What do they have in common? A tax problem.

In this episode we discuss:

(00:00) 391

(00:44) Intro

(02:28) Cluster Bombs

(06:12) Sex Ed in Big W

(09:59) Commonwealth Games

(11:52) Misfeasance in Public Office

(21:28) Fadden By-Election

(26:56) School Funding

(34:46) Scripture Union and Tax

(37:56) Essential Poll on The Voice

(42:55) Instand Pot

(49:45) Race and Class

Chapters, images & show notes powered by vizzy.fm.

To financially support the Podcast you can make a per-episode donation via Patreon or donate through Paypal

We Livestream every Tuesday night at 7:30pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube, watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.

You can sign up for our newsletter which is basically links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and which may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week.

Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of homo sapiens.

But today we observe a small tribe akin to a group of meka that gather together

atop a small mound to watch question and discuss the current events of their city,

their country, and their world at large.

Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Yes.

And this particular group of Mekas requires a solid internet connection.

Which unfortunately Scott, the Velvet Glove does not have tonight.

Something's happened to his, internet, the nbn.

So he's out of action.

It's just Joe and I.

So there we go.

for episode 391 of this podcast, which is the Iron, Fist and the

tech guy, Joe, how are you, Joe?

I'm good.

That's good.

So yeah, 391.

If you're in the chat room, say hello and already Whatley is in there.

wondering, cause we are two minutes late probably coming on and Whatley was mm-hmm.

Waiting.

Good on you, Whatley.

So, right tonight we're gonna talk about news and politics and sex and religion.

What are we gonna talk about?

a little bit of homework on cluster bombs briefly mentioned.

Commonwealth Games, sex education, you've all wanted to know about the

tort of malfeasance in public office.

school funding Scripture Union.

Our friend Alison had a, was heavily involved in a bit of a

disaster for Scripture Union.

So full marks to Alison, we'll tell that story.

More polls.

There's always polls about something more, polls about the voice and other stuff.

a story about instant pot look, can't get by without talking about class.

It's an important concept.

So if we're gonna be talking about an article that talks about class,

two articles, we'll get to those.

So looking at the bad white working class and how racist or not they

were for this particular family.

So yeah, that's where we're heading on this particular one.

And, and yes, Ross is in the chat room as well.

Good on you, Ross.

So Joe, just before we started, you mentioned you've been watching.

In your spare time, YouTube videos about cluster bombs?

Yeah.

It was a discussion from an Australian analyst called Perran, or Pune, P e

r u N, who was saying, you know, why would you want to use cluster munitions?

and what's the big deal anyway?

And was saying basically, so they're talking about artillery shells.

And an artillery shell has as an example, a radius of around a hundred meters.

But you get a very big explosion in the middle, and the effects as you get

further and further out are less and less.

Mm-hmm.

And the idea with a cluster munition is rather than one big explosion in

the middle, you split it out into 20 or 50 smaller explosions that

are spread across that same space.

Mm-hmm.

and they're saying that figures that have come from both use on artillery ranges,

but also during the Vietnam War, is that effectively it's a 10 to one usefulness.

So for every one round of, cluster munition new fire, you'd need to

use 10 normal artillery rounds to get the same effect in terms

of enemies, vehicles destroyed or enemies killed, soldiers killed.

Mm-hmm.

the downside is obviously that some of the munitions don't explode, and it's the

same with artillery rounds, but obviously you're putting more into the same area.

Mm-hmm.

and that civilians later on are gonna wander around and rather than one

big bomb that you are gonna see and not trip over, yes, there are lots of

smaller bombs, which you could quite easily trip over and set off, and said

effectively it's the same as landmines.

they're, the anti-personnel mines are a similar size explosive.

They're similarly hidden, and posed.

More or less the same danger to civilians.

Mm-hmm.

So his point is that a cluster munitions have already been

used by both sides in this war.

they already had stockpiles, neither side are, signatories to the treaties, banning

them and saying that the countries who have signed up are the ones who don't

rely on artillery, because effectively it's a very useful artillery round.

Right.

Okay.

So, so for a, for an army that has a superior air force and doesn't

expect to rely on artillery, they're quite happy to sign up on it.

They're saying, Hey, oh, you are the guys.

You shouldn't have these cluster bombs.

Let's all agree, no cluster bombs.

Whereas those people who rely heavily on artillery and

Russia was one of the biggest.

Right.

Are going fuck off.

No, they're a really useful round.

Right.

We're not gonna sign up to this agreement.

Okay.

And the Ukrainians, were saying we've gotta clean up the landmines

anyway, so will clean up custom bombs.

So effectively the current front is World War I trench warfare.

The Russians have laid huge minefields.

There's probably not gonna be good records to clean up after the war, so they're

gonna have to demine the whole area.

So whether they're cleaning up Russian mines or whether they're

cleaning up Ukrainian submunitions doesn't make much of a difference.

There you go.

So as long as the utilization is kept to those areas and not used

to bombard civilian areas mm-hmm.

then realistically there's not much of an impact.

And that's why it's not the big, bad monster that it's been made out to be.

Who would've thought that we could simply say cluster bomb bombs?

Not so bad after all.

Oh, it's not a laughing matter, but that's the state of the world we're at.

Mm-hmm.

Good Lord.

Yeah.

And Joe, this one you're telling me as well, I hadn't come across a sex education

book in Woolworths Big W, but Yes.

Oh, big W, right.

Okay.

Yeah.

so, a book aimed at 10 to 16 year olds, introducing with diagrams

and text, various in, things that kids are looking up anyway.

Sex education stuff, sex education stuff, however it covers, you know, how to

have safe oral sex and how to have safe anal sex, and discussions about consent.

And strangely enough, the religious right have got wind of this and are absolutely

disgusted that this is being settled, aimed at young children, grooming them.

because, you know, we, we can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that kids

aren't looking this up on, the internet anyway, with their unrestricted access.

