Speaker 1: Welcome to Law the Podcast. I'm Lex Lazarie.
Speaker 2: I'm Greg Barnes.
Speaker 1: So Greg, it's been a busy week in Victoria particularly.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, it's not as bad as the UK
Speaker 2: lex where they've had pretty class seven prime ministers in
Speaker 2: ten years. That's true, it's actually counting up. We've only
Speaker 2: had three in Victoria in the last twelve years, which
Speaker 2: is by the standards these days, pretty good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anyhow, we've got a new premiere and the first
Speaker 1: thing he did in his press conference was to announce
Speaker 1: the Royal Commission into the construction industry, and parallel with
Speaker 1: that the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Speaker 3: In my government, integrity will not be optional, whether in business,
Speaker 3: politics or the union movement. There will be zero tolerance
Speaker 3: for those that misuse their positions. My first action as
Speaker 3: Premier well be to call a Royal Commission into the
Speaker 3: construction sector.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure people think that's a good thing, and
Speaker 1: it probably is. But I don't know about you, but
Speaker 1: my experience of Royal commissions is that they go on
Speaker 1: for a very long time, they cost a very large
Speaker 1: amount of money, and there are times when whatever they
Speaker 1: find doesn't really come to anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you've got experience like you did the Ambulance
Speaker 2: Royal Commission over twenty years ago. Now, yes, that's right,
Speaker 2: and of course you're involved in the costag and Royal Commission,
Speaker 2: perhaps Australia's most famous. Yeah, Royal Commission.
Speaker 1: I think that one was worthwhile. And what that commission
Speaker 1: tells me is that this one, if they do it properly,
Speaker 1: is going to be incredibly complex. Yeah, and we are
Speaker 1: going to be sitting around for years waiting for something
Speaker 1: to happen. And the question is what is it that
Speaker 1: people want to see happen. Yeah, I presume they want
Speaker 1: Daniel Andrews and Cindra Allen and the witness box being vilified.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I mean my problem with royal commissions and
Speaker 2: I backs, etc. Iback's not as bad as IKAK is
Speaker 2: that people think. I've had people say this to me,
Speaker 2: what have they been charged with while they're giving evidence?
Speaker 2: And in relation to IKAK in New South Wales they're guilty. Well,
Speaker 2: there is no concept of guilt. There's a finding I
Speaker 2: think you can make of corrupt conduct in New South Wales.
Speaker 2: But on the other hand, I think this was inevitable.
Speaker 2: I mean, just the nine newspapers the Age, Nick McKenzie.
Speaker 2: It just never stopped, day after day of headlines and
Speaker 2: I thought a royal commission was inevitable and she should
Speaker 2: have done it, you know, just In Arellan should have
Speaker 2: done it months ago.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Probably it's an
Speaker 1: appropriate thing to do in the circumstances, given the allegations.
Speaker 4: The Big Build in Victoria is a massive infrastructure scheme
Speaker 4: largely financed by the public purse. It should be a
Speaker 4: source of massive pride, especially for the Victorian labor Premier,
Speaker 4: just Cinter Allen. Instead some massive scare, one of the
Speaker 4: largest in Australian history, where gangland figures and other crooks
Speaker 4: have ripped off billions of dollars from the taxpayer.
Speaker 1: I think an outcome is a long way off, yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't think people realize how far away an outcome is, yeah,
Speaker 1: or how much difference to the outcome.
Speaker 2: W What is it about building unions? You know the
Speaker 2: cfmu's predecessor, Yeah, it was the BLF, which you had
Speaker 2: something just for those who are much younger than us,
Speaker 2: which is just about everyone. The BLF, the Builders Labors Federation,
Speaker 2: was a union very militant union in around Australia, but
Speaker 2: particularly in Victoria, led by a very colorful character called
Speaker 2: Norm Gallagher, and it used to be it was, you know,
Speaker 2: a rogue union, and the state government in Victoria and
Speaker 2: the federal government went after at a variety of levels.
Speaker 2: But even that, if you look at that, that took years.
