has gone through the roof and everything's everything's racist. Well,
Speaker 2: And if I were a renter in Victoria and my
Speaker 2: landlord was told that they had to put a four
Speaker 2: star shower head in my rental property, I'd be really
Speaker 2: peeved because four star shower head is code for one
Speaker 2: of those things with you know, the lowercal low meter
Speaker 2: in it, so it literally just trickles. I don't want that.
Speaker 2: I want a shower head that actually works. While we're
Speaker 2: on matters of the climate, let's talk about electric vehicles.
Speaker 2: I know you love talking about electric vehicles. I love
Speaker 2: talking about electric vehicles because we hate them. And once again,
Speaker 2: another study has proven exactly this. Now the study comes
Speaker 2: to an interesting conclusion, which I will get to in
Speaker 2: a minute, but what they're basically suggesting, this is from
Speaker 2: Monash University's Climate Work Center, is that if we want
Speaker 2: to reach our twenty thirty emissions targets, which of course
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton has said if he was Prime Minister he
Speaker 2: would scrap and ignore. If we want to reach that target,
Speaker 2: we need seventy three percent of all new vehicles sold
Speaker 2: in this country by twenty thirty to be electric. Now
Speaker 2: that is simply not going to happen. And I will
Speaker 2: remind you that the federal government, before it was the
Speaker 2: federal government when it was still in opposition, forecast in
Speaker 2: order to boost its likelihood of reaching these twenty thirty targets,
Speaker 2: that eighty nine percent of vehicles sold in this country
Speaker 2: by twenty thirty would be electric. The Federal Transport Department
Speaker 2: now says it will be something like twenty seven percent,
Speaker 2: So they're kind of losing out on that. If we
Speaker 2: had just fifty six percent of vehicles sold in this
Speaker 2: country being electric by twenty thirty, we would still miss
Speaker 2: our transport emission goals by twenty one percent. I mean
Speaker 2: you might look at that. I look at that and go, well,
Speaker 2: surely that means that the target is just a load
Speaker 2: of bunker. It's never going to happen. Well, Monash University
Speaker 2: says there is another solution, which is basically, give up
Speaker 2: your car entirely. If we can't have evs, just don't
Speaker 2: drive at all. They have suggested that you basically we're
Speaker 2: putting all our eggs in one basket talking about EV's,
Speaker 2: And the problem is not so much that you know,
Speaker 2: we should be moving to EV's, which means you keep
Speaker 2: driving as much as you are now. No no, no, no, no
Speaker 2: no no. It's much more complex than that. Get rid
Speaker 2: of your car, get on public transport. Don't get on
Speaker 2: a plane, they say, use a train instead. Don't use
Speaker 2: a truck to transport cars, transport coupble cars, as well,
Speaker 2: but cars and food and whatever around the country use
Speaker 2: rail instead, Isn't it funny? This is where we're going.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: EV's are a great idea, fantastic if our middle panasa.
Speaker 2: Now they worked out that ain't going to work. So
Speaker 2: why do we need cars at all? Just get on
Speaker 2: the bus, you bludge.
Speaker 6: Well, this is straight out of the climate communism handbook
Speaker 6: that Joe doesn't sound.
Speaker 5: We've constantly got proof of it staring at our faces.
Speaker 6: But look, the EV takeup has slowed very fast here
Speaker 6: in Australia. In April for the first time in over
Speaker 6: three years, it was down just five percent. Now that's
Speaker 6: not huge, but they're predicting that this is just going
Speaker 6: to keep tanking. Tesla alone also in April their sales
Speaker 6: were down by forty four percent.
Speaker 5: And this is Twitter.
Speaker 4: It's not the virtue signals. Oh my god.
Speaker 6: This is despite all the retailers heavily discounting their EV
Speaker 6: they're trying to, yes, make them much cheaper, make them
Speaker 6: much more attainable for people. But the thing is other
Speaker 6: than the resale value diving, so people are like, this
Speaker 6: is not a wise investment. The government instead of having rebates,
Speaker 6: instead of having any kind of tax incentive simply needs
Speaker 6: to build the infrastructure, which they have.
Speaker 5: Failed to do so terribly.
Speaker 6: You can't encourage people to buy cars if there aren't
Speaker 6: available chargers ready to go, and that's to put all
Speaker 6: the other problems aside. But what incentive right now do
Speaker 6: people have in terms of when am I going to
Speaker 6: be able to fuel up?
Speaker 5: It's dismal in this.
Speaker 2: Unless, of course you live in the city. It's the
Speaker 2: only situation where an electric car kind of makes sense,
Speaker 2: but it blows the whole thing out of the water.