And even if you stop your kid have ac access to a mobile phone, other kids

in the playground have mobile phones, they are all looking it up in the

playground and showing it to around.

Mm-hmm.

And this, yeah, this is what my daughter has told me was

going on in her school, so, yep.

It doesn't matter the school.

and there's very good evidence that kids who are given the words and told that they

have the right to say no, are less likely to accept grooming and abuse from adults.

Yes.

I hadn't heard that statistic.

So that said, less likely to be subject to sexual abuse.

Yeah.

Basically the, the more you pretend that it's dirty and disgusting and

we can't possibly talk about it, The less likely it is for a kid to

speak up about it and feel that they can safely discuss it with an adult.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

So by giving them the words, giving them the tools and saying, this is

what is right and what's wrong, not on a moralistic in terms of sex, but

you know that you have the right to say no, and that, you know, having

unprotected sex is dangerous and all, all those sort of things, you generally

lead to better outcomes for the kids.

Mm-hmm.

And therefore, the question is for these people who are getting up in

arms about it, what's their agenda?

Why do they want the kids to not have the ability to say no?

Mm, yes.

So that's a good counter argument.

And, so far, big W has said to the book, banners get stuffed.

Basically Big W have said, down, effectively it's down to the parents.

They sell all sorts of stuff.

I, I think the best that the nut jobs are going to get is possibly, it in

a sealed wrapper or it put in a place that is harder for kids to reach.

Mm.

Yep.

Yep.

Hey, the problem with the chats come up again.

So do you listen?

well those who are on the, watching the live stream, for some reason the

chat's disappearing from the, screen.

So we'll try and get it up so that your chats appear on the screen cuz that's fun.

But, yeah, dunno what's going on there Joe.

We'll have to investigate with Restream later, so we'll try and

stop and start the chat overlay and see if it comes up at some stage.

It's coming out for me.

Is it?

Yeah.

Is it showing on the screen?

Yep.

Ah, okay.

Alright, let me just bounce it from my end and see if it, yeah.

Did that refresh for you?

No, but if it's coming up on the screen for other people, that will do so.

If it's there, good.

Okay.

Right.

what else we gotta talk about?

So that was, a little bit of, homework and other stuff.

And Joe, it seems to change when I change the window.

When I minimize the window so I can bring my word document up, but,

anyway, maybe it's just all at my end.

So, that's what she said.

Yeah.

Right.

just briefly, Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, well in Victoria, regional

Victoria, dictated, Dan announced not gonna have 'em decide to cancel everyone's

up in arms about, well, I think the general sentiment will probably be

really who needs the commonwealth gains?

Is it worth it?

It's such a second rate event, and if it's gonna cost money, is it really

gonna generate enough benefit to justify.

Expense in these tough times, I think people will probably

be on board with that decision.

So anyway, dictator Dan doing what he thinks and actually, I was gonna say

doing something, but he's actually not doing something, but he is making a

decision, at least I I, I thought it was an excuse to fund sporting infrastructure.

Yeah.

So I think he's decided to still fund some sporting infrastructure

and that would just be cheaper than running a Commonwealth Games.

Yeah.

That seems to be the line he's running.

So we've spoken in the last few weeks about, yeah, Bronwyn agrees.

most people don't care.

So the Mass ma, the mainstream media will make a lot of press about it, but,

yeah, $7 billion is a lot and I think people will probably agree with you.

You mean the Murdoch press won't agree with something that dictated and does?

Yes.

Shocking.

Yeah.

It's almost like if, if the Murdoch press agrees with you on something mm-hmm.

You really have to double check it's, it's a bad idea.

Almost.

Certainly.

That's why I'm, that's why I'm so reticent on this whole voice

thing to get my argument up there.

Cause I think this guy actually agree, but my reasons are different.

My reasons are completely different.

Get to the same result.

But yeah, I'm fully aware of that, dear listener.

Yes, I am on the side of some same side of some crazy, crazy people.

And it does, is, it is disconcerting.

So anyway.

Alright.

bill Shorten was talking about, he's quoted here from Bill Shorten,

but I talking about, robo debt.

What, what's his background?

Bill?

Shorten?

Yeah.

What do you mean?

Bill Shorten is, is he a lawyer?

could be.

it's probably been so long in the union movement.

He probably did law degree and went, worked in a union and I I, I'm just

curious that he knows about this.

That's, yeah.

Well, all of the listeners to this podcast will know about it shortly,

Joe, so it'll mean common knowledge.

But, he says, I don't know why coalition ministers with that sort of very, very

damning analysis by the Royal Commission, why they think when the commissioner

says there's the tort of malfeasance in public office, why they think that people,

victims won't sue them individually.

So she must have mentioned it in her report actually.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I wasn't aware of the tort of malfeasance or misfeasance

in public office, but generally speaking, it's damages for loss

inflicted by public officials guilty of conscious maladministration.

So abuse of power by public officers who either knew they were breaking the

law or recklessly decided not to care that this might be so, and that would

seem to cover some of the players Yeah.

In the robo debt scenario.

And, you know, I keep thinking about what is gonna make

people accountable in future.

And I was thinking, well, public servants will look and they'll,

they'll see what's happened to this Catherine Campbell woman and say, okay,

I don't wanna be in that position.

I've gotta write the email that says we can't do this.

Oh, cover your ass.

Yeah.

Yes.

I have to write the cover your ass email.

Even though I've been instructed not to write, cover your ass emails.

There might well be a Royal Commission in three years time and I need that email.

So that's one thing.

But, yeah, the, the tot of malfeasance in public office, if you, Doing something

purportedly in discharge of your public duty, you cause loss to people, you're

doing it maliciously, or, with disregard to the legality, recklessly then Yeah.

Can be sued.

So Morrison, apparently he's been approved for legal aid for ongoing.

Yeah.

Cuz he hasn't gotten any money of his own.