Speaker 1: I wound up connected with it because I was assisting
Speaker 1: a man who was designated by the Cane government I
Speaker 1: think as the custodian of the bolf's assets, because the
Speaker 1: government seized the bolif's assets and then we had to
Speaker 1: try to work out what to do with them or
Speaker 1: distribute them to the membership, and we're very unpopular. When
Speaker 1: it came to the union, didn't they turn up on
Speaker 1: your door? They turned up on the doorstep. I looked
Speaker 1: out the window one day and saw Channel ten parked
Speaker 1: out the front, and the police officer it was assisting
Speaker 1: said the union will be here soon, and sure enough
Speaker 1: they turned up, with John Cummins leading the change.
Speaker 2: John Cummons was one of their leaders.
Speaker 1: They came into the building and John Cummins and I
Speaker 1: had a very cordial discussion on national television about what
Speaker 1: we were doing.
Speaker 2: That's gold. It's fantastic now producer Matthew would tell us
Speaker 2: that is gold.
Speaker 1: Is that right, Matte, Yeah, yeah, that's my case phrase. Anyhow,
Speaker 1: it was they were exciting times. But yeah, all those
Speaker 1: royal commissions, anything to do with the BLF or the
Speaker 1: c fm EU, they're going to be complicated, complicated and
Speaker 1: it's going to take a long time. Well we've already
Speaker 1: seen with the c fm EU. There was the appointment
Speaker 1: of Mark Irving, who's a barrister by the Commonwealth Government
Speaker 1: I think in relation to the c f U, and
Speaker 1: he had two heart attacks in the job, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean it really took it.
Speaker 2: Out of him. But the CFMU has been, you know,
Speaker 2: the most high profile union in Australia for a long
Speaker 2: time for not always the right reason. Should we say that?
Speaker 1: So it's going to be watch this space, all right,
Speaker 1: Well let's can I we move on to a pit
Speaker 1: issue of mine?
Speaker 2: Why not? Lex? I mean, it's your show, lex I
Speaker 2: just turn up.
Speaker 1: Everywhere just a humble podcast or employee I think the
Speaker 1: real employees. Does I mean we're making money? I don't
Speaker 1: not yet, I don't think so. I made a speech
Speaker 1: at the cast and Center for Human Rights about it
Speaker 1: was really to do with judges. And I made a
Speaker 1: speech at the Bali the Clan conference about judges sticking
Speaker 1: up for them, but this is not so much sticking
Speaker 1: up for them. So, as you know, I've been a
Speaker 1: long time opponent of the death penalty, and in particular
Speaker 1: the death penalty in Singapore since two thousand and two
Speaker 1: when our client Van Uen was arrested and then executed
Speaker 1: in two thousand and five. And I've been very critical
Speaker 1: of the process, very critical of the way the system
Speaker 1: works in Singapore, the unfairness of it. And of course
Speaker 1: the death penalty in Singapore for drug offending is mandatory
Speaker 1: over fifteen grams in relation to heroin, and that's the
Speaker 1: fault of the government. But the court imposes the sentences,
Speaker 1: and it's a very chilling situation to sit in a
Speaker 1: court and see your client sentenced to death by a
Speaker 1: judge who simply shrugs his shoulders and says, I have
Speaker 1: no choice. The penalty is death and then walks off
Speaker 1: the ba. Since World War Two, Singapore has executed something
Speaker 1: close to six hundred people. Well that's a lot of people.
Speaker 1: So the number of executions in Singapore now as of
Speaker 1: two weeks ago is now fifteen for the year. They
Speaker 1: are the only country, only one of four countries that
Speaker 1: executes people for drug offending. The others are Qaight, China,
Speaker 1: a couple of other countries. So the court, as you
Speaker 1: would expect, it's not unlike our court system has a
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal, has a High Court, has a General
Speaker 1: Division and an appellate division. And there's this other division
Speaker 1: of the Singapore Supreme Court called the International Commercial Court,
Speaker 1: which has a number of international judges. And the judges
Speaker 1: on that court sit and hear commercial cases, either sitting
Speaker 1: as arbitrators or as judges as at first instance. Now
Speaker 1: on that court there are five judges. You are Australian
Speaker 1: Justice Baptist, Justice Bazanco, Justice Giles, Justice Jones and Justice
Speaker 1: mah and on the appellate bench, Justice Also and Justice French.