Speaker 2: And because there are lots of people driving evs around
Speaker 2: which are powered fundamentally by coal fired power, particularly in
Speaker 2: a state like Queensland or New South Wales, they can
Speaker 2: feel so virtuous about it, but they're driving around thinking
Speaker 2: they're doing their bit for the planet. What Monash is
Speaker 2: uncovered is essentially that nothing is really going to be
Speaker 2: done for the planet because no one wants to buy them.
Speaker 2: They're not going to buy the numbers they need to
Speaker 2: actually make any impact. And that the chairman of Toyota
Speaker 2: said back in January, I mean, look, he's in the
Speaker 2: business of selling cars. He is the chairman of one
Speaker 2: of the biggest car manufacturers in the world, So if
Speaker 2: he wants his job is to make money. Pieces that
Speaker 2: we'll only ever reach thirty percent of cars in the
Speaker 2: world being electric. The rest will be made up by
Speaker 2: hydrogen and hybrid basically right, because it looks abats the
Speaker 2: world that don't actually have access to power all the time,
Speaker 2: they're not going to be So everyone in the sector
Speaker 2: knows it and says it. Monash University says it ain't working.
Speaker 2: Why do we keep going down this way?
Speaker 4: Because the climate debate has been hijacked by idea logs,
Speaker 4: for whom the perfect is the good communists, if you will,
Speaker 4: I would call them climate idea logs. But yes, they
Speaker 4: they despise so they despise gas, which all the smart
Speaker 4: people in the debates we see is a really important
Speaker 4: component at least as we transition to renewables, so at
Speaker 4: least for the next five to ten whatever years. And
Speaker 4: yet you've got people saying coals. You know, gas is
Speaker 4: just as bad as coal. That is a lie, that
Speaker 4: is just incorrect, that is just unfactual. That is a
Speaker 4: bare face, bald face provable demonstrable light trust the science.
Speaker 4: And so you have people and the same sort of
Speaker 4: people obviously will not even talk about nuclear will not
Speaker 4: even allow it to enter the discussion, which I think
Speaker 4: is foolish. I'm not sure if it economically stacks up
Speaker 4: at the moment, but it may well in the future,
Speaker 4: and which should be on the table. And they also
Speaker 4: have the same approach, of course to hybrid cars. So
Speaker 4: a car that burns any fuel at all, ever is
Speaker 4: Persona on Grada. And the problem with that, of course
Speaker 4: is that there are heaps and heaps of that. That
Speaker 4: creates obviously shrinking demand, which means a car makers are
Speaker 4: less likely to make them and sell them and mark
Speaker 4: them and shire them to Australia. And the problem with
Speaker 4: that is that hybrid cars actually solve ninety percent of
Speaker 4: the problems that people have with pure electric cars, which
Speaker 4: is range anxiety, range anxiety, range anxiety, range anxiety, range anxiety,
Speaker 4: power and range anxiety. And so you could have like
Speaker 4: a you could have like those.
Speaker 3: Big forward ranges that everybody loves.
Speaker 4: The most popular car in Australia, if that's a hybrid model.
Speaker 4: You don't have to worry about pulling your trailer or
Speaker 4: your caravan when you have to, because you've got the
Speaker 4: petrol there if you need you don't have to worry
Speaker 4: about running out if you're doing a big camping people
Speaker 4: or whatever, like, you know, not paying the powers, they're
Speaker 4: not being able to charge it up because you know,
Speaker 4: you've got the fuel there if you need it. So
Speaker 4: it just provides that safety net. But because you've got
Speaker 4: all these people say no, you can't have any petrol
Speaker 4: em it's all evil, just like no, we can't have
Speaker 4: any gas, it's all evil. Yet suddenly the Victorian government
Speaker 4: is laying for gas and they're absolutely right that more
Speaker 4: people should be using rail and especially goods should be
Speaker 4: using rail, not roads, and that just everybody knows that,
Speaker 4: everyone in the industry knows that that's not even just
Speaker 4: a climate thing. That is just an absolute no brain.
Speaker 4: It's better for residents, it's more efficient, it's cheaper, but.
Speaker 2: Where's the rail percise so you know it's cheap for
Speaker 2: if the lines exist.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 4: And if we turn back over the page to find
Speaker 4: the Victorian government is forcing all these landlords to effectively
Speaker 4: jack up their rents so they can make their houses
Speaker 4: more energy efficient and save the climate. And you've got
Speaker 4: Monash University in Victoria saying, well, we need to make
Speaker 4: sure there are better rail options for people so that
Speaker 4: they're not driving their cars.