Yeah.

And I guess they want to give him a fair chance of defending himself if

somebody brings a tort of misfeasance or malfeasance against him.

But, well, I think everyone has the right to legal defense that used to

piss me off about Cardinal Paolo going, how dare these lawyers represent him?

And it's like, no, no, no.

It's give him the best defense he can have.

And then when he's found guilty, we can say he had the best defense possible.

I think that might be, there's no excuses.

Mm-hmm.

I think that might be the theory here with the different players Right.

Is give 'em a good legal defense.

But that will be fascinating, Joe.

If there's a, I mean, there'd be a bunch of sort of ambulance

chasing lawyers out there.

look, I'm surprised that who, who are the usual group of, the class actions.

Yeah.

I don't wanna name 'em, but they're out there.

Yeah, exactly.

So you would think that they would be approaching these people and

saying, Hey, let's give this a crack.

But especially those that have lost relatives.

Yes.

So that would be really interesting if, we start seeing that.

yeah.

I don't know whether you could get manslaughter out of that.

No, I don't think you could.

But seems a good chance of the tour of Ms.

Fe.

Oh, absolutely.

So, yeah.

I.

Broman says in the chat room, as a junior public servant many years back,

I was always told to ensure that there was a cover your ass memo on the file.

No public servant should carry risk for ministers.

I think that Broman as part of that Royal Commission, I think there was talk about

people being pressured not to send or, or do those sorts of things, but yeah,

anyway, that's what you need to do.

so, Ross says, I saw rumors in the media that Morrison was intending

to address Parliament about it soon.

No way would he address Parliament in a meaningful way.

can you see him apologizing for it?

He would just deny blatantly that he'd done anything wrong and or pass the buck.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Morrison has never addressed anything in his life.

He's always scooted around it.

He might talk in Parliament and scoot around the topic and.

And beef up his own position somehow, but he'd listen to him anyway.

noisy.

Andrew says, A young friend of mine had firsthand experience of robo debt.

She'd got her health self handy job by then, so just paid up.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I, I wonder whether, you can sue for getting your money back.

I'm sure they could.

Absolutely.

yeah, so, yeah, I find it weird.

my brother's ex-girlfriend was Catherine Campbell, so every time I

see that name pop up, there you go.

Yeah.

Ross says, of course, he'll drop Catherine Campbell in it for sure.

That's what he'll do in his speech is he'll drop her in it and

Bronwyn says, yes, that's right.

Trevor.

The public service is a lot more politicized these days, and people

appease ministers because they are rightly worried about their job security.

Ah, that's the world we are in.

So anyway, if something's gonna change behavior, I reckon this taught of

malfeasance or misfeasance in public office could be one that could do it.

Of course, these players would all expect the government to cover them

if there is a finding against them.

Why?

But governments don't have to.

No.

So wouldn't that be great to see an award against some of these characters

and have to pay for it personally?

Yeah.

There was a by-election, although having said that, mm-hmm.

Yeah.

the civil service is paralyzed by indecision as it is.

Mm-hmm.

Can you, can you imagine the indecision if they had financial liability

for every decision they make?

Well, maybe you just take care to do it legally, maybe, and get advice

and then not shove that advice.

A away in a basket somewhere that nobody can seize it like money.

I suppose it's not that hard to actually conduct yourself properly

and not be sued in that situation.

If you just, you mean like conduct yourself education when they were

told that discriminating against the satanists would be, well,

that's a different kettle of fish.

Yes.

But if you're acting in good faith and without knowledge of the invalidity

of the act, then it's unlikely that it would constitute misfeasance.

The whole point is these people were not acting in good faith.

Yeah.

So it's a pretty high bar.

It's gross negligence or it's Yes.

Deliberate malpractice.

Yes.

Yeah.

So I don't think your average public servant could say,

oh, it's a very risky career.

I've chosen, just do the right thing.

That's obvious.

You will be fine.

I would've thought so.

Mm.

Anyway.

That will be interesting to see how that develops over the next few years.

Love to see that happening.

what else have we got?

Joe?

You can still see the chat?

In the chat?

I can, yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay.

I can see it on our little side screen, but I don't see it in the main screen.

No, no, I see it on the stream window.

Excellent.

Okay.

and Broman says, I think it's just about having processes in place to ensure

that decision making is evidence-based and has a robust basis overall.

That includes getting reliable advice as to legality.

There you go.

I think I've told this story before, but a mate of mine was an accountant

fully qualified working in one of what was then the big four firms.

And he wasn't at partner level, but he was like an associate.

And then he decided to become a lawyer and he did the bar exams and then

worked as an article Clark in, law office, and of course ended up in

the tax section of some law office.

And ended up, they were writing some advice and the partner in

charge was saying one thing.

And my friend Philip was saying, I disagree.

I don't think that's right.

And the partner said, well, you know, I know what I'm doing here.

I'm, this is what I'm saying the advice is.

And Phillip said, okay, but I'm just gonna write a memo in the file

that said my opinion was this, and I told you this was my opinion.

And apparently that was enough that this partner then reconsidered and

the advice was changed saying, right.

That's the sort of thing that can go on if the system's working correctly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Pretty ballsy move.

Like most article Clarks wouldn't have been ballsy enough, but

he had enough experience.

Yeah.

That he would do that.

I, I, I've told colleagues in the past that.

A verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on, and that if you get

a verbal agreement, you send an email afterwards saying, just confirming

in our discussion that you said this.

Exactly.

Yeah, exactly.

There you go.

young people out there cover your ass.

I cover your ass MIMO email.

That's what you need.

Right?

there was a by-election on the Gold Coast because, Stuart Robert

resigned and, so the seat of Fadden and returned an LMP candidate who

received a positive swing of 4.3%.

So you would think, Joe, after all of the robo debt publicity,

what's going on that an electorate.

Will provide a swing in favor of the LMP 4.3%.