Speaker 1: So seven Australian judges sitting on the Commercial in the
Speaker 1: Commercial Division of the Singapore Supreme Court. I say their
Speaker 1: presence on that court is, among other things, to bring
Speaker 1: respectability to the court system in Singapore. They're there because
Speaker 1: they're Australian and Singapore Government can boast that these distinguished
Speaker 1: judges are members of the court and bring the associated prestige.
Speaker 1: But they are also there effectively bringing respectability to a
Speaker 1: system that executes people. We are in Australia, we have
Speaker 1: been since the nineteen nineties a part of a regime
Speaker 1: against the death penalty, where signatory to the relevant United
Speaker 1: Nations Protocol, we've declared that we are anti death penalty.
Speaker 1: We've passed legislation to stop any jurisdiction in Australia bringing
Speaker 1: the death penalty back in Australia. So my position is
Speaker 1: these seven Australians should not be sitting on that court
Speaker 1: because they bring a respectability to the court that it
Speaker 1: doesn't deserve giving the given that it executes people.
Speaker 2: I'm with you. I think that you know, sitting on
Speaker 2: courts of countries which and let's face Singapore is a
Speaker 2: foe democracy. It's a democracy in name only. But you've
Speaker 2: also got, for example, in Nahru, a very problematic corrupt
Speaker 2: regime with Australian judges sitting there in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: And Hong Kong is another one in fact penalty situation
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong.
Speaker 2: But no, but some judges have left, I mean some
Speaker 2: as have said we won't be part of this, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and left and some have stayed and some have stayed,
Speaker 2: and I think the ones who've left have done the
Speaker 2: right thing. I mean, that's not to attack the integrity
Speaker 2: of these judges, but what it is to say is
Speaker 2: that I think it's a bad call on their part.
Speaker 1: Well, it makes it with Singapore, it sort of makes
Speaker 1: it look as though there's some kind of seamless relationship
Speaker 1: between our court system and theirs, and there just isn't.
Speaker 2: They just no, they can't be.
Speaker 1: No, you can't have a seamless relationship with the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: that it pays as the death penalty if we're serious
Speaker 1: about our opposition to it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I agree. And the thing about the death penalty,
Speaker 2: of course, is that it is always unjust. Always there
Speaker 2: is no situation in which the death penalty is justified.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, it's not just these countries, but it's
Speaker 2: also in some ways a reflection of Australia's foreign policy,
Speaker 2: and this is moving into other areas that we're prepared
Speaker 2: to cut deals, very cozy deals, military, legal, otherwise, with
Speaker 2: countries that are ra arch exponents of the death penalty.
Speaker 1: Well, the president of the United States, Yeah, is an
Speaker 1: art supporter of I mean we just ignore that.
Speaker 2: We're just pretending that if your skin was brown. Yes,
Speaker 2: you know, I think, you know, it reminds me a bit.
Speaker 2: You know, when apartheid was the rule in South Africa,
Speaker 2: that is, the whites being privileged and treated in a
Speaker 2: particular way as opposed to blacks. No Australian cricketer would
Speaker 2: go over there. Well they did in the eighties, but
Speaker 2: there was a ban, and there was a ban I
Speaker 2: think on a range of exchanges with South Africa. And
Speaker 2: you know, I think in relation to Singapore, the whilst
Speaker 2: these judges are independent, I think the government ought to
Speaker 2: be sending a message that it's not particularly helpful.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. I agree. I think the government
Speaker 1: should persuade senior judges in Australia not to take appointments
Speaker 1: in Singapore.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are plenty of other appointments to take.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a Royal commission coming up as a
Speaker 1: royal committee's always work here.