Speaker 7: Well, how do you get to the airport in Melbourne
Speaker 7: and not rail? They had an airport railing that was
Speaker 7: there on the cars, but because they so utterly effed
Speaker 7: up their COVID response, they now have no money to
Speaker 7: build that. So they're forcing people to very much do
Speaker 7: as I say, not as I do. They're forcing people
Speaker 7: to bear all these costs and then pass them on
Speaker 7: to the most vulnerable people in the community, i e.
Speaker 7: Renters trying to afford a roof over their head. Well,
Speaker 7: at the same time, they're not doing the very obvious
Speaker 7: thing that they could be doing to achieve that same goal.
Speaker 7: So you know what leads, I'm going to give you
Speaker 7: two for two. It's climate communism.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 4: But in New South Wales, of course, where the beautiful
Speaker 4: and very handsome Chris Men's Rules or Groan South Australia,
Speaker 4: where the incredibly are slightly less handsome but slightly taller
Speaker 4: Peter Melanowski, These labor right enclaves of liberty and justice
Speaker 4: and truth on handsomely for.
Speaker 6: This mine loyalty jo to the UK now, where economists
Speaker 6: have discovered that despite the record breaking in ation that
Speaker 6: the UK has seen over the last ten years, productivity
Speaker 6: has almost at an old time low, it's not actually
Speaker 6: resulting in better living.
Speaker 5: Standards in Britain. Who knew.
Speaker 6: Check out this quote from think tank Resolution Foundation. They say,
Speaker 6: although the UK population is projected to grow by one
Speaker 6: point eight million over the next parliament, the number of
Speaker 6: hours worked isn't expected to rise as quickly as population growth.
Speaker 5: Is offset by a.
Speaker 6: Higher share of employment made up by groups who worked
Speaker 6: shorter hours on average, such as women and young people,
Speaker 6: and an older workforce who are less likely to be
Speaker 6: employed in.
Speaker 5: The first place.
Speaker 6: Check Out this graph of UK productivity since twenty and nineteen.
Speaker 6: You would see that big dip there, and well it's not.
Speaker 5: Looking too good.
Speaker 6: So I found this interesting because this is what we're
Speaker 6: doing here in Australia.
Speaker 5: Obviously, we're like.
Speaker 6: We need immigrants, we need immigrants, we need more people
Speaker 6: politicians alike Christ for our future. This is for and
Speaker 6: yet countries who have done similar don't look like they're
Speaker 6: faring much better.
Speaker 3: Is after Australia.
Speaker 4: Australia has a skilled migration program and we always have
Speaker 4: and we are prioritize workforce need, not how much they
Speaker 4: can pay, not how long they've been waiting. We do
Speaker 4: have it smaller, much much more humanitarian progress.
Speaker 6: Okay, so how how how is ours going to work better?
Speaker 4: Because because we select migrants based on the skills shortages
Speaker 4: we have in the country, soon does the UK not
Speaker 4: as not as much? And before Brexit they of course
Speaker 4: had they shared boards with au so for quite so
Speaker 4: much freely and oh no, but the Tories were still
Speaker 4: in charge. So they're talking about the period that the
Speaker 4: Tories were in charge. And and of course you know,
Speaker 4: one of the things that fuel Brexit was a huge
Speaker 4: influx of Polish immigrants, which upset people in the North
Speaker 4: of England in particular. So I don't think it is
Speaker 4: necessarily comparing apples and apples.
Speaker 3: And again this says.
Speaker 4: That, you know, the UK productivity has been plumbing since
Speaker 4: twenty nineteen, so that's a long period of time.
Speaker 2: Let's be honest, though, if we didn't have the levels
Speaker 2: of migration that we have in this country at the moment,
Speaker 2: we would be in recession. We are already effectively in recession.
Speaker 2: Having high migration simply props up the economy.
Speaker 3: You don't want to eat a recession.
Speaker 2: It's not a good It is not a good thing
Speaker 2: when you okay, so great, we're not We're not actually
Speaker 2: in recession. We're technically in recession. We're not actually in recession.
Speaker 2: But your cost of living keeps going up because we
Speaker 2: don't have the houses for people to live in, we
Speaker 2: don't have the schools for their kids to go to.
Speaker 2: So at what point does the snake stop eating its
Speaker 2: own tail? Bring bring all the Part of the part
Speaker 2: of the reason why the economy cause inflation.
