Speaker 1: Welcome to the Late Debase. Good evening and welcome to
Speaker 1: the program. I'm Caleb Bond with Joe Hildebrand and Liz Storer,
Speaker 1: and shout out to our mate James McPherson who's gone
Speaker 1: away on holiday for two weeks. I can't believe he's abandoned,
Speaker 1: but he's having a wonderful her I'm overseas, so I
Speaker 1: can understand that. Yet another reason to hate counsels. A
Speaker 1: woman in Queensland has been find more than eight hundred
Speaker 1: dollars for slipping in her own car while her house
Speaker 1: is being renovated. Can you believe it? When we get
Speaker 1: to the papers, school in Sydney is allowing children to
Speaker 1: opt out of an ANZAC service, and Victoria's getting its
Speaker 1: second police commissioner in just as many months. And we've
Speaker 1: finally found the answer. The federal government has found the
Speaker 1: answer of how to get people to quit smoking. They've
Speaker 1: enacted it today. We'll tell you what it is a
Speaker 1: little bit later on. Now, can you believe this story
Speaker 1: out of the UK that apparently a child as young
Speaker 1: as three four has been expelled from nursery school. So
Speaker 1: that's the equivalent of preschool or kindergarten here in Australia
Speaker 1: four being transphobic or homophobic. I mean, I wish I
Speaker 1: was joking about this, but the Telegraph from the UK
Speaker 1: got their hands on data from the Education Department and
Speaker 1: it found that in the twenty twenty three, sorry twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, twenty three academic year, there was at least
Speaker 1: one child between the ages of three and four who
Speaker 1: was expelled for the offense of quote abuse against sexual
Speaker 1: orientation and gender identity. There were ninety four primary school
Speaker 1: children in all who were either expelled or suspended for
Speaker 1: that crime. Ten of them were in year one and
Speaker 1: three of them were in year two. So we're talking
Speaker 1: about children of three, four, five six years old here
Speaker 1: who have apparently been homophobic or transphobic. The Education Department
Speaker 1: said that all pupils and staff should feel safe and
Speaker 1: protected at school and should never face violence or abuse.
Speaker 1: I mean, what on earth is could a three or
Speaker 1: four year old child be doing in preschool that would
Speaker 1: be deemed homophobic or transphobic? I mean, you know, did
Speaker 1: the kid happen to miss gender a teacher or something,
Speaker 1: because you know, the kid can see better than anyone
Speaker 1: else that missus is actually a mister, and then mister
Speaker 1: was offended by it. Seriously, this is beyond belief.
Speaker 2: If your ideology punishes children for not complying, you know
Speaker 2: you've gone off the deep end. And we don't get
Speaker 2: any examples of what these children have apparently said or
Speaker 2: done in order to be rendered guilty of this also
Speaker 2: terrible crime. You've also got to wonder who the heck you.
Speaker 1: Are owned these schoolrooms.
Speaker 2: Who are the teachers reporting on these children for having
Speaker 2: been transfer phobic or homophobic? Who are these teachers who
Speaker 2: are obviously very much wedded to this ideology to the
Speaker 2: extent that they're happy to take it out on children.
Speaker 2: I loved this tweet by JK. Rowling, who's been a
Speaker 2: massive defender of women's rights and who has consistently railed
Speaker 2: against trans ideology. She says, this is totalitarian insanity. If
Speaker 2: you think small children should be punished for being able
Speaker 2: to recognize sex, you are a dangerous zealot who should
Speaker 2: be nowhere near kids or in any position of authority
Speaker 2: over them. It's that simple, for crying out loud. We've
Speaker 2: got enough terrible examples out of the UK of adults
Speaker 2: being arrested over memes they've put on social media thousands
Speaker 2: of arrests in the year twenty twenty one alone. I'll
Speaker 2: get to that in a bit, But now we're talking
Speaker 2: about kids. How are they expected to know any better?
Speaker 2: And why should they their children?
Speaker 3: It's amazing. I mean talk about kids being you know,
Speaker 3: homophobic or transfer. Kids are everything phobic, I mean everything
Speaker 3: A kid says, he's inappropriate, that's what, that's what, that's
Speaker 3: right exactly, and the idea, I mean, I can't There
Speaker 3: was a thing in my son's preschool and it was unbelievable,
Speaker 3: how ridiculously serious they seriously they took it. But my
Speaker 3: son and I think we have moved past it now
Speaker 3: that he's in grade six. But my son and another
Speaker 3: two kids managed to steal the iPad, the teacher's iPad
Speaker 3: at the childcare center, the preschool or whatever, and went right,
Speaker 3: we've got an iPad, what should we do with it?
Speaker 3: And of course the very first thing that they did
Speaker 3: was take photos of their naked asses, calling it as
Speaker 3: kate and the educators, look, this is terribly so we
Speaker 3: have to make you aware. This is been a potential
Speaker 3: there's been a sexual incidentally, there is absolutely nothing sexual
Speaker 3: about this kid. It's the first thing that any idiotic
Speaker 3: boy will do. You kind of get the feeling that
Speaker 3: with the best of intentions, I'm sure, but that in
Speaker 3: applying these rules for the so called quite un quite
Speaker 3: safety of kids, they're actually inserting all these kind of
Speaker 3: concepts that kids are just not ready for. They just
Speaker 3: do not want to know about. It's potentially dangerous or
Speaker 3: creepy to actually familiarize with this sort of stuff all
Speaker 3: in the name of protecting them. And that's what I've
Speaker 3: just always found it just so weird that that we
Speaker 3: seem to have done this, you know, and that we're
Speaker 3: sort of sexualizing our kids out of the fear that
Speaker 3: our kids are being sexualized.
Speaker 1: And we talked about this a decade ago with the
Speaker 1: safe Schools program that was being rolled out in New
Speaker 1: South Wales. You might remember, what on earth could a
Speaker 1: three or four year old kid be doing knowingly that
Speaker 1: is homophobic or transphobica. It's just not a thing. Kids
Speaker 1: don't think that way. Kids don't have prejudices. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're pretty good bullies, it should be noted, but they
Speaker 1: don't have prejudices like that. And to introduce the idea
Speaker 1: that they would even think that way stupid, but it's
Speaker 1: an attack on free speech, as there is a lot
Speaker 1: of going on in the UK, yet another example of
Speaker 1: just how badly things have devolved over there. You can't
Speaker 1: even we're talking about schools. You can't even criticize your
Speaker 1: child school anymore without having the roses rock up at
Speaker 1: your door, six of them in this case, and take
Speaker 1: you away for questioning because you committed the crime of
Speaker 1: saying something unsavory about a teacher or a principle in
Speaker 1: a WhatsApp group. I can't believe this is actually real,
Speaker 1: but this is what happened to a couple in the UK.