Speaker 2: No, No, you'll get a headline out of that lexic
Speaker 2: looking for head Well, you're going to get one because
Speaker 2: it's a it's a it's a view that I think,
Speaker 2: good on you for being courageous enough to say it,
Speaker 2: because there'll be a lot of those in the law
Speaker 2: who'd be a bit timid about saying something like that.
Speaker 2: But I'm assuming you're not going to appear in front
Speaker 2: of any of these I.
Speaker 1: Don't think I will, look, I don't, I don't. I
Speaker 1: want to make it clear. I'm not trying to impugne
Speaker 1: there the personally, and I understand why they're there, and
Speaker 1: I mean, these are these are these are very high level,
Speaker 1: very smart, but very intelligent people. I just from the
Speaker 1: life of me, cannot see why they can't see that
Speaker 1: there's a most unpleasant connection to all this and they're
Speaker 1: part of it. You can't. You can't segment it from
Speaker 1: the reality of what happens in Singapore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, I agree.
Speaker 1: We talking about politics.
Speaker 2: One issue I wanted to raise was we had the
Speaker 2: recent ALP conference, which, of course, like all these conferences
Speaker 2: these days, is useless because it's just stage managed, wasn't it.
Speaker 2: Particularly and now on you hear ed Husick trying to
Speaker 2: move a meaningful motion on Israel. But the ALP, traditionally
Speaker 2: around Australia has been opposed to mandatory sentences, so in
Speaker 2: other words, that you have to send a person to jar,
Speaker 2: whether you like it or not.
Speaker 1: For those who are not particularly familiar, a judge can
Speaker 1: find themselves in a case where they're having to sentence
Speaker 1: somebody and there's a piece of legislation that says the
Speaker 1: minimum sentence you can impose is x us. The best
Speaker 1: example is probably the Northern Territory where for murder the
Speaker 1: man Tree sentence is life yep, and the Mantree minimum,
Speaker 1: particularly if you murder a domestic partner, is twenty five years. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So it means, regardless of the circumstances of the case,
Speaker 1: that's the minimum sentence you have to impose. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: a lot of judges would look at that and just say, well,
Speaker 1: it's how can you possibly do that? How can you
Speaker 1: general just like that?
Speaker 2: So it's unjustin the ALP's position, although of course the
Speaker 2: ALP was one of the first in fact act in
Speaker 2: ninety the nineteen nineties, I think there were proposals by
Speaker 2: the ALP in Western Australia who introduced mandatory sentencing. Having
Speaker 2: said that, it's mainly been conservative governments, but the ALP's
Speaker 2: platform used to say that it was opposed because it
Speaker 2: didn't reduce crime. And also interfered with judicial independence. They've
Speaker 2: now watered that down to essentially say, well, we observe
Speaker 2: that it does that. I mean, you could say in
Speaker 2: a way that reflects the reality of labor governments that
Speaker 2: they're no different to the Conservatives now when it comes
Speaker 2: to lord order campaigns, but because they're governed by the
Speaker 2: tabloid press. Yeah, but this is a reflection I think
Speaker 2: of the fact that the only political party now that
Speaker 2: opposes mandatory sentencing explicitly is in terms of the major parties,
Speaker 2: is the Greens. I think they're the only ones left.
Speaker 2: But you know, and there are a lot of good
Speaker 2: statements out about it. Robert Tichner, former labor in the
Speaker 2: Hawk and Keyting governments, now runs the Justice Reform Initiative.
Speaker 2: He came out and spoke against it. I know that
Speaker 2: within the ALP talking to a couple of people that
Speaker 2: I know were very disappointed in the attitude. But whilst
Speaker 2: party platforms don't bind governments, it just means now there's
Speaker 2: less of a pressure point on governments to think twice
Speaker 2: about introducing mandatory sentencing.
Speaker 1: The thing about it, Greg is that, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: very insulting to the judiciary, yeah, because when you think
Speaker 1: about sentencing a judge. When a judge is sentencing someone,
Speaker 1: they're supposed to examine all the circumstances of the case,
Speaker 1: every detail for and against the accused, every aspect of
Speaker 1: the consequences for the victims, the circumstances of the offense.