Speaker 4: Part of the reason why we are not building houses
Speaker 4: as quickly as we could and as quickly as we should,
Speaker 4: is because there is a shortfall of around ninety thousand
Speaker 4: laborers and tradees. We need to build the houses to
Speaker 4: reach the targets of the.
Speaker 5: List on the skills that important that.
Speaker 4: Was there there were no there was There were some,
Speaker 4: but there's still a huge number of of like things
Speaker 4: like carpenters and electricians and everything. They are on that list.
Speaker 4: They are prioritized, and we are bringing them in as
Speaker 4: much as we possibly can. Kills every there were some
Speaker 4: skills that apparently they seem to think that they had
Speaker 4: enough of whatever looked pretty weird to me. But where
Speaker 4: there were shortages, clearly we're in. We're in starkers and
Speaker 4: carpenters and I think joiners as well, and and they're
Speaker 4: bringing those in. They are on the priority list, and
Speaker 4: they are indicative that people we're bringing. Why we're bringing
Speaker 4: the yogis and stuff, I do not know, but they
Speaker 4: are on the list. And that is an example of
Speaker 4: why just saying we're going to cut migration and that
Speaker 4: will solve the housing crisis is simply not how the markets.
Speaker 5: Six billion increase.
Speaker 6: They did it for the same reasons that we always
Speaker 6: say we're doing it too, and it simply hasn't had.
Speaker 5: The effect that they need to guess.
Speaker 6: It has propped up their economy since twenty ten quite effectively,
Speaker 6: but in twenty twenty four it ain't cutting it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's right. The economy isn't growing it much.
Speaker 5: I think we're going to fare anything.
Speaker 4: That's because the conservative government is doing a terrible job
Speaker 4: of managing the economy, and when Labor gets elected under
Speaker 4: kyos Dama, everything's going to happen.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm sure you're the one.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that sure it will absolutely work like that. Anyway,
Speaker 2: if we could well, maybe the UK could consider getting
Speaker 2: rid of some of these migrants who have not contributed
Speaker 2: to the country. And certainly we'd like to get through
Speaker 2: the rid of a few people who've tried to get
Speaker 2: into this country illegally. We know a few of them
Speaker 2: have actually made it to land since Labor came to power.
Speaker 2: This is what happens when you look like you're soft
Speaker 2: on boarders. People think you are soft on borders, so
Speaker 2: they attempt to get into the country. We've had I
Speaker 2: think more than forty of them actually made it to
Speaker 2: land since last year. So the opposition has raised the
Speaker 2: idea today that if we encounter the people smugglers who
Speaker 2: are bringing them here instead of sending them home, and
Speaker 2: this is what has happened previously, we've literally, if we've
Speaker 2: had the opportunity detain them and then release them without charge,
Speaker 2: we should keep them in this country and charge them
Speaker 2: with the crime of people smuggling and then put them
Speaker 2: through the court system here. Now, apparently there's some idea
Speaker 2: that maybe when they go back home to Indonesia or
Speaker 2: wherever they've come from, that they might be dealt with
Speaker 2: over there, but it's very clear that that's not what's happening,
Speaker 2: James Patterson said today he's the Opposition Home a fair spokesman.
Speaker 2: It is concerning that, in at least one instance that
Speaker 2: we know of and alleged people, smuggler face no charges
Speaker 2: in either Australia or Indonesia for his crimes. There's no
Speaker 2: deterrent if there are no consequences, in which he is
Speaker 2: quite right now, the biggest problem is actually being able
Speaker 2: to get hold of these people in the first place,
Speaker 2: because I'm sure many of them do absolutely everything to
Speaker 2: avoid either being on the boat at the time, because
Speaker 2: it's quite possible for person ferrying the boat is not
Speaker 2: the one who took the money. But still, if we
Speaker 2: capture someone who is trying to smuggle people into this country,
Speaker 2: why would we let them go. They have illegally tried
Speaker 2: to get people into this country, they should face the
Speaker 2: full force of the law in Australia.
Speaker 6: It would be Firstly, you're quite right, the first problem
Speaker 6: is catching this person. But let's say, for the sake
Speaker 6: of argument, you manage to and you knew for sure
Speaker 6: this was the architect and the person actually doing it
Speaker 6: once you got them into a court, then what I mean,
Speaker 6: I mean, seriously say they're found guilty, what the taxpayer
Speaker 6: gets to lock them up for?
Speaker 5: How long?