It's it's people who want to punish poor people.

Yes.

Because they're doing nicely.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You have to look at the demographics.

This is LMP Heartland on the Gold Coast here.

So, so yeah, positive swing, they retained it.

The other part of this was that there was no Clive Palmer candidate who

had previously had 6% of the vote.

So there was 6% of the previous vote that had to go somewhere.

And guess what?

4.3% went to, the LMP guy.

So is this federal or?

Yeah, this is, yeah, this is the Stuart Roberts eye election because Mr.

Potato had tried to stand for one of the Gold Coast safe seats.

He did.

And they didn't have him.

Yes.

And he came, he, he s slunk back to here and they reelected him.

That's right.

Christ knows why.

Yeah.

Yeah.

so I think that explains the swing is just that there, well there wasn't a,

a Clive Palmer candidate and that 6%, well they, for Clive Palmer weren't

gonna vote labor or greens, were they?

So, so labor really had a minor swing against them.

oh, let me just see.

I can't see it.

My, oh, just the labor vote fell by 0.25 of a percent.

The one that really fell was the greens.

So they fell from 11% to just over 6%.

but according to this article, for right wing retiree heartland, which

is what this seed was, that's not going to worry the greens too much.

I think they would take that as a badge of honor.

Actually, if they were the greens, they would go.

Okay.

In this particular electorate, if we get a swing against us like that, that's

probably a good sign based on, well, Ross, Ross is saying it went to the hemp party.

Ah, okay.

did he swing against greens and went to hemp party?

Okay.

Hmm.

Okay.

There we go.

he also says, dodgy people rely on bullying good people into not speaking up.

It happens everywhere.

Who, who?

Who'd have thought that the geriatrics were potheads?

Yes.

Yes.

They would've thought so.

Anyway, gold Coast is a strange place, dear listener.

It is strange.

I love cooling gata where we are.

I don't consider some of Mexicans.

I don't consider cooling gata the Gold Coast.

It's more, it's a Northern New South Wales.

It's more of a village.

Yes, exactly.

The rest of the Gold Coast is weird.

I've told this story before, but I'll tell it again.

In that, again, when I was in Article Clark, you would, as a lawyer, you would

have undertakings with other lawyers where you would say by letter, if you

send me this bank check for this amount, I undertake that I will send you this

title deed for this property, for example.

And a solicitor's undertaking is considered a very serious promise.

Mm-hmm.

And if you don't comply with it, you can take 'em to the law society and

have all sorts of CREs against somebody.

So a sort of a promise, a solicitor's undertaking using the word undertaking

was considered very serious.

And where does their bond?

Yes.

And I remember my boss at the time who was right, winging Tony, I had some

deal, some things, some transaction, and I said, we're gonna be doing an

un mutual undertaking, blah, blah.

He said, that's fine.

I hang on a minute.

It's not with a Gold Coast law firm, is it?

And I said, no, no, it's not.

He said, that's okay.

Just never accept an undertaking from a Gold Coast law firm because

they're cowboys down there.

Like, it's just a strange place in that regard.

Mm.

Well, I, the Queensland police chief who was found guilty,

ended up down there, didn't he?

Terry Lewis.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

Probably.

Yeah.

The bag man.

Mm.

All that.

Yeah.

Probably.

Was he the bag man?

No, he was just the bag collector.

There was another guy who's the bag man, I can't remember.

Hmm.

For my time.

Yeah.

actually it was a good, good podcast with, Chris Masters, who was the

investigative journalist behind the Four Corners Report, the Moonlight State,

and he was behind a number of different, Inquiries that led to Royal Commissions.

And he was also the guy behind the one with this, SAS soldier.

What's his name?

He's just been found.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

And he's lost the defamation trial and he's appealing.

Okay.

yeah, so he involved in a number of big cases, really good journalist.

Anyway, late night live interview with Chris Masters, old school journalist.

Sadly, not many like him left.

You know that the Moonlight State is still up on the ABC website.

Not surprised.

Should be, yeah.

Should be, should be required watching in, schools.

Yes.

Certainly up here.

Mm yep.

Yep.

school funding.

There was an article in The Guardian, because they had

done some right to information requests about school funding and.

It turns out your listener, it's not good for our state school system.

So compared to private schools, funding to private schools has increased almost

twice as much as funding to public schools in the decade since the Gonski review.

So Gonski did a review and said we should really come up with a figure that it costs

to educate per student, and we should take into account factors that make it

more expensive to educate certain kids.

And so kids from difficult, low socioeconomic backgrounds are

statistically more expensive to educate for a variety of reasons

than kids from upper middle class.

And so the government should be paying more to schools that

educate those sorts of kids.

Than they do to schools that educate, the others.

So, if you can imagine, dear listener, of course, in a public, in a private

school where it's very easy to expel kids and you generally have well behaved

students with parental involvement anyway.

Correct.

because people are figuring if your kid's a real rat bag, I'm not

spending 30 grand to send 'em to this expensive school in the first place.

Yep.

So there's a filtering aspect that takes place.

And then even if they've got the money and put 'em in there and the school

says, this kid's just too hard, you can just take 'em to the local state school.

So the state schools invariably end up with a higher proportion of

kids who are difficult to educate, so they should get more money.

Mm-hmm.

Or doing that.

And Gonski was about, you know, what's it cost to educate a kid?

Let's make sure every school gets frightening depending

on the caliber of kid.

Gonski was not a vote winner because, you know, I, I've paid my taxes.

I should get funding for my kid in, in private school.

Yes.

That is an Australian thing that Yeah.

Did.

Right?

Just like I don't get public transport.

I should get money to spend on my car every year that would otherwise

go into public chat support.

It is the same argument, isn't it?

It is.

The government is subsidizing the, the bus commuter by mm-hmm.

$300 a year or whatever it is.

I should get that $300 that I could spend on my car.

Yep.