Speaker 1: The sentencing sets out the whole list of what you
Speaker 1: have to take into account, and then, as they say,
Speaker 1: come to an intuitive synthesis on what the sentence should be.
Speaker 1: A fair and reasonable sentence given the circumstances that prevail
Speaker 1: in that particular case. Sounds it's pretty fair and logical
Speaker 1: to me. Governments are saying, well, that's not good enough.
Speaker 1: If you take everything into account and impose a fair sentence,
Speaker 1: it won't be enough. Therefore, we will impose a manatory
Speaker 1: sense for this all that offense. Yeah, it's just basically
Speaker 1: saying the judges, we don't trust sentencing.
Speaker 2: It's a serious incursion into an erosion of the separation
Speaker 2: of powers. It is, and you know.
Speaker 1: We now just accept it, We must accept it.
Speaker 2: No. No, But people in the community say, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you know, judges are too soft. I think I might
Speaker 2: have mentioned in a previous podcast, but I'll mention it
Speaker 2: again because it's interesting. There's a some academic work done
Speaker 2: by Kate Warner who was an academic from Tasmania and
Speaker 2: became governor of Tasmania, and she interviewed jurors who sat
Speaker 2: on criminal trials and said, what sentence would you have imposed?
Speaker 2: He's what the judge imposed, what do you think? And
Speaker 2: they'd heard all the case and in over fifty percent
Speaker 2: of cases they said, I would have been less. And
Speaker 2: I think you know, those people would have started, they
Speaker 2: would have heard at the prosecution side and said, oh,
Speaker 2: this guy's got to go to jail for a long time.
Speaker 2: But once they hear the whole thing, they change your view.
Speaker 2: So you know, one of the problems I think for
Speaker 2: discussion about sentencing in our community is that well, I
Speaker 2: think irresponsible media, irresponsible politicians. But I think I think
Speaker 2: and it's I've been a bugbear of mine, But you
Speaker 2: and I are media savvy. A lot of lawyers aren't.
Speaker 2: But I think chief justice, as chief judges, chief magistrates
Speaker 2: ought to be getting into the media not to talk
Speaker 2: about cases, but to explain how the system works. They
Speaker 2: do it periodically, but I think in South Australia, John
Speaker 2: Doyle who was Chief Justice twenty years ago, had a
Speaker 2: regular gig on the ABC The Morning Show, and I
Speaker 2: think Wayne Martin in Western Australia used to do it regularly.
Speaker 2: And I think it's really important, Yeah, because the humanizes them.
Speaker 2: They're not just the Chief Justice there, Bill or christ
Speaker 2: or whoever they are. But they can talk about things
Speaker 2: and there's no reason why they can't take questions from
Speaker 2: the audience because they're screened. You know, we can't talk
Speaker 2: about particular cases, but if you've got a question. And courts,
Speaker 2: I think even though they've spent money, as your court
Speaker 2: did on media teams, I don't think it's having any
Speaker 2: impact really when it comes to being judges being available
Speaker 2: to talk chief the leaders of courts. I just think
Speaker 2: it should be a regular thing. They should come on
Speaker 2: our podcast.
Speaker 1: Funny you should say that, because I did leave a
Speaker 1: message with the executive Assistant to the Chief Justice here
Speaker 1: in Victoria yea as he's a good guy, Yeah, asking
Speaker 1: Justice Nile, Chief Justice Nile, asking him to consider coming on.
Speaker 1: I haven't funded it up, but I mean he's an articulate,
Speaker 1: clever man who I think people would be interested to
Speaker 1: hear from.
Speaker 2: And I think that The Doyle experiment went pretty well
Speaker 2: because he didn't talk legal es. You know, he can
Speaker 2: communicate with people, and my memory was that he would,
Speaker 2: for example, they would say, well, this case is finished,
Speaker 2: but here's the sentence. Can you tell us now, he
Speaker 2: would very rightly stick to the script. Well here's you know,
Speaker 2: here's what the judge said, and here's why the judge
Speaker 2: said it, and that's why this is relevant and that's
Speaker 2: not relevant and explain it because you know, people don't read,
Speaker 2: they don't go around to read sentencing remarks. They rely
Speaker 2: effectively on media TikTok. You know, pseudo celebrities like christ
Speaker 2: chardy X footballer's wife. Beck's who the Herald some seems
Speaker 2: to think is a go to per on criminal justice issues.