Speaker 6: In Australia, Like, what is the punishment? We obviously can't
Speaker 6: find them. They probably don't have all that much money themselves,
Speaker 6: So in a way I can understand why the government's
Speaker 6: justlid well, we'll boot you out to your country. I mean,
Speaker 6: if we had a flogging system here like Singapore or something,
Speaker 6: that would be simple, just give them a hiding and
Speaker 6: send them home and they wouldn't do it again.
Speaker 5: However, we have this what I think.
Speaker 6: Is a ridiculous judicial system, well whatever you want to
Speaker 6: call it, where our only punishment that we meet out
Speaker 6: in this country is jail time, which actually isn't that bad.
Speaker 6: Prisoner's right, through all the rage, I've got a master's
Speaker 6: degree in human rights, You'll actually be treated very well
Speaker 6: in there. In fact, some people want to stay instead
Speaker 6: of leaves. But it doesn't make sense to me that literally,
Speaker 6: you could commit the most heinous crime and you all
Speaker 6: get the same punishment, the only difference being the amount
Speaker 6: of time that you're locked up with three square meals
Speaker 6: a day and a roof over your head, and the
Speaker 6: same would go for these guys they.
Speaker 5: Just end up costing us how much in taxpayer doll
Speaker 5: it way.
Speaker 2: I think the point is though, that if you have
Speaker 2: one bloke who gets locked up for ten years for
Speaker 2: trying to smuggle people into the country, it's sends the
Speaker 2: mesage overseas that you shouldn't do. So I don't think
Speaker 2: we're going to have a situation where we're locking up
Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds of people. The point is to send
Speaker 2: the message in the hopes that by spending whatever you
Speaker 2: spend on keeping the dude in jail, it's less than
Speaker 2: what you have to spend on trying to stop them
Speaker 2: getting to the border in.
Speaker 6: The first place.
Speaker 4: Yeah, look, I'm sure. I mean, James Pattison's a very
Speaker 4: smart bloke and I'm sure he's thought about this and
Speaker 4: he would have more inside knowledge of it. Although I
Speaker 4: do know how Operation Sovereign Borders worked, and that simply
Speaker 4: wouldn't function. There's no way that this could happen if
Speaker 4: Operation Sovereign Borders was working as it used to under
Speaker 4: the Abbic government. But I don't understand how it would work.
Speaker 4: I don't understand. Firstly, presumably the people smuggler would have
Speaker 4: to make landfall. Presumably they would have to make landfall
Speaker 4: on mainland Australia. Then if I was a people smuggler,
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say, Hey, I'm a people smuggler, prosecute me.
Speaker 4: I'd say, oh, I'm just a humble asylum seeker, I'm
Speaker 4: seeking asylum, and then you have to go through all
Speaker 4: that rigmarole. If they were on if they were encountered
Speaker 4: or incepted offshore and then taken to Naru or Christmas
Speaker 4: Island or whatever, then presumably the same things would apply
Speaker 4: to all the other asylum seekers there, and they'd say
Speaker 4: they were in asylum seeker. To disprove that they were
Speaker 4: an sylum seeker, you would then have to I suppose,
Speaker 4: gather evidence, and then you have to be able to
Speaker 4: prosecute them in a quarter.
Speaker 5: It would be very difficult.
Speaker 4: I just don't get how that happens. And again I
Speaker 4: can't really say exactly what the process of operations sovereign
Speaker 4: Borders was, but I think pretty self evidently it was
Speaker 4: very specifically designed and executed so that these boats never
Speaker 4: actually made it to Australian territories or to Australian policy.
Speaker 4: That's right, and so are you then going to go out,
Speaker 4: and of course you have to force the boat to
Speaker 4: turn back, and that's another that's sort of how it was.
Speaker 4: But anyway, you're then going to go out and say,
Speaker 4: all right, we're turning all you back, except you you
Speaker 4: look like you're in charge. You're coming with me.
Speaker 2: No. I think the idea is that in the case
Speaker 2: we talked about, they had a people spandler, he wants detained.
Speaker 2: Why was he not charged?
Speaker 5: I'm not you know of one instance?
Speaker 6: To me, it sounds for all the world like and
Speaker 6: the opposition is regularly doing this. Now we all know
Speaker 6: we've got an election coming up, it's just.
Speaker 5: A matter of months.
Speaker 6: Now it's not called, but it's it's gonna be soon.
Speaker 5: Is next year?
Speaker 6: That coming up with these ideas that really show off
Speaker 6: their difference to obviously the ruling party, but doesn't really
Speaker 6: have I said the same last week about the whole
Speaker 6: Any student who's from another country who's participating in these
Speaker 6: protests on campus will be deported type thing. And I'm like, look,
Speaker 6: I know what you're doing. You're it's it's smart, you're
Speaker 6: appealing to the sentiment of the day, But have you
Speaker 6: thought that through what that would take, what that would
Speaker 6: look like this just sounds like another one of those.