It's the same thing anyway.

in this article from The Guardian, they're really looking at the period

from 2012 to 2021 and funding for independent and Catholic schools

rose by 34% and 31% while funding for public schools increased by just 17%.

So not only were we starting off at an unequal position, but

it's just been getting worse.

And,

but who made the promise that the private schools would be

no worse off under Gonski?

Gillard made a promise to pacify them and did that.

And yeah, there's just been a reluctance to lose votes to the

private school, because, because it's 40% of the population.

Yes.

Yeah.

So, look, increasingly though, particularly in this current environment,

must be a lot of people who are second guessing, sending their kids to a private

school, surely, and when things are tough.

So you're probably, your heads out I would think.

The future for private schools is gonna be Bleecker and Bleecker

cuz people just cannot afford it.

I wouldn't have thought.

And culturally why you would send your kid to a private single sex school,

particularly boys and have them mixing with a bunch of upper class twits.

I just, do you really want your boys inculcated in that culture?

Really?

Goodness sake.

Oh yes.

Cuz you know the old boys network.

Yeah.

Total rubbish.

Complete rubbish fury.

I dunno.

I've got a job on the strength of it.

Yeah.

How old are you?

Oh yeah.

And it was when I was 17.

Yeah, back in the day maybe, but, not now.

unless you're a stock broker and how many people get jobs as a stock broker?

So they look at their grades now.

okay.

so that was just an article in there talking about the widening

gap and, you know, private schools and the funding of it.

It's Australia's version of gun control, isn't it?

It's just a crazy system that we have here, and people get so tribal about

their school and they loved their school and there is something to it

where they'd be really cranky with the government that pulled the funding mm-hmm.

That made it tough on their old school.

Are there, are there that many?

I don't know.

I think it's another one of these public services that shouldn't be outsourced.

Mm.

And that we should be resuming them.

We should be going, what, what's the school worth?

How much money have we given you to upgrade the school facilities?

We'll take that off.

And how much of that land was given to you for free?

And there you go.

Here's some money back.

Or just stop the subsidy and they won't be able to continue as a business.

And they'll actually, well, the bias is a failing business, correct?

Yeah.

But then they'll sue you for investor state protection.

Yeah.

They'll, they'll sell all their, all the private schools will move to Singapore

and then see you under an investor state.

That's about the only thing they could do, Joe.

You're right.

But, but yeah, that's what they, that's what the government should

do, is just pull the funding and say that's what they could do with the

hospitals is simply say, we're not still gonna provide this funding.

We're gonna whack up a big building over here, and we're not gonna provide funding

to you, and you are gonna collapse, and we'll pick up the scraps later on.

It'll never happen.

But that's a theory anyway.

Look.

so, what's this one from Bronwyn?

I've written an interesting article recently written by some

educational researchers about the public versus private issue.

They identified a large number of private schools, which they labeled cruiser

schools cuz they are failing to improve the position of their students based on

nap plan and other data, and therefore offer poor value for money, both parents

of their students and the taxpayer.

yes, David Gillespie has a book on schools.

In fact, there is an interview with David on this, on this very podcast.

Just search for it somehow and you'll, David Gillespie in the

search bar of your podcast app.

And it's all about choosing schools and how there are good private schools

and there are good public schools.

And he says you need to look at the, the results, statistics and, figure it out.

But just because it's private, Doesn't necessarily mean it's a great school.

Right.

and Sim Budgie says, I'm a private school educated Catholic education.

yep.

Okay.

Our friend Alison, is Alison in the chat there anywhere?

I haven't seen her name come up.

I haven't seen, I Hello to Alison and her mother, Bev, who listens with her,

might be in the car at some stage.

So Allison listen with Mother.

Yes.

Five years ago, Allison told the Australian tax office that the Scripture

Union Queensland, who the people who employed chaplains, appeared to be

misusing their school ministry funds deductible gift recipient status

because they were giving people tax deductible receipts for donations.

And the problem was that the.

Tax deductible status was specifically for donations to provide religious

instruction in government schools.

Meanwhile, chaplains, of course, are prohibited under the scheme from

providing religious instruction.

So Scripture Union was offering tax deductible status for the donations,

supposedly cuz the donations were for religious instruction.

Meanwhile, under a scheme in which they were prohibited from

providing religious instruction.

and it turned out that the Morrison government offered a sort of, indemnity,

an in an exemption, sort of just a sort of a government overruling,

if you like to say, give them this special tax deductible status.

Even though they don't really qualify is the reason for it.

Mm-hmm.

And fortunately, one of the few good things that the labor federal government

has done on a very short list when it comes to secularism is they refused

to extend that special arrangement.

And so scripture Union are back to being subject to the laws that

everybody else is subject to.

gifts are no longer tax deductible and scripture Union is crime poor

that they won't be able to offer the same number of chaplains that

they used to Crime and River Joe.

Sure.

I've got a very tiny violin somewhere that I could play great work

again, Alison, somewhere, someday they'll erect a statue for you.

Alison, one of Queensland and Australia's.

Best of secular activists for sure.

So, yeah, there you go.

It's only taken five years.

Alison's in it.

She plays the long game.

There we go.

Fantastic stuff.

and there's a lovely article in The Guardian by Paul Karp explaining all that.

So, so that was great work for Alison.

Great result.

And, another small victory for secularism hasn't been a lot of 'em, but that's one.

We'll take what we can get.

Right.

you've, it wouldn't be a podcast episode, Joe, without a poll about the voice.

No.

Yeah.

Last time we were talking about a news poll.

A news poll was quite, Different to what we'd previously been looking

at, which was essential poll.

A news poll was really giving quite a negative prognosis

for the voice referendum.

Now there is an essential poll out and I think Joe, what's happened

is essential before didn't offer a don't know or unsure option, which

they've decided to put in now.

So overall, according to the essential, it's 47.

Yes.

43 no and 10% unsure.