Speaker 1: You can see footage hear of them being taken away
Speaker 1: by the coppers. Maxi Allen and his wife Rosalind Levine
Speaker 1: were the ones who faced the questioning from police. They
Speaker 1: were called in by the school. Now the problem for
Speaker 1: them is the police studies. Is that Maxie Allen is
Speaker 1: a journalist. He works for Times Radio in the UK,
Speaker 1: so of course he was going to tell the public
Speaker 1: about it. He explains here exactly what happened on that
Speaker 1: WhatsApp group.
Speaker 4: Like most parents, we chunted about a few things. One
Speaker 4: thing we talked about on that group was a letter
Speaker 4: from the school commanding all parents not to talk about
Speaker 4: the school on Facebook or social media or WhatsApp groups.
Speaker 4: We thought that was a bit off. My partner Roslin
Speaker 4: made a handful of vaguely spicy comments. She referred to
Speaker 4: one school leader as a control freak. She said the
Speaker 4: chair of governors didn't know much about anything out of
Speaker 4: the blue. On the twelfth of July last year, the
Speaker 4: Chair of Governors wrote to Rosalind and me. She accused
Speaker 4: us of posting disparaging and inflammatory comments on WhatsApp and Facebook.
Speaker 3: Control.
Speaker 1: We better call in the police. How is this even real?
Speaker 1: The police, the Hertfordshire Police, the arrests were necessary to
Speaker 1: fully investigate the allegations, as his routine in these types
Speaker 1: of matters. Following further investigations, officers deemed that no further
Speaker 1: action could be taken to do insufficient evidence. What do
Speaker 1: they mean, Joe routine? How many times do the police
Speaker 1: callen for like a rude WhatsApp?
Speaker 3: Clearly there is just not enough crime in the UK.
Speaker 3: The police just enough today, that's right, But it just
Speaker 3: like we forget about the insufficient evidence, insufficient evidence of
Speaker 3: what what crime could possibly have been committed here. And
Speaker 3: more importantly, who in that WhatsApp group is snitching.
Speaker 1: To the school exactly?
Speaker 3: That's what I want to know, that they've got a mole,
Speaker 3: they got someone in that is going. I mean, anyone
Speaker 3: who's in a WhatsApp group and has as you have kids,
Speaker 3: you will just realize that they just spring up instantaneously.
Speaker 3: People say stuff all the time. There's just it's just honestly,
Speaker 3: the idea that you could be held responsible for something
Speaker 3: said what's that group at all? Let alone that the
Speaker 3: cops would actually show up to your house. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's not like that would ever happen in Australia. It's
Speaker 3: not a Victorian police whatever rock up at your door
Speaker 3: for something you'd said on social media. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: just outrageous, isn't it.
Speaker 2: But a five week investigation. This was a five week investigation,
Speaker 2: no wonder you think there mustn't be any crime in
Speaker 2: the UK and six cops coming round to arrest this
Speaker 2: couple in front of their two crying daughters. They also
Speaker 2: have a three year old who naturally will live with
Speaker 2: this for the rest of her life. She's like, I
Speaker 2: saw my mom and my dad being taken away by
Speaker 2: the cops. I'm standing in that as it is about
Speaker 2: what have my parents done? Now they herd Fordshire Police
Speaker 2: statement reads are Look, this is just routine.
Speaker 1: He says.
Speaker 2: The arrests were necessary to fully investigate the allegations as
Speaker 2: his routine in these type of matters, Like you say,
Speaker 2: this is routine, really ordinary at all for them, And
Speaker 2: this is now what the UK is famous for the
Speaker 2: world over. They arrest women who aren't even visibly praying.
Speaker 2: They are by themselves with their eyes wide open, in
Speaker 2: the vicinity of abortion clinics. You get arrested for that.
Speaker 2: I still remember the case. This was a twenty eighteen case.
Speaker 2: You can look it up. Her name was Chelsea Russell.
Speaker 2: She was a nineteen year old girl. This is how
Speaker 2: bad it's been, and this is how long it's been
Speaker 2: this way in the UK. She lost a friend in
Speaker 2: a car accident and by way of tribute to him,
Speaker 2: she posted his favorite rap song the lyrics of his
Speaker 2: favorite rap song on her Instagram account, and like many
Speaker 2: rap songs, it featured the N word in it. Well,
Speaker 2: she was taken to court, she was found guilty. She
Speaker 2: was given five hundred hours of community service. She was
Speaker 2: fined and for a year she lived under a eight
Speaker 2: pm to eight am curfew. So we're not punishing the
Speaker 2: rapper who wrote the lyrics. We're punishing a girl who
Speaker 2: posted her friend's favorite song for crying out loud. People
Speaker 2: are being arrested for memes. Like I said before, in
Speaker 2: the year twenty twenty one, Russia arrested four hundred people
Speaker 2: for online posts, and we say, oh, well, that's to
Speaker 2: be expect Russia. Yeah, now the day another dollar, it's Russia.
Speaker 2: In the same year, the UK arrested three thousand, three
Speaker 2: hundred people for things that they had posted online. Far more,
Speaker 2: by the way, we're visited by police. We're just talking
Speaker 2: about the arrests here. So it was no surprise to
Speaker 2: anyone that a couple of weeks ago, when Kirs Starmer
Speaker 2: was in the White House, JD Vance did not miss
Speaker 2: a trick raising the dire case of free speech in
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom with the Prime Minister Kis Starma.
Speaker 5: We also know that there have been infringements on free
Speaker 5: speech that actually affect not just the British, of course
Speaker 5: what the British do in their own country is up
Speaker 5: to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension,
Speaker 5: American citizens. So that is something that we'll talk about
Speaker 5: today at launching.
Speaker 6: We've had bretis speech for a very very long time
Speaker 6: in the United Kingdom and it will last for a
Speaker 6: very very long time. Well no, I mean, certainly we
Speaker 6: wouldn't want to reach across US citizens and we don't
Speaker 6: know that's absolutely right. But in relation to pre speech
Speaker 6: in the UK, I'm very proud of our history there.