Speaker 2: Quite possibly true. I still think it has merit. And now,
Speaker 2: very quickly before we get to the break, I just
Speaker 2: want to give a little shout out our stylist here
Speaker 2: that Sky News Nadia had few for her father today
Speaker 2: Nick and her mother Adele is a loyal viewer of
Speaker 2: the late debate. We love you love on a hard day. Anyway,
Speaker 2: After the break, we will get into the papers. We'll
Speaker 2: tell you which suburb has the most cancer causing chemicals
Speaker 2: in its tap water. You won't want to misstad don't
Speaker 2: go away. Let's get into the papers, starting with the
Speaker 2: Tasmanian Mercury tomorrow where, oh my god, another bit of
Speaker 2: environmental nonsense sow dare I say environmental communism? Handful of plants,
Speaker 2: whole twenty eight million dollar bottleneck works, rare orchid stalls road,
Speaker 2: a handful of rare orchids, and a recalcuitrant. Federal minister
Speaker 2: are being blamed for sending twenty eight million dollars in
Speaker 2: upgrades to a major Hobart traffic bottleneck. Back to the
Speaker 2: drawing board. Look, may I humbly suggest that we send
Speaker 2: out a gardener, say a council gardener who is already
Speaker 2: employed by the state government by proxy of course, working
Speaker 2: through a council to I don't know, lift these orchids
Speaker 2: out of the ground and replant them somewhere else so
Speaker 2: they can build a road through the middle.
Speaker 3: Of the Kayla.
Speaker 1: They're rare, well, they can be rarey those they can
Speaker 1: just be rare elsewhere, Like surely, surely, surely it's well done.
Speaker 2: Surely, surely you can move an orchid living.
Speaker 4: Remember it's good to know that Hobart has finally gotten
Speaker 4: its green and golden bell frog. You remember the green
Speaker 4: golden bell frog that kept held up the Olympics. Remember,
Speaker 4: we're going to have to cancel the Olympics because they
Speaker 4: found some weird frog that no one had ever heard of.
Speaker 2: They do this, They do this all the time, and
Speaker 2: normally it comes in the form of law fare. It's
Speaker 2: what they kept doing to the the native timber industry
Speaker 2: down in Victoria before Daniel Andrews the Prick decided that
Speaker 2: he'd get rid of the whole lot. They would do
Speaker 2: all these activists to go in there and say, oh,
Speaker 2: there's some sort of rare, possible gliding thing in here.
Speaker 2: Then they would go to the court. The court would
Speaker 2: grant an injunction and they'd make whoever owned all the
Speaker 2: land go off and do a survey of literally every
Speaker 2: single square inch to just to make sure that there
Speaker 2: were none of those particular animals in there.
Speaker 6: They you just go out there the night before the
Speaker 6: inspection with a shotgun, get real busy, and they're like,
Speaker 6: not very recommended that a dead orchard to the runway
Speaker 6: to the advertiser.
Speaker 5: Now tapwater, chemical cancer fear. I love this topic. I
Speaker 5: will bang on about it forever.
Speaker 6: A leafy Eastern suburb has been identified as having the
Speaker 6: country's highest levels of contaminants. We're talking about pea fast people.
Speaker 5: We've linked to cancer.
Speaker 6: In its drinking water with historical data calling into question
Speaker 6: Australia's testing standards.
Speaker 5: We don't need to call.
Speaker 6: Into question the Australia's testing standards. Our government allows pfas
Speaker 6: in your drinking water and everything else. By the way,
Speaker 6: it's in your food, it's in your cooking implements, it's
Speaker 6: in your tooth floss ladies, it's in your period products.
Speaker 6: They literally, they being our government, just don't seem to
Speaker 6: really care. Whoever manufactures these things is allowed to use
Speaker 6: chemicals that they know are completely and utterly toxic.
Speaker 5: They're called forever.
Speaker 6: Chemicals because they don't break down in the environment and
Speaker 6: they don't break down in your body. The US had
Speaker 6: a report from the Endocrine Society beginning of this year
Speaker 6: that showed in twenty eighteen alone, the United States of
Speaker 6: America spent two hundred and fifty billion dollars on healthcare
Speaker 6: costs associated with the fallout the effects the diseases that
Speaker 6: pfas are having on the human body in America. And
Speaker 6: if you think it's any better here, it's not. I
Speaker 6: just think this is criminal because there are people with
Speaker 6: health effects that would never even think to blame p fas.