So I'm pretty sure that's a drop from where they were before.

cuz it was seemed to be a lot close.

It was in the sixties before.

Mm-hmm.

Like so.

So yeah, that's the current essential pole.

I say brackets if unsure.

Which way are you currently leaning towards?

Mm.

well on this graph it's just got 10% unsure.

Yeah.

I dunno.

Yeah, you're right.

I dunno what that means.

anyway, still not looking good for the voice.

in terms of states, they show Queensland as a clear no, but, no clear nos in the

other states, but lots of don't knows.

And unsures, even New South Wales, they have as 45.

Yes.

44, no, with 11% unsure.

So under news poll, new South Wales was a clear yes, but under essential.

Not so clear was that, and males of course, more likely

to say no compared to females.

Young people more likely to say yes.

So news was going shock hora now more women than men, or is it women

were also more likely to say no?

Mm.

Under touting, touting something about women saying No voting.

No.

Mm.

Well, under this essential poll, females 49%.

Yes.

40% No males.

47%.

No.

44%.

Yes.

There we go.

Mm-hmm.

young people are a yes.

Old people are a no.

Sure.

Carra.

Mm.

And Labor and Greens voters are Yes.

Coalition voters are no minor parties and independents.

Big nos.

Yeah.

I suspect we make up the 18%.

which 18% was that Joe Green?

No.

Voters.

Oh, the green.

No.

Voters.

Yes, indeed.

Indeed.

That's us.

and that's, we can say that because Scott's not here and correct.

Scott is just never gonna vote green.

It's interesting that Scott aligns with the greens on this particular,

is she, I know Scott aligns with the greens on nearly everything.

Yes.

He just refuses to, to admit it to himself.

Yes.

They easily The most secular.

Yes.

when it came to the school funding, let me go back to the school funding.

well, I was talking before about, you know, funding for private

schools outweighing funding for the, public schools, the Greens education

spokesperson, penny Alman Payne.

So the gap in funding between private and public schools that

created one of the most unequal and segregated school systems.

In the O E C D quote, it's clear that the implementation

of gonski has been a failure.

By no measure.

Can anyone say a decade later, our school funding model is working.

It's a twisted and perverse system that is widening the gap between

rich and poor kids and lowering average student performance.

You'll never get a labor education spokesperson.

God using language as Franken.

Fearless as that.

Scott has got a vote, rings whether he likes it or not, if it's true to

his ideology, education and health.

It's this, this whole federal, state funding fiasco.

Mm mm Yeah.

It, it either needs to be all federal or it needs to be all state.

Yeah.

Well, in any event, whoever is funding it needs to abide by principles of public

education, secular public education.

Mm-hmm.

So, and the only party talking that way are the greens.

I don't see this current labor, federal education minister doing anything.

Even though he was raised in a public school, he's just,

there's, there's no talk at all.

No, nothing encouraging from them.

So, yeah.

Okay.

this one's from Caitlyn Johnston.

she read a, a thing in the new article about the Instant Pot, a

popular electronic pressure cooker whose parent company recently

filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

There we go.

A pressure cooker manufacturer, Joe filing for bankruptcy.

Why would that be your thought?

First thoughts might be that must be making a dodgy pressure cooker.

no, no.

I, the CVD groups talk about the instant part and it has a dedicated following.

It's kinda like, Oh, what's the expensive, the magic mix that cooks

and does the thermo mix thing?

The thermo mix is very much like a thermo mix, except it's the 10th of the price.

There you go.

Yeah.

Are you a sous V guy?

Are you?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, so you've got the thing with the thermometer, it turns in thing off.

Yes.

On and off.

Okay.

And you are, what are your slow cooking in your sous v?

steaks generally, but also, chicken is incredibly tender.

Mm.

and scrambled eggs are really, really nice.

Okay.

That's why you can get chicken breast that is still moist.

Mm.

If you cook it in a sous V as opposed to how it normally wants to dry out.

Yes.

Mm-hmm.

I don't have one, it's just another gadget I don't have room for, but I

can understand that You have one joke.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, yeah, instant pot.

what doomed the Instant Pot?

How could something that was so beloved sputter.

Is the arc of kitchen goods long, but bends towards obsolescence.

Business schools may someday make a case study of one of Instant

pot's vulnerabilities, namely that it was simply too well made.

Once you slapped down your $90 for the Instant Pot Duo seven

in one, you were set for life.

It didn't break, it didn't wear out, and the company hasn't introduced

major innovations that make you want to level up as a customer.

You were one and done, which might make you a happy customer, but is hell on

profit and growth performance metrics.

making a quality product that lasts a long time instead of quickly going

obsolete or turning into landfill will actually drive you into bankruptcy.

Yeah, it's sad.

so much these days.

You know, when I grew up, you'd repair things with a soldiering Iron.

Mm.

And now it's just not cost effective to crack open the seal.

Mm-hmm.

Because the goods are so cheap and labor is expensive.

A lot of things don't make sense.

Joe, I was in Cole's supermarket the other day.

Mm-hmm.

A packet of like salt vinegar, kettle chips was, Joe, is that 135 grand pack?

it's 165 grand pack.

It would've cost if it wasn't on special.

Mm-hmm.

$6 something.

It was on special.

Okay.

Normal price is $6 something.

I looked at that and was like, there's no way I'm buying that.

I'm just a humble podcaster.

I can't afford it.

Yeah, exactly.

But we also needed a new frying pan.

Mm-hmm.

Three aisle down.

You get this fantastic Teflon coated, large frying pan for $15.

Yeah.

And I'm just going, this just doesn't add up where this measly bag of chips.

Is nearly $6 50 and get an entire frying pan for 15.

It just, it's like when you see milk is like three liters for a bit over $3.

Yeah.

And, and then, you know, 650 grams of water is $3.

Life's not fair, Joe, when it comes to pricing.

We, we've got friends who are a d dairy farmer, and you remember

they were doing the whole mm-hmm.