Speaker 2: Of course, Americans know that as of August last year,
Speaker 2: that is a lie. They can too reach across and
Speaker 2: punish Americans for things that they post. They can indeed
Speaker 2: look that one up as well. So vance knew sitting
Speaker 2: there that the Prime Minister was lying, and so does
Speaker 2: every single American saying in American matters.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk remains under fire, quite literally under fire now
Speaker 2: with Tesla centers burning in Rome and Stockholm. Check out
Speaker 2: this footage and overnote. Fire at a Tesla dealership in
Speaker 2: Rome destroyed seventeen cars, while in Sweden to dealerships and
Speaker 2: cars were also vandalized in this latest string of attacks
Speaker 2: on Tesla's by virtue of Elon Mausk being a supporter
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump. These people will stop at absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: They know that Tesla shares have plummeted over fifty percent
Speaker 2: in just the last three months alone, and that's before
Speaker 2: they got started. These domestic terrorists are certainly earning their
Speaker 2: name of domestic terrorists. And yet if you tune into
Speaker 2: some of their rallies.
Speaker 7: It looks like a dance party.
Speaker 2: Would you believe it? A woman who has written a book,
Speaker 2: just innocently written a book, but made the mistake of
Speaker 2: having one of the characters say something nice about Elon
Speaker 2: Musk has now had her publisher cancel on her simply
Speaker 2: for two lines from a specific character, her main character,
Speaker 2: and now her novel Sparrow and Vine, has just been
Speaker 2: plucked off bookshelves. In fact, didn't even make it to
Speaker 2: the printing press as she'd been promised. Elon Musk's heart
Speaker 2: has of course gone out to this poor woman who
Speaker 2: was about to become a published or Today, he shared
Speaker 2: social media this little clip read out of the Communist
Speaker 2: directive of nineteen forty three, and his tweets said nothing's
Speaker 2: changed in all these years.
Speaker 8: In nineteen forty three, the following directive was issued from
Speaker 8: party headquarters to all communists in the United States, it read.
Speaker 8: When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them after suitable
Speaker 8: build ups, as fascist or Nazi or anti Semitic, and
Speaker 8: use the prestige of anti fascist and tolerance organizations to
Speaker 8: discredit them in the public mind. Constantly associate those who
Speaker 8: oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell.
Speaker 8: The association will, after enough repetition, become fact in the
Speaker 8: public mind.
Speaker 2: True that Tit's as true today as it ever was.
Speaker 2: And Musk is rightly saying, good grief. My cars being burned.
Speaker 2: I've been labeled in nazy. My gars are being burnt
Speaker 2: to the ground. Tesla dealerships are going up in flames
Speaker 2: all over the Western world. Now this woman can't even
Speaker 2: publish her book anymore because there's one line in it
Speaker 2: in which the main character says, quote, I was inspired
Speaker 2: by Elon Musk, I use his five step design process.
Speaker 2: That was literally it. That was it the line.
Speaker 3: That cost her her book in the Communist defense, that
Speaker 3: is terrible dialogue. It's just awful.
Speaker 1: And that a romance book had been pulled by the
Speaker 1: publisher for something to do with Elon Musk. I thought,
Speaker 1: oh my god, someone has written a book where like
Speaker 1: someone falls in love with Elon Musk and it's like
Speaker 1: some weird, just disgusting story. No wonder it's been pulled.
Speaker 1: And then I read it was just her saying I
Speaker 1: was inspired by Elon Musk and the.
Speaker 3: Other actually the scenario you just mentioned earlier, Caleb, that
Speaker 3: was actually real life.
Speaker 1: I'm not just doing here. But the other thing that
Speaker 1: a character, the same character says in this book, and
Speaker 1: for this she's been deemed racist. Top of that, remember
Speaker 1: this is just an author writing for a character. Now
Speaker 1: you know there are racist characters in did you Did
Speaker 1: you know that there is? Buddy Hell, there's even phobic
Speaker 1: characters in books and movies and films. I suppose we're
Speaker 1: going to have to cancel every actor who's played a
Speaker 1: homophobic person or a racist person, you know, a very long,
Speaker 1: a long list. But the offending line was, quote, shouldn't
Speaker 1: there be a crew of people with questionable work visas
Speaker 1: picking these grapes for us? Said that the hate crime,
Speaker 1: it's got to go.
Speaker 3: The nylon should have gone. After I had finished realizing
Speaker 3: that Elon Musk's five point strategy was anything but inspiring,
Speaker 3: but was in fact a quasi fascist neoliberal hate.
Speaker 1: Crime came out of mind. Case.
Speaker 3: I then turned to my friend who is of African
Speaker 3: American descent, even though I don't see color, and said
Speaker 3: black lives matter. Then we went to the movies, but
Speaker 3: I had to have a trigger warning because it was
Speaker 3: gone with the wind. What do they want people to
Speaker 3: talk about? But this is the thing, they're just trites.
Speaker 3: Are just not very good at democracy. And that's the thing.
Speaker 3: They're not very good at stopping Donald Trump from getting elected.
Speaker 3: They're not very good at actually, you know, manipulating the
Speaker 3: market in such a wack was that I actually believed
Speaker 3: that the market should have a right to exist in
Speaker 3: such a way that Tesla actually you know, collapses of
Speaker 3: its own accord ie by it not buying Tesla's, which
Speaker 3: is difficult because they were the ones who went out
Speaker 3: and bought all the Tesla's, when having a Tesla was
Speaker 3: a sign of virtue, signaling what are wealthy overprivileged inner
Speaker 3: city was be to what you were instead of being what,
Speaker 3: you know, an advocate of hate criminal and Trump supporter
Speaker 3: Elon Muskular. And so the problem is that these are
Speaker 3: the sort of people who have actually aid Elon Muster.
Speaker 3: The billionaire is and now that they've bought all the Tesselas,
Speaker 3: they can't unbuy them, and they can't sell to anyone
Speaker 3: else because no one else wants to buy them, and
Speaker 3: so they just decided to blow them all up and
Speaker 3: then do that dance. If you want to talk about
Speaker 3: a hate crime pokey thing with all the all the
Speaker 3: pink haired boomers kind of wiggling around with their sandwich board.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty good demonstration that is the mental state.
Speaker 1: Or you know, seeing your mom there, well you might
Speaker 1: do so. But but this business of them going around
Speaker 1: and fire bombing dealerships and just attacking innocent people's cars,
Speaker 1: it's not just Dan, We're going to end up with
Speaker 1: someone dead here, Like they are eventually going to get
Speaker 1: the wrong car and it'll have someone in it, or
Speaker 1: someone will be in a dealership later or something, and
Speaker 1: they're going to kill someone. This is domestic terrorism.