Speaker 2: Crime in Brighton, crime in crime in Brighton. For those
Speaker 2: who don't live in Brighton, that's the how you're sat
Speaker 2: well in Sydney, it's just Brighton or Sands. I think
Speaker 2: in South Australia is just Brighton, but not in Victoria.
Speaker 2: But let's just you know, we talked about we had
Speaker 2: Abbi Raj Kumar on to talk about, yes, the Northern
Speaker 2: Territory and she was fabulous And for those who haven't listened,
Speaker 2: please listen, because she really exposed what's going on up there.
Speaker 2: But it got me thinking. You know, Western Australia, which
Speaker 2: has a huge Indigenous population, so does Queensland, and it's
Speaker 2: equally depressing in terms of the number of Indigenous people
Speaker 2: in their jail system. The fact that they also have
Speaker 2: mandatory sentencing really harsh laws, which I know having to
Speaker 2: talked to some Western Australian judges, they are pretty uncomfortable with.
Speaker 2: You know, we've got this federal government policy of closing
Speaker 2: the gap. We can talk about health in each everything else,
Speaker 2: but when it comes to criminal justice, you know, we've
Speaker 2: still got deaths in custody, as we talked about with
Speaker 2: Abby and including in w WA, some really horrific cases.
Speaker 2: We've got in Queensland now this adult crime adult time
Speaker 2: laws which are affecting disproportionately Indigenous kids, but even smaller
Speaker 2: things such as you know, during COVID in New South Wales,
Speaker 2: the surveys that were done showed that there was a
Speaker 2: disproportionate number of Aboriginal people who were fine for not
Speaker 2: wearing masks or being out on the street when they
Speaker 2: shouldn't have been. It's just it's not just the territory,
Speaker 2: it's out Australia.
Speaker 1: No, Yes, that's right. I mean we've got a Curry
Speaker 1: Court here in Victoria. Yeah, which I think works pretty well,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. So the Curry Court, I've appeared there.
Speaker 2: It's an amazing experience where you go to court with
Speaker 2: your client as an Aboriginal clients, and the judge comes
Speaker 2: down from the bench and sits at the table, and
Speaker 2: the two Aboriginal elders there and I've seen young Aboriginal kids,
Speaker 2: you know, nine twenty sit there and the elders speak
Speaker 2: with them and it's so powerful, much more powerful than
Speaker 2: what I could say to them or the police could
Speaker 2: say to them, more a judge could say. But I
Speaker 2: noticed that. I think that the Curry Court, which was
Speaker 2: started by Rob Holes who was Attorney General in Victoria,
Speaker 2: I think we're going to get him on one day.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's been fully replicated in other jurisdictions
Speaker 2: around Australia, which is a pity.
Speaker 1: Yes, I must say in defense of the judiciary and
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory. From what I saw while I was
Speaker 1: up there, judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court were
Speaker 1: extremely conscious of the need to try to emulate that
Speaker 1: kind of performance. A lot of them have an understanding
Speaker 1: of Indigenous language. They've made it their business to know
Speaker 1: where people are from and to know that details of
Speaker 1: that part of the country. They can talk to them
Speaker 1: in terms that they can understand. Yeah, and I think,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're going to be a judge in
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory, you really have to be able to
Speaker 1: do that in order to give the Indigenous population some
Speaker 1: cause for hope.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I had a coffee with when I
Speaker 2: was in cal Gurley doing a case few years of
Speaker 2: coffee with a judicial officer. And that judicial officer a
Speaker 2: pretty conservative person that worked for the Western Australian government,
Speaker 2: lived in the western suburbs of Perth, which is sort
Speaker 2: of leafy suburbs, And it was at the time when
Speaker 2: Trump was trying to ban critical race theory, which very
Speaker 2: briefly is a theory that says there's basically systemic racism.