Liter for a dollar.

They were staying effectively.

It was bleeding the farmers down in, Eastern Victoria.

Mm-hmm.

They were really suffering under that because they weren't, they

were just not making any money.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

I think they were losing.

And the problem is the, the supermarkets are, are effective monopolies.

Yeah.

Cuz who else are you gonna sell to?

And so when the supermarkets say we're selling your product at

this price, Take it or leave it.

Yep.

And that's why, when they were looking at inflation in Australia, we, a lot of our

industry, there's few players involved.

Mm-hmm.

And, so yeah.

Calls a bit of back again.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, too many oligopolies.

But anyway, that's an interesting one.

Instant pot.

if you're making a product that's just, too good, then

it's not a recipe for success.

So, planned obsolescence, take it, you know, about, just trying to remember

the name of it, the light bulb cartel.

And it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

This, this is, an interesting story.

Yeah.

Back in the 1920s or thirties, a group of light bulb manufacturers,

the, the lifespans of light bulbs had been increasing and increasing.

Mm-hmm.

and they decided that actually this was not good for profits.

And so they'd got together and made an agreement that none of them were

going to create a light bulb that lasted more than a thousand hours.

And in fact, if they did, they had to pay a fine to the cartel

for every additional hour.

Obviously this was in secret cuz this purely breached, anti, I don't know,

trading law at the time, at the time.

Maybe not, maybe that sort of behavior introduced laws like that.

But certainly there is, there is actual proof of collusion between

manufacturers to set and control the price with planned, planned obsolescence.

Mm.

And in fact, there's an electronics guy who I follow was

talking about l e d light bulbs.

And saying that there are some that are sold, I think in Dubai or one of the uae.

Mm-hmm.

and effectively they run the light bulbs at half the power

that they're sold elsewhere.

Right.

And that gives you a 10 times lifespan.

Okay.

So when he gets his light bulbs, he pulls them apart, changes a bit of the

electronics inside and derates them and runs them at about half power.

And he says they just last forever.

They, they deliberately run them hot.

Oh, okay.

Yep.

So they burn out.

Well, no, it makes them more, cheaper to buy, but of course

they burn out much more quickly.

There you go.

Nothing would surprise me.

Mm.

Let's finish with a little bit of race and class discussion.

Just to finish things off with, this was an article by Shannon Burns in Ian.

It's an old article, but it's all sort of in preparation for the, the massive

Indigenous Voice podcast now anticipated to be eight and a half hours long when

I get to it, but, actually I'm reading an interesting book at the moment.

Race, monogamy and other Lies.

They told you Busting Myths about Human Nature by Augustine Winters.

I might have that one, right?

Is that because I mentioned it to you or you just that one I think anyway?

No, it would've been around monogamy.

I have Oh, okay.

Grabbed various.

That's upside down.

Yeah.

That's doing a mirror image or something, isn't it?

Yeah.

Right.

So, anyway, it's interesting because it's talking about culture and

what is culture and how race is.

A myth, but culture isn't.

And culture is real for people in it.

But you know, human behavior is a combination of genetics and culture,

but it's not just genetics plus culture.

There's a real intertwining and intermixing and interrelationship

that's quite complicated.

And I think it goes a long way to trying to think about indigenous issues,

is trying to think about culture.

It is, after all just an ideology like religion.

How dare you say that?

Mm.

So reading that, anyway, just on this article, got a few stories in it.

We'll finish off with this one.

he says, I spent much of my childhood in Northwestern suburb

of Adelaide that was for decades, predominantly white and working class.

in the 1980s, the new influx of migrants and refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and

China settled there in large numbers.

Mansfield Park also boasted an extensive collection of public

housing, which ensured that underemployed Anglo Australians like

my parents, were well represented.

So that paints a good picture, white working class, new

Asian migrants, Adelaide.

it was here that I became ashamed of my family's racist attitudes.

My father and stepmother used racist language privately, but got along

well with our neighbors, all of whom were Vietnamese or Chinese.

They referred to these as the good ones, while unknown ones were not to be trusted.

Slopes and nips were not taboo words in our household.

Yet my parents would've denied that they were racist for using them.

To their minds, the language you employed did not define you.

I suspect the shame I felt about my parents' racism

spraying mostly from experience.

The bulk of my friends were Vietnamese and Chinese, and their family

seemed more admirable than mine.

My attitude was therefore a product of intimacy and experience rather than

abstract notions of morality or equality.

I had an opportunity as a child that my parents who had grown up poor

among working class whites never had.

I also had the chance to see myself through migrant eyes, and what I saw

was often confronting poor whites were scorned by more than a few of

the Chinese and Vietnamese migrants.

I came to know, especially the hardworking self-sacrificing parents

who were deeply invested in their children's education and upward mobility.

They made it clear that I was not the kind of friend they wanted for their sons.

Heard that one before Joe?

Mm-hmm.

Hardworking.

Asians going Don't want you hanging around that lower class white scum.

They're not the people for you.

Oh, I can believe that.

I can believe it as well.

Why not?

At the time, I was ashamed of my parents walked hostilities.

But after migrating into middle class lifestyle, I've become less judgmental.

Here I've discovered that unlike my parents, very little is imposed on me

speaking here as a middle class person.

Now we are never confronted by aggressive people as we go about

our daily business, and we enjoy a prevailing sense of safety and certainty.

For precariously employed unskilled laborers, the prospect

of competing against a recent migrant for a job is inevitable.

While for middle class people, it's only a remote possibility.

In short.

As sort of the middle class that he's now entered into, our empathy

and values are largely untested.

he goes on, I might skip that bit.

as an aspirational teenage lumpen, I learned to embrace a working class ethos.

It was a simple experience, experiential lesson.

Whenever I allowed myself to feel like a victim, I fell into

paralysis and deep poverty.