Speaker 2: Well I think that is their aim, not to kill someone,
Speaker 2: but inevitably there's already been people taken to hospital from
Speaker 2: some of these protests. I watched a video just today
Speaker 2: of a woman who was cut off in traffic. Men
Speaker 2: jumped out of the car because she was driving a
Speaker 2: Tesla and she's got all this recorded because she had
Speaker 2: a dash can and this guy's trying to grab her
Speaker 2: through the window. She was rightly, utterly terrified, and of
Speaker 2: course people watching this take place it just like I
Speaker 2: would be mad to drive my Tesla when the temperature.
Speaker 3: Is this hot.
Speaker 2: We've got people cutting them off in traffic, their cars
Speaker 2: going up in flames, They're leaving them in a car park.
Speaker 2: You're just getting your grossery.
Speaker 3: Does come back to the mines to death with their mobility?
Speaker 2: Is it any wonder? Check out this footage from a
Speaker 2: car lot next to PERF car Sorry PERF Airport, which
Speaker 2: was taking by car industry expert Paul Marrick, pointing out
Speaker 2: just how many Teslas are sitting in the car park
Speaker 2: lot and nobody knows what to do with them because
Speaker 2: nobody wants to buy them. You're just asking at the
Speaker 2: moment to have your car either blown up, vandalized, or
Speaker 2: heaven forbid, have a horrific instance like that poor woman
Speaker 2: who was simply innocently driving along and these mugs in
Speaker 2: this car in front of her cut her off and
Speaker 2: decided to take it out on her personally.
Speaker 3: No who drives a Tesla. Chris Bowen. So the next
Speaker 3: time these.
Speaker 1: Vilence, So the next time.
Speaker 3: Some crazy knuckle dragging, violent eco terrorist trot wants to
Speaker 3: attack someone in a tesla, they could be attacking the
Speaker 3: actual climate change minister who is delivering net zero for
Speaker 3: you lazy, no good, dirty footed hippies.
Speaker 1: And who would have thought that it would take this
Speaker 1: to get left wingers to hate electric vehicles, sir, we
Speaker 1: would have done long time ago. And while we're talking
Speaker 1: about vehicles, Spah thought for Belinda Lee Rose. She lives
Speaker 1: on the Gold Coast. Her house is currently being renovated,
Speaker 1: so while that's going on, she's been sleeping in her vehicle. Now,
Speaker 1: she says her car was parked on her driveway. I
Speaker 1: suspect it probably was on the part of the driveway
Speaker 1: that includes council land, because the council came along and
Speaker 1: gave her a fine more than eight hundred dollars for
Speaker 1: daring to sleep in her own car outside of her
Speaker 1: own house.
Speaker 9: Here, she is explaining, they issued me with this notice
Speaker 9: and is unlawful camping in a public place, which carries
Speaker 9: an eight hundred and six dollar fine.
Speaker 10: Where was I parked? I'm happy you asked on my
Speaker 10: property in my driveway. Let's not pay attention to the
Speaker 10: fact that I pay over three thousand dollars in council
Speaker 10: rate for my property that I purchased, and not to
Speaker 10: the fact that I pay registration cost and road costs
Speaker 10: for my vehicle to be on the road.
Speaker 1: I mean, what a joke. Why can't you sleep in
Speaker 1: your own car? Anyway? I understand you might come into
Speaker 1: a problem if you've got you know, one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty people all lined up sleeping in their cars and
Speaker 1: turning the local park into an encampment. But that's not
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here. We're talking about one woman
Speaker 1: out the front of her house, which is being renovated,
Speaker 1: sleeping in her car, and some council officer comes knocks
Speaker 1: on the window. She's eight hundred and six dollars thanks now,
Speaker 1: thankfully the Gold Coast Mere Tom Tat has now said
Speaker 1: he's looking into it. Since so there's been public attention
Speaker 1: put on it. But you know, you give some people
Speaker 1: an ounce of power, Liz, and they just take it
Speaker 1: so far they become so overly officious. What makes what is.
Speaker 2: The extra sickening about this is one of her neighbors
Speaker 2: had to have dogged a rim so when they came
Speaker 2: and knocked on her door. She obviously wasn't sleeping in
Speaker 2: the car at that time, but some one had to
Speaker 2: have noticed that she was doing this.
Speaker 3: It was the same person in the WhatsApp.
Speaker 2: Chaselve clearly taken upon themselves to call up the council
Speaker 2: and say, this woman, who obviously isn't homeless, she must
Speaker 2: own the place because she's renoing it for crying out loud.
Speaker 2: So they've taken it upon themselves to call up the
Speaker 2: council and dab in this woman who's simply, in a
Speaker 2: very creative way, trying to get around the fact that
Speaker 2: her house is doing an extensive reno at the moment.
Speaker 1: And heck, why.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't you take advantage of your own free accommodation. It's
Speaker 2: like a granny flat, but it's in the front, not
Speaker 2: the back, and mobile.
Speaker 1: Grastead of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the backyard you want for this again? I mean,
Speaker 3: if if she was homeless, it would be even worse.
Speaker 3: And I happen to know quite a lot about this
Speaker 3: because one of the things I did to help raise
Speaker 3: money in whares for the Salvos twenty years ago is
Speaker 3: basically the beginning of my relationship with them was I
Speaker 3: slept in the car. It actually belonged to a Salvo's
Speaker 3: worker and he gave me his beat up old car
Speaker 3: and I slept in it for a night and then
Speaker 3: filmed it to show how more and more people are
Speaker 3: living cars because people homeless. People being forced to live
Speaker 3: in their cars is actually one of the fastest growing,
Speaker 3: highest growing areas of homelessness. Is a massive, massive concern,
Speaker 3: and so we did that and generated heaps of it.
Speaker 3: Was the biggest story in the Daily Telegraph that day.
Speaker 3: But just since then, I've just been hyper aware of
Speaker 3: the number of people doing it. We said all the time,
Speaker 3: there's a whole bunch in the street where I live,
Speaker 3: basically just down the road. And again people are being
Speaker 3: forced to do this in the middle of the cost
Speaker 3: of living crisis, the idea on public or private land, whatever,
Speaker 3: the idea that a council officer or a council will
Speaker 3: be going around finding people for that. I mean, she's
Speaker 3: I suppose one of the lucky ones in that she's
Speaker 3: renovating her home. But imagine handing out fines to someone
Speaker 3: that can't afford to live anywhere but the front seat
Speaker 3: of their car. I mean that is just consfionable. I
Speaker 3: mean anyone who could go through with doing that and
Speaker 3: not actually, so, hang on a minute, should we really
Speaker 3: be doing this? So hopefully Tom Tait gets the bottom
Speaker 3: of it, puts a broom through the joint and make
Speaker 3: sure that this is never happening anywhere again, because certainly
Speaker 3: the local council where we are actually allows these people
Speaker 3: to live as they live, even protects them and sort
Speaker 3: of moves them on because they were in a flood
Speaker 3: zone for a while. So yeah, it's not perfect. In
Speaker 3: a perfect world they'd be living, wouldn't be living their
Speaker 3: cars at all. But for the love of God, counsels
Speaker 3: should be helping these people, not trying to slap even
Speaker 3: more penalties on them.