Speaker 6: And we have governments state and federal, never talk about
Speaker 6: it and will never lift a finger to do it,
Speaker 6: because then industry would be like, how dare you make
Speaker 6: us stop quietly poisoning people under the rug?
Speaker 2: And I did promise to say which suburb it was,
Speaker 2: by the way, it's Glenunga in Adelaide. So you might
Speaker 2: want to go and boil your water a few more
Speaker 2: times before you have a cap of tea tonight. But
Speaker 2: we've talked about this before in that the federal government
Speaker 2: has already admitted the damage caused by pfas because they've
Speaker 2: paid out millions and millions of dollars in compensation to
Speaker 2: people who live next to raft based vifi phone right
Speaker 2: and it's leached out into their soil. And of course
Speaker 2: people were growing veggies and whatever in that soil. Then
Speaker 2: they find out the PFA is in the soil, They're like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, what have I been doing for the
Speaker 2: last forty years? And now they're probably not worth anything
Speaker 2: because it's full of full of these chemicals. Given the
Speaker 2: US has made the decision to restrict so much more
Speaker 2: heavily than we have the levels that are allowed to
Speaker 2: be found in drinking water, why did the federal government
Speaker 2: he had not just wake up the next day and
Speaker 2: do exactly the same thing, Like what have they?
Speaker 4: I honestly do not know, but it's terrifying, and that's
Speaker 4: why I drink nothing but alcohol. I am completely thank
Speaker 4: you very much, jails, everything don't including the host.
Speaker 2: Don't drink water because we know what fish do in
Speaker 2: that stuff. You're much better off drinking wine, which comes interesting.
Speaker 4: In the Middle Ages, it was safer to drink beer
Speaker 4: and wine than it was water. I was just born
Speaker 4: in the wrong age, wasn't I over the odds now?
Speaker 4: And an absolute cracker Jack story on the top of
Speaker 4: the front the top banner. You will not believe this
Speaker 4: union sounds over AFL to force sacking of umpires bosses
Speaker 4: see if MEAU. Victorian leader John Secker has threatened to
Speaker 4: impose a work to rule campaign against the AFL on
Speaker 4: any league related projects, including the proposed Tasmanian Stadium, unless
Speaker 4: the league sacks the former building watchdog Steve mcbernie from
Speaker 4: the role of head of umpiring. I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: agree with every decision either, but there seems to be
Speaker 4: a slight overreaction. I love to be holding the ball.
Speaker 2: John, Well, look, let's if it has something to do
Speaker 2: with them, you know, getting rid of umpires who make
Speaker 2: bad decisions when it comes to the Ala Football Club.
Speaker 2: I may, for the first time in my life give
Speaker 2: my full support to the CFMU. But I love these
Speaker 2: quotes from John Seth Care. He says, you know it'll
Speaker 2: have implications for the AFL, but he goes on to
Speaker 2: saying this is going to cost the AFL a lot
Speaker 2: of efing money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without
Speaker 2: our full cooperation, are going to be an e fing
Speaker 2: misery for them. They will regret the day they ever
Speaker 2: employed him. I mention the cf MEU they've got total
Speaker 2: they've got so much control over all the the work sites,
Speaker 2: They've got so much control over the government in Victoria.
Speaker 2: They want to take control of the councils in Victoria
Speaker 2: because they want to get all the council workers under
Speaker 2: Now they're going to take control of the AFL as well.
Speaker 2: Is what is left for the see for me you
Speaker 2: to conquer?
Speaker 5: Is it going to work?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 6: I mean he hasn't conquered it unless they they actually
Speaker 6: come to this part.
Speaker 3: I don't okay, it's just such a good yarn. I
Speaker 3: don't care work.
Speaker 4: And of course the splash in the eyes clashes to
Speaker 4: mar Panda diplomacy. Police are preparing for potential clashes between
Speaker 4: patriotic Chinese and Anti's China protesters when Premier Lee Quane
Speaker 4: visits Camber next week, after Beijing urged its Australian supporters
Speaker 4: to show up in force to welcome the country's number
Speaker 4: two leader. The call out came as Anthony Albanezy framed
Speaker 4: mister Lee's trip as a boost for Australia's economic prosperity,
Speaker 4: noting China's hunger for the nation's resources, including critical minerals.
Speaker 4: Let's have a listen to what a great man had
Speaker 4: to say.
Speaker 8: I repeat what I said in Shanghai when I was asked,
Speaker 8: my government is pro panda, we like panda bearsh and
Speaker 8: so do I reckon Australians.