Speaker 2: The system, if you like, including the legal system, is
Speaker 2: inherently racist. And it's big in the US of course
Speaker 2: because of the disproportionate number of African Americans in the
Speaker 2: prison system. Now that judicial officer going out to Bush Courts. So,
Speaker 2: in other words, was going out of Carl Gurley two
Speaker 2: or three hours to sit in a hall or in
Speaker 2: a room and hear cases. And that person said to me,
Speaker 2: we're talking about critical race theory for some reason. And
Speaker 2: that person said to me, I didn't understand what it was,
Speaker 2: but you know, this has been a real eye opener
Speaker 2: for me. I'm a person in my fifties. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's true. It was amazing and they'd only been there
Speaker 2: about six weeks, but they'd seen it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the answer is. I mean, the
Speaker 1: federal government would be appalled to him, he said this
Speaker 1: if they were all interested. But I sort of get
Speaker 1: the feeling that since the Voice referendum far out there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of interest in Indigenous That's.
Speaker 2: What I was hearing when I was up in Darwen
Speaker 2: and we did that podcast. That's what I was hearing
Speaker 2: from people that since the Voice referendum lost, the momentum
Speaker 2: is what a tragedy ship Well, absolutely, trap, mind you
Speaker 2: we can talk about this another day. I ran the
Speaker 2: Republic campaign for Malcolm Turmbulin in ninety nine and this
Speaker 2: was a carbon copy where the no case recruits a
Speaker 2: couple of people, a couple of Indigenous Australians, recruits them
Speaker 2: onto their committee, like they did in the republic campaign,
Speaker 2: where they recruited Republicans who didn't like the particular model.
Speaker 1: The model.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then they say, oh, this is going to
Speaker 2: change the world. Your world's going to be turned upside down.
Speaker 2: It's going to be chaot, it's going to be terrible.
Speaker 2: And they won. And this is exactly I said to journalists.
Speaker 2: I'm just reliving what happened to me in ninety nine
Speaker 2: and that's the tragedy.
Speaker 1: So but it's the federal government that really needs yea,
Speaker 1: they need to drive it and in fact, in fact they
Speaker 1: should intervene.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's Northern Turretories, fild state, but there are
Speaker 2: parts of Western Australia in Queensland which you could equally
Speaker 2: so failed regions, failed states.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, as I said when we did the Northern
Speaker 1: Territory episode, we've we've just got to keep our eye
Speaker 1: on this hand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, keep coming back. Well, it's a national you know,
Speaker 2: people say, are the inter but it's a national Not
Speaker 2: only is it a national issue, it's an international.
Speaker 1: Issue, international human rights.
Speaker 2: And the premiere of Queensland when the UN came out
Speaker 2: and slammed their adult crime adult time laws, said well,
Speaker 2: I menstarable to the people of Queensland. I don't care
Speaker 2: what the United Notions says, you know, intelligent response not anyway, God,
Speaker 2: the chat has always let us plenty more to chat about.
Speaker 1: Well, of course you can like.
Speaker 2: Us now on and download us on YouTube and Spotify,
Speaker 2: and you can leave comments. And we've also got our
Speaker 2: own email address I think, and Matt will correct me
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong. It's law the podcast or one word
Speaker 2: at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: Thank you, we're right there with Carl Stefanovic.
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say so so and keep
Speaker 2: the comments nice, because I mean, you can criticize it,
Speaker 2: but just just keep them nice.
Speaker 1: And don't forget to like and subscribe. This episode was
Speaker 1: produced by Grave Casting Media, edited by Michael Tankard, original
Speaker 1: music by Justin Humphries from Phoenix Sound Studios. This podcast
Speaker 1: is recorded on the lands of the Wrungerie people of
Speaker 1: the Coolan Nation. We pay our respects to their elders, past,
Speaker 1: present and emerging. Thank you for listening. See you next week.