Speaker 2: What are they want tent cities like Brisbane?
Speaker 1: Like, if you're not making a nuisance out of yourself,
Speaker 1: why can't you sleep in your own car? I slept
Speaker 1: in my car once out of necessity because I was
Speaker 1: caught short on a drive from Adelaide to Sydney. It
Speaker 1: was a fee of five hundred by the way I
Speaker 1: got into the passages.
Speaker 3: It wasn't because he'd knocked over too many Crown lagas well.
Speaker 1: Well, I got to I got to Wogga Wogga, and
Speaker 1: it was nine o'clock at night, and I thought I
Speaker 1: can't the journey through the Sydney side. Stopped and cracked
Speaker 1: open a bottle of red and in the campground in
Speaker 1: Waga Woga, and then climbed into the passenger seat in
Speaker 1: the five hundred and wound it back and slept in it.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you it wasn't terribly comfortable. But this
Speaker 1: is the reality that a lot of people face now
Speaker 1: that they have to live in their cars. And if
Speaker 1: you're not making a nuisance out of yourself, you should
Speaker 1: not be stopped from doing so. I mean, do even
Speaker 1: think My grandparents had a motor home once, and they
Speaker 1: came and pulled up at the front of our place
Speaker 1: in Adelaide and stayed the night in the motor home.
Speaker 1: And by doing so, they apparently are committing some sort
Speaker 1: of an offense because they're camping at a public place
Speaker 1: by sleeping in their vehicle. The idea that that is
Speaker 1: illegal in the first place, I just find ridiculous. My
Speaker 1: granddie's did the same. They absolutely loved it.
Speaker 2: They do these massive road trips and come visit mum
Speaker 2: every time she had a baby. I think Grandma before
Speaker 2: committing to that custom didn't know Mum intended to have
Speaker 2: seven of us, and so they ended up making a
Speaker 2: lot of troops around Australia while they were based up
Speaker 2: in Chi. That's a lot of illegal park indeed, indeed,
Speaker 2: but the rules were different back then as they should be.
Speaker 2: Now to France now where in the latest blow to
Speaker 2: European democracy, Marie Lapan, who's leading the polls to win
Speaker 2: the presidency in France in twenty twenty seven, has been
Speaker 2: sent to prison for four years. The charge I'm glad
Speaker 2: you asked embezzlement of European Parliament funds on a vast scale.
Speaker 2: Do you believe it?
Speaker 3: While we're about to find out.
Speaker 2: If she is on French TV this morning saying she
Speaker 2: will be appealing this and fighting it all the way.
Speaker 1: Zushi Kombatchieva, I'm a fighter.
Speaker 11: I'm not going to let myself be eliminated like that.
Speaker 11: I'm going to pursue every avenue of recourse i can.
Speaker 11: There's a small path. It may be narrow, but it
Speaker 11: does exist. In fact, I'm going to ask in the
Speaker 11: clearest possible way for the appealed decision to be handed down,
Speaker 11: enabling me to consider running in the presidential election. I
Speaker 11: will always stand by the French.
Speaker 2: Go your hardest, Lapen. This is her fourth run for
Speaker 2: the presidency and she's never been doing better in the
Speaker 2: polls than now. Why because one of her biggest stances
Speaker 2: is anti immigration and what does Europe want less of immigration?
Speaker 2: So she's soaring in the polls, her opponents have to
Speaker 2: take her out somehow. And where have we seen this? Well,
Speaker 2: just two weeks ago Romania did the same thing. The
Speaker 2: guy who had won their first round of elections they
Speaker 2: have a very weird system over there, and was looking
Speaker 2: set to win the second round. Well, they just came
Speaker 2: up with some charges against him and he's ruled out
Speaker 2: of running now as well. And didn't we also see
Speaker 2: this with the case of one Donald Trump. Yet he
Speaker 2: was elected president with a treasure trove of criminal cases
Speaker 2: hanging over his head, none of it they could get
Speaker 2: to stick. And I bet my bottom dollar the same
Speaker 2: will happen with Leapen. How is it possible that anyone
Speaker 2: actually falls for this? And the troubling thing about this
Speaker 2: trend of just taking out your political opponents somehow is
Speaker 2: that you're messing with something no democratic system should mess with.
Speaker 2: The Only people who can get rid of an elected
Speaker 2: representative because she is already is the people, not your
Speaker 2: political opponents. You start going through your dirty laundry or
Speaker 2: just making it up and trying to find a way
Speaker 2: to eliminate you and therefore to entrench their own power.
Speaker 2: What this does is once people perceive that democracy is
Speaker 2: just a farce and anyone standing up to the current
Speaker 2: system is being arrested and carted off, you're just inviting
Speaker 2: anarchy in your own country.
Speaker 1: Well, this embezzlement that she's been convicted of is essentially
Speaker 1: that she and others in her party employed staffers in
Speaker 1: the European Parliament and then use those staff as to
Speaker 1: work on domestic politics. Ie, they weren't doing much work
Speaker 1: in the European Parliament. That's what they've called embuslement. We
Speaker 1: had a case exactly like that in Australia. It's called
Speaker 1: Redshoets in Victoria. Daniel Andrews in opposition. He denied any
Speaker 1: knowledge of it, but his opposition, when he was leading
Speaker 1: it and was then elected, used parliamentary staff on company
Speaker 1: time parliamentary time to go out and campaign in Labor Merch.
Speaker 1: They did it. No one in the Labor Party was
Speaker 1: convicted or charged or anything happened there. And you can't
Speaker 1: tell me that this is the first time that anyone
Speaker 1: in the history of Europe has employed someone in the
Speaker 1: European Parliament and then said to them, all, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got a rally on the weekend in France. Can
Speaker 1: you come along and do some work there instead of
Speaker 1: doing work in the European Parliament. This stuff goes on
Speaker 1: all the time in all facets of politics. Every party
Speaker 1: does it in some way, shape or form. But of
Speaker 1: course you've got Marine Lapine, You've got a Marine la
Speaker 1: Pine letting.
Speaker 3: The Red Shirts were in the same jurisdiction though like
Speaker 3: at least they were actually operating issue sorry, rather than
Speaker 3: taking money from say New Zealand.