Speaker 4: Okay, before everyone just jumps all over it, let's get
Speaker 4: it all out of the way. It's going to be pandemonium.
Speaker 4: Aren't we just pandering to the Chinese in the wake
Speaker 4: of the panda emic. Well, personally, I think this is
Speaker 4: just shameless Chinese government proper panda. But the real problem
Speaker 4: with the pandas at Adelaide Zoo is that they are
Speaker 4: just not mating. They're not doing the do wang Wang's
Speaker 4: little wang Wang isn't wang wang. So this is how
Speaker 4: I thought we could solve the problem. Little how to
Speaker 4: video for you.
Speaker 9: Then in luck folks, these two will become very very close,
Speaker 9: if you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: Look, she's presenting. We thought this would take years to happen.
Speaker 1: Think being just asked Simson to marry him, and I
Speaker 1: think she just said yes.
Speaker 4: That's how you do it, folks, the Simpsons. It's been
Speaker 4: our guide to life all along. We just weren't paying attention.
Speaker 2: The Chinese premier can sort that one out when he
Speaker 2: gets to Adelaide Zoo coming up out of the break.
Speaker 2: The two Russian women arrested on suspicion of murder. Why
Speaker 2: you'll tell your name, Joe? Tell us about a curious
Speaker 2: murder casing.
Speaker 4: Russia Every once in a while, Cayleeb, you come across
Speaker 4: the story, that's just well, how can I put this?
Speaker 3: Very Russian?
Speaker 4: Two women twenty nine and thirty seven beat a sixty
Speaker 4: three year old man to death, says the Daily Mail,
Speaker 4: after he refused to have a threesome with them. The
Speaker 4: suspects were drinking with the sixty three year old in
Speaker 4: a church in Stavropol. Yes, in case it wasn't weird enough,
Speaker 4: this happened in a cemetery. The female friends are accused
Speaker 4: of beating the man to death when he refused to
Speaker 4: have sex with him, according to Russian reports. Now I
Speaker 4: don't want to judge, but I'm just saying if that
Speaker 4: man is me, he'd be alive today.
Speaker 2: Well done, Joe. You wouldn't make it to a Netflix series,
Speaker 2: though if it's I think it's faite to say, which
Speaker 2: this has all the makings off. Now, last night we
Speaker 2: promised you we're going to tell you how to end homelessness.
Speaker 2: Over in California, the Governor Davin Newsom, he's found the way.
Speaker 2: In fact, he's so committed to it, he's been doing
Speaker 2: it for sixteen years.
Speaker 9: What we call a ten year plan end chronic holeness
Speaker 9: in San Francisco. How are you going to sall homelessness?
Speaker 3: What are you going to do?
Speaker 5: It's a new mayor and I said, well, what are you.
Speaker 3: Going to do?
Speaker 9: Focused on a housing first model, direct access to housing, shelter,
Speaker 9: soft sleep housing with wrap around and support services solve homelessness.
Speaker 9: Homelessness absolutely can be solved, laid out a detailed homeless
Speaker 9: There's been no intentionality on homelessness in this state for decades.
Speaker 4: It's not been a focus.
Speaker 9: I don't think we can solve homelessness.
Speaker 5: I know we can solve homelessness.
Speaker 9: We will reduce street homelessness quickly and humanly through emergency actions.
Speaker 9: The highest investment the state's ever made is one billion
Speaker 9: dollars on homelessness. We are poised to pass a budget
Speaker 9: in the next few hours. That will provide twelve billion
Speaker 9: dollars of investments that can literally quantify fifty eight thousand
Speaker 9: people that we got off the streets last year, and
Speaker 9: none of you would believe it. This state has not
Speaker 9: made progress in the last two decades as relates to homelessness.
Speaker 5: Not interested in funding failure.
Speaker 9: We're not interested in failing more efficiently when it comes
Speaker 9: to the issue of homelessness and the Christs on the street.
Speaker 2: Jeez, been working hardly.
Speaker 6: She's been working so hard, and yet as of December
Speaker 6: last year, one hundred and eighty thousand people we're experiencing
Speaker 6: homelessness in California his stage, and that was up six
Speaker 6: percent from last count.
Speaker 5: So had guess he's just still solving it.
Speaker 2: I reckon this bloke could replace Joe Biden. If he
Speaker 2: trips over where lies Bo's homelessness will just go on
Speaker 2: for another sixteen years, another sixteen after that. That's he
Speaker 2: from us Tonight up next to Rita Paddock, Joe Gribart