Speaker 1: Or well, France is in euros. But the threat, of
Speaker 1: course is that Marine Lapin went from thirty four percent
Speaker 1: of the presidential vote in twenty seventeen to forty one
Speaker 1: point four five percent in twenty twenty two. And in
Speaker 1: the legislative election they had last year, and maybe this
Speaker 1: two round thing as well. But in France, in the
Speaker 1: first round their vote was up fourteen and a half percent,
Speaker 1: and in the second round it was up eighty, so
Speaker 1: nineteen point eight percent. So they can see that La
Speaker 1: pen is a serious political threat and may well win
Speaker 1: the presidential election in twenty twenty seven. So they've gone, well,
Speaker 1: we're just going to take the opportunity to try and
Speaker 1: take her.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, the thing is, I mean I have no
Speaker 3: problem obviously with I mean, elected officials get prosecuted for
Speaker 3: crimes all the time, and that's there's provisions in Australia
Speaker 3: where if you get convicted of a crime I think
Speaker 3: that carries more than a one year jail sentence, you're
Speaker 3: automatically disqualified from parts, same as if you're bankrupt, so
Speaker 3: you don't even have to commit a crime. If you're bankrupt,
Speaker 3: you don't allowed to sit in the parliament. But the
Speaker 3: question I always ask is, and the same with Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: I have no idea that I have no doubt that
Speaker 3: he was guilty of the campaign fraud or whatever it
Speaker 3: was he was convicted of. The point is how politically
Speaker 3: stupid it is to do that and to pursue these
Speaker 3: people and to make martyrs of them, because it looks
Speaker 3: like it does look, it makes it look like the
Speaker 3: electorate that firstly, the electorate's never going to believe they're
Speaker 3: guilty anyway, it's believe that they do it. And secondly,
Speaker 3: they're going to believe that they're so powerful and so popular,
Speaker 3: which means makes everyone think that they're on the side
Speaker 3: of right and the side of history. They're going after
Speaker 3: them and the court is the only way to get it.
Speaker 3: So it just strikes me, notwithstanding the legal status of
Speaker 3: any of this, but it just is so politically stupid.
Speaker 3: And you would think after you saw what happened with
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, and you know, that infamous mugshot and that
Speaker 3: infamous prosecution basically gave him a platform to stand on
Speaker 3: where it didn't really have one, like it really put
Speaker 3: lead in his pencils. Is what he's going to fight for.
Speaker 3: This is why I was going to fight the system,
Speaker 3: and they just go and repeat the formula in the US.
Speaker 3: I just wonder in France, I just wonder, like, who's
Speaker 3: running these guys, who's advising them? Certainly not me.
Speaker 1: Seems silly, doesn't it now. I was reading the ABC
Speaker 1: today and you might say, why the hell are you
Speaker 1: doing that? But I do it every now and again
Speaker 1: because I think it pays to keep an eye.
Speaker 3: On what the is a subscription to the Saturday paper.
Speaker 1: That one was I've got to go for the free version.
Speaker 1: Well it's not free, actually I am paying for it,
Speaker 1: so I figure I may as well get some use
Speaker 1: out of it and juno over there. Obviously, I didn't
Speaker 1: have too much to do today or yesterday, and thought, oh,
Speaker 1: what can we do. I'll go and ask an academic
Speaker 1: whether swearing in front of children is bad. Now the
Speaker 1: answer they've come back with is not really according to
Speaker 1: the story, it's is swearing around children isn't bad for them.
Speaker 1: They don't take offense to it, It doesn't cause them any
Speaker 1: psychological harm. But swearing at children, says either commonis can
Speaker 1: be a form of emotional abuse and linked to harmful
Speaker 1: outcomes for some children. She's a clinical psychologist, and I
Speaker 1: would have thought that is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Speaker 1: But it was a good excuse, nevertheless, to show you
Speaker 1: this clip out of the UK of a kid who
Speaker 1: is asked at a panto whether their parents ever swear,
Speaker 1: and well that the kid was rather forthcoming. Have you
Speaker 1: ever used any bad words.
Speaker 3: Like bar or humbug?
Speaker 1: Out of the mouths of babes a bit. It was
Speaker 1: interesting one.
Speaker 3: Of our bosses for having audience interaction.
Speaker 1: I know that's the best part of pandomas I used
Speaker 1: to do pandos years ago back in Adelaide, and there's
Speaker 1: such great fun. They should be everywhere bringing back. But
Speaker 1: one of our bosses was saying earlier, you know, is
Speaker 1: that the footy recently with kids around, and it was
Speaker 1: all these people swearing and carrying on. And some viewers
Speaker 1: may not know, but I swear like a trooper when
Speaker 1: I'm not on air. I'm not as perfect as you
Speaker 1: think I actually am. I'm not their shot.
Speaker 3: He swears it impeccable English, correct, his properdiction and the
Speaker 3: beautiful the high Adelaide access.
Speaker 1: That it works. It just gives it an extra element.
Speaker 1: But but he had to ask people to, you know,
Speaker 1: not swear so much because there are so many kids around.
Speaker 1: It does raise can you swear around kids or not?
Speaker 2: I think it's a matter of opinion. Certainly, in my household,
Speaker 2: swearing we were always taught is a sign of a
Speaker 2: lack of intelligence, because my mum would always be like,
Speaker 2: if peoples properly without using these four letter words, So
Speaker 2: as a kid, I swear I was genuinely like, oh,
Speaker 2: that person stupid.
Speaker 3: I can then conficiently confirm that my house is the
Speaker 3: dumbest house in Australia.
Speaker 1: And mine would probably be second dumbest on that front.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that's quite so true. After the break,
Speaker 1: we'll get into the paper's shocking story about the school
Speaker 1: in Sydney that is allowing children to opt out of
Speaker 1: participating in an and why would you wonder why no
Speaker 1: one wants to sign up for the retreat? That's more,
Speaker 1: after the break, let's get stuck into the papers. Joe,
Speaker 1: you have the front page of your erstwhile employees.
Speaker 3: I do. Indeed, the Telly's got an absolute cracker of
Speaker 3: a splash tomorrow out of respect. See what they did there.
Speaker 3: Calls for state to step in as school lets kids
Speaker 3: opt out of ANZAC day. A decision by a Sydney
Speaker 3: primary school to allow students to opt out of an
Speaker 3: ANZAC service has sparked outrage among parents and veterans, with
Speaker 3: calls for the state government to intervene to ensure quote
Speaker 3: the sacrifices of those who served and died are never forgotten.
Speaker 3: Incredible story and just that headline is just fantastic. Out
Speaker 3: of respect. So we need to you know, we need
Speaker 3: to pay our respects to the ANZACs, out of respect
Speaker 3: to them, but also theols. The school is out of respect.
Speaker 1: They're opting. You're not out of respect, respect of respect.
Speaker 1: It's particulous. So this is the schools in Kellyville. It's
Speaker 1: called would be more patriot I know Sherwood Ridge Primary School.
Speaker 1: But apparently the dealer here is that there's a small
Speaker 1: number of Christian students who belong to a group called
Speaker 1: the Exclusive Brethren, and they don't commemorate war, and so
Speaker 1: they've been allowed to opt out. I don't care what
Speaker 1: your religion is, what your beliefs are. Anzac Day does
Speaker 1: not commemorate war. It is us giving thanks to people
Speaker 1: who put their lives on the line and also lost
Speaker 1: their lives in defense of our country. That's not to
Speaker 1: commemorate or celebrate war. It's to celebrate human life, is
Speaker 1: it not?
Speaker 2: It is? And look, if you have, if you're Exclusive Brethren,
Speaker 2: just keep your kids home that day. Why are you
Speaker 2: involving the school and school? Why are you letting them
Speaker 2: just say? Look, we're not letting anyone opt out, But
Speaker 2: if you want to keep, you get at home that day.
Speaker 2: It's your kid that's entirely up to you. The fact
Speaker 2: that any leeway has been given with regards to this
Speaker 2: is just absolutely disgusting. How about the state government just
Speaker 2: closed the school down altogether? Because if that is how
Speaker 2: happy you are to have kids in your patch that
Speaker 2: do not recognize our fallen soldiers and respect those who's
Speaker 2: the benefits of their sacrifice you enjoy every single flipping
Speaker 2: day of your life and will until the day you die,
Speaker 2: then sod it.
Speaker 3: Why to opt out of education?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: English because colonial a bit white supremacist.
Speaker 1: I wish I'd found a religion that disagreed with maths.
Speaker 3: Maths is racist. Do you know that? Look it up
Speaker 3: and just google art you think I'm joking.
Speaker 2: To the front page of the Mercury Now News, stop
Speaker 2: Search bill debate propose new laws allow police to search
Speaker 2: anyone they suspect might be carrying a knife. Represent a
Speaker 2: quote significant and dangerous increase in police powers end quote,
Speaker 2: The Australian Lawyer's Alliance says, the Police Offenses Amendment knives.
Speaker 2: Another weapons bill was tabled in the House of Assembly
Speaker 2: on Tuesday. The new laws allow police to search people
Speaker 2: in a public place if they reasonably suspect they are
Speaker 2: carrying a knife. It says refusing to be searched is
Speaker 2: grounds for reasonable suspicion, So if you refuse to be searched,
Speaker 2: then you definitely have to be searched. And it also
Speaker 2: raises the penalty for possessing or carrying a knife in
Speaker 2: public to up to two years in jail. This is
Speaker 2: a very interesting one because it inarguably impedes on people's
Speaker 2: well just your right to get around without the police
Speaker 2: coming up to you and being like, well, for whatever reasons,
Speaker 2: we want to search you right now.
Speaker 1: Well, they basically just legislated away the requirement for a
Speaker 1: warrant for any kind of search, because all they need
Speaker 1: to do is say, well, we reasonably suspect you have
Speaker 1: a knife on you, and you'll say, well, I don't
Speaker 1: want to be searched, and then they go, well, that's
Speaker 1: reasonable suspicion, so now we're going out. And then when
Speaker 1: they do it, they may will find not a knife,
Speaker 1: but something else on your person, like drugs or whatever
Speaker 1: it might be, and you might say, well, you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be getting around with drugs or a knife. Et cetera.
Speaker 1: And I agree you shouldn't be getting around with it.
Speaker 1: But surely if you are to be searched by police,
Speaker 1: they ought to have a warrant to do so.
Speaker 3: Well, you kind of think, you know, you could almost
Speaker 3: sort of do an identic picture of the people that
Speaker 3: would just be searching again and again and again and again.
Speaker 3: I can't imagine they'd be searching too many lawyers outside
Speaker 3: the Hobart court House or policy outside the Tasmanian parlut.
Speaker 1: They what if they wanted to look for cocaine.
Speaker 3: Well, that's right exactly. But yeah, I think it is
Speaker 3: a little bit concerning. I mean, I know there was
Speaker 3: laws proposed in New South Wales. I'm not sure where
Speaker 3: they're at. Where there's just a spate of nice knife
Speaker 3: crime and cops are really struggling to keep up with that.
Speaker 3: And there were cases where it's absolutely obvious to all
Speaker 3: and sundry that kids were up to no good and
Speaker 3: we're packing knives and the cops that we just need
Speaker 3: the powers to be able to stop and search, and
Speaker 3: so you kind of think you need to make sure
Speaker 3: the cops have the power to do what they need
Speaker 3: to do when it's just obvious that you know these
Speaker 3: kids are running in gangs where they're all packing knives.
Speaker 3: But again, do you really want I mean, I'm not
Speaker 3: sure what's happening in the bad lands of Hobart. I
Speaker 3: know this this came after a terrible case savving death
Speaker 3: in twenty nineteen. But unless this is an endemic problem
Speaker 3: that no other measure has been able to solve, you
Speaker 3: kind of think It's always said that making laws just
Speaker 3: on the basis of one single example instead of what's
Speaker 3: happening over is often.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it often happens. But and the problem is,
Speaker 1: you know, you give up one freedom, you give up
Speaker 1: one freedom, you give up one freedom, you give up
Speaker 1: one freedom for the greater good, and then one day
Speaker 1: you wake up with no freedom whatsoever. Unfortunately, Cracking Yan
Speaker 1: on the front of the Herald Sun Tomorrow by Anthony
Speaker 1: dowsleaks exclusive He's one of the best in the business
Speaker 1: of the knives.
Speaker 3: There could be a few in this guy's back.
Speaker 1: Top cop gone again. Victoria's acting Chief Commissioner, Rick Nugent
Speaker 1: has sensationally quit the force after just forty one days
Speaker 1: in the top job. The heralds sound can reveal mister
Speaker 1: Newsent informed the Allen government on Tuesday afternoon he wanted
Speaker 1: to depart as soon as possible, citing the stress of
Speaker 1: the job. There's also allegations of apparently inappropriate conduct involving
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest during a previous stint as a
Speaker 1: commissioner that have been coming before.
Speaker 3: The iback, didn't you hear, Caleb was the stress of
Speaker 3: the job and it has nothing to do with the
Speaker 3: allegations of inappropriate conduct. You know the funny it wouldn't
Speaker 3: make the jobs.
Speaker 1: The funny thing here, of course, is that the Allen
Speaker 1: government pushed out the previous commissioner, then they handpicked this
Speaker 1: bloke and then he said, see you later, I'm out
Speaker 1: of here. Things are going really well for the Allen
Speaker 1: government's relationship.
Speaker 2: Well, it beats the question what's really going on here
Speaker 2: because we know with these resignations you never get the
Speaker 2: full story, and obviously the assumption is being created or
Speaker 2: it's got something to do with these other allegations. Who
Speaker 2: knows if that's true. And yet we know the former
Speaker 2: guy was turfed and wasn't too happy about it and
Speaker 2: had his own story. But again you never get told
Speaker 2: the full story, but the idea of it wonders what
Speaker 2: is the state of the force that these guys are
Speaker 2: just falling Like Domino's.
Speaker 3: The idea that a top cop who's previously served in
Speaker 3: the role suddenly after forty one days. I didn't realize
Speaker 3: how stressful it was going to about. I mean, that
Speaker 3: just does not pass the pub test, and it just
Speaker 3: it's just fascical. Victoria is just a foul state. But
Speaker 3: if we could just look at the picture of the
Speaker 3: guy again, if we could pull up the Herald's Sun
Speaker 3: Harold's on front page again, if we've got it great
Speaker 3: to see that Peter Beatty has found life after politics.
Speaker 1: He is actually, if you.
Speaker 3: Squint it, Peter Betty has never been inappropriate.
Speaker 1: And look, if it was Peter Betty, you could fully
Speaker 1: understand why he's not getting along wer.
Speaker 3: Right because he's incredibly sensible, the right side of laid pad.
Speaker 3: I'm getting the advertiser now we have and we basically
Speaker 3: just did this for the song Don's bad Medicine? Who
Speaker 3: shake it up to sack bad medicine? Albow doesn't vow
Speaker 3: to fight Trump attack on subsidized treatment. Yes, it's another
Speaker 3: unity ticket. Darts has agreed with Albo yet again, Anthony
Speaker 3: ALBERDEESI and Peter Darton on a rare Well, it's not
Speaker 3: that rare. This is Claire Armstrong actually, so Claire, whatever
Speaker 3: you say is absolutely correct, your Great recorder, on a
Speaker 3: rare election unity ticket, with both declaring that Australia's medicine
Speaker 3: subsidies and biosecurity protections are not up for debate as
Speaker 3: the threat of Trump administration tariff's loom. So there you go.
Speaker 3: Peter Darton backed in the eight point five billion dollar
Speaker 3: medicare package, backed in the one hundred and fifty power cuts,
Speaker 3: did not back in the tax cuts, but he's backing
Speaker 3: the government on not negotiating over the PBS chief medicines.
Speaker 1: I know the pharmaceutical why election again? Good point. I
Speaker 1: know the pharmaceutical companies in the US don't like it.
Speaker 1: But you know we're just using our collective power to
Speaker 1: force them, strong arm them to sell it to us
Speaker 1: for a cheaper price, don't I know what?
Speaker 3: I'm set that?
Speaker 1: All right, let's go to a break, shall we. After that,
Speaker 1: we found the answer. We're going to stop everyone from smoking.
Speaker 1: The federal government has done it today. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: what it is.
Speaker 3: After this.
Speaker 1: One number you mightn't heard out of the federal budget recently,
Speaker 1: is that the federal government has lost more than fourteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars in the tobacco excise. And that's not because
Speaker 1: everyone's given up smoking. It's because they've all gone to
Speaker 1: the illegal cigarettes, the top chop that you can get
Speaker 1: for twenty bucks or less inconvenience stores on every corner
Speaker 1: in basically every street in this country. People, well, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: they will have done that to which is again illegal
Speaker 1: apparently because you know, why would we have smoking cessation
Speaker 1: aids available? But the federal government has found the silver
Speaker 1: bullet to get people to stop smoking once and for all.
Speaker 1: So you got past the.
Speaker 3: Packet of it. And if they're losing all that money,
Speaker 3: shouldn't they be getting them starting smoking again.
Speaker 1: It'd be contributing more tax. But you got past the
Speaker 1: front of the packet with the gruesome images on it
Speaker 1: from the warnings, and you got through the years of
Speaker 1: being beaten over their head by being treated like a
Speaker 1: social leper because you're a smoker, and all the education
Speaker 1: you got at school, you got all of that, got
Speaker 1: past all that. So they're going to smoke anyway. I know.
Speaker 1: It's bad for my health. Well, they found the way
Speaker 1: to get you to stop. They're going to print the
Speaker 1: warning on the cigarette itself. Yes, they're writing on the
Speaker 1: cigarettes the messages toxic addiction, poisons in every puff, causes
Speaker 1: sixteen cancers, damages your lungs, damages DNA. Who is this harming?
Speaker 1: What is this costing you? I thought that was a
Speaker 1: gambling message and shortens your life. But of course, if
Speaker 1: you're buying the illegal cigarettes, as everyone now is, and
Speaker 1: that's why the federal government's losing money, Liz, you don't
Speaker 1: get subjected to those messages.
Speaker 3: So the legal ones are good for you then present.
Speaker 1: We're not saying they're good for you. But it's just
Speaker 1: so stupid, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Indeed, Well, next month, Kamala Harris is coming to Australia. Yes,
Speaker 2: she's going to be speaking at a real estate conference
Speaker 2: on the Gold Coast. These Australasian real estate conference organizers
Speaker 2: have hailed her as quote a trailblazer end quote. I
Speaker 2: can't wait to see what this woman is going to
Speaker 2: contribute to us, these real estate people in the middle
Speaker 2: of the cost of living crisis, are housing crisis. What
Speaker 2: are her pearls of wisdom? Going to be from this
Speaker 2: arterly failed politician who couldn't even flip a single county
Speaker 2: in the presidential election. Here she is, she's going to
Speaker 2: give us advice.
Speaker 3: Joe, I remember when this was first point out to
Speaker 3: me a couple that I said, this has got to
Speaker 3: be fake. There is no way. This is just beyond satire.
Speaker 3: Like the best gig she can get is a real
Speaker 3: estate convention on the Gold Coast, right, okay, And I'm.
Speaker 1: Not sure whether that proves that the real estate convention
Speaker 1: is paying her way too much money or that they
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of money. And that's the best
Speaker 1: she can get a comment pay for who knows? It
Speaker 1: is extraordinary? Take advice from here. That's it. From us
Speaker 1: to night, up next to the reader, panic