Whenever I took pride in my capacity to work and endure,

things got slightly better.

One worldview worked the other didn't.

says, at university, I discovered that this ethos didn't apply.

A season of despair, would not send middle, a middle class

teens spiraling into a life.

Of drug aled indigen, they could simply brush themselves

off and enroll again next year.

Strong class enforced safety nets meant that self-pity could be

accommodated and victimhood could even form part of a functional identity.

This is a part I found interesting coming up.

Indeed, the willingness to expose your wounds is another sign of privilege.

Those for whom injury has a use value will display their injuries.

Those for whom woundedness is a survival risk won't.

As a consequence, middle class grievances now drown out lower class pain.

This is why the wounded lower classes come to embrace conservative discourses

that ridicule middle class anguish.

Those who cannot afford to see themselves as disadvantaged are

instinctively repulsed by those who harp on about disadvantage.

it's true enough.

I was in a men's group with, an islander guy.

Mm-hmm.

and we were all talking about our woes.

and he said, I, I just don't come from a, a place where men

could express their feelings.

Right.

Yeah.

I, I'd be torn to shreds if I was to say any of this.

Yes.

And it wasn't that they didn't have any problems.

Mm.

Just that they weren't allowed to show any form of weakness.

Yes.

Or they would be the fact that you could, you could, you could, not celebrate.

Well, some people almost do celebrate what some people do celebrate, but

certainly harp on about your disadvantage is a sign of privilege to some is,

is kind of what the argument is here.

To some extent.

You really.

Really suffering.

And you're underprivileged, you can't talk about it.

you can't show that weakness.

you're actually in a privileged position if you can.

Yeah.

Yeah.

She's struggling.

Vulner vulner abilities.

Interesting.

Mm.

goes on about a section on speech here, which, eh, why not?

We've got a few minutes.

This is be the last thing.

The rules of speech are habitually negotiated in the working class

world in ways that many of my middle class friends would find shocking.

The factories I worked in typically employed at least a couple of rough

speakers who would use cunt in the way that the rest of us used mate.

They were upgraded whenever they swore within the hearing of customers, but

that was the extent of the surveillance.

It was also understood that if they performed their job well

and behaved decently, their rough manners would not count against them.

How is it.

That middle class progressives are unwilling or unable to make similar

adjustments in the working class context In particular, it's what you physically

do, what you make, the observable physical impression that counts.

That is the native language, the one they are fluent in and the one they trust.

And that language often conflicts with working class speech or attitudes.

And he tells his story.

I was working in a recycling center for some years.

One of my workmates was a kid called Ricky.

I regarded him as a low life brute, and he regarded me as a real following sissy.

We were both right.

Every week, an elderly Chinese man brought his bottles and cans to us.

He couldn't speak English, which tends to frustrate racist.

And Ricky was duly irritated.

One morning, the man who had difficulty walking accidentally put his car into

gear while he was half out the door and still tangled in his seatbelt.

His legs went sideways and dragged onto the ground as the car took off,

and he struggled hopelessly to pull them in or to reach the brakes or

to loosen the seatbelt to escape.

The car was only a few feet away from me, but all I managed was an incoherent

shout and an uncertain jog as it picked up speed and headed for the main road.

Ricky dashed past me, jumped into the man's lap, grabbed the steering

wheel quickly, found the brakes.

He then helped the man outta the car, checked he was uninjured and

knelt with his arm around him as he cried and shook on the ground.

When the man was calm enough to stand, Ricky pulled him to his feet, told

him to take care, and then walked away muttering fucking Asian drivers.

It wasn't a perfect performance, but it got the job done.

He says, my parents were the racist.

my parents were racist in private speech, but not in action.

Did that make them secret racist?

Who hid their racism from the wider world?

Or were they non-racist who played with racist speech, or a bit of both?

Who can possibly say?

My worry is that by conflating racist or offensive speech or attitudes with racist

or offensive actions or activism, we push people like my parents and Ricky, over

to the wrong side of the political fence.

Anyway, I thought that was a good story.

Some good ideas to bear in mind.

Yeah, I mean, I, I have always, come from a culture where

you do play with these ideas.

You tell the shocking jokes.

Not because you truly believe the underlying concepts.

Mm-hmm.

But because the underlying concepts are so shocking, that's what makes the joke.

Mm-hmm.

That, that, that, that the idea behind it is so sickening and so depraved that, oh

my god, you can't say that sort of thing.

Mm-hmm.

and I had a boss who came in, he'd come from the sales team and he went,

it's so different working here because somebody walks through the door and you

say, no, fuck off, but you'll help them, whereas the sales team will promise

you the world and deliver nothing.

Yeah.

Good example, Joe.

Yeah.

You think that's Australian?

You, you said your sales manager came from somewhere else and

that was a surprise to him.

Well, thi this was actually in Jersey, but Right.

where was he from?

He was Dutch.

Okay.

But, but he was saying our sales team.

Were very much about the outward image.

Mm-hmm.

but did it didn't follow through, they didn't care.

Yes.

Whereas we actually cared about the customer experience, but, but we put on

this outward uncaring face that if you didn't know, and you took seriously.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The, the best answer is to start with a no and work to a Yes.

Because people feel happy.

Yeah.

Whereas if you go, certainly, what can I help you with?

Oh no, I can't do that.

People feel let down.

Yes.

Yep.

Mm.

Might be something tied in with the Australian thing where people, the

more friendly and matey you are with somebody, the more abusive you'll be.

Mm.

And Americans will find that quite shocking.

I, that these mates are abusing, just putting each other shit on each other.

Yeah.

All the time.

Instead of positive, loving, warm words.

That is an Australian trait as well, I think.

Yeah.

I was on a training course in England with a friend of mine.

Mm.

and he was, I was his customer, but I'd known him for a few years and the boss

of their company came out, the boss's wife came out to teach us some software.

And so I'm sat in class just taking the piss out of him.

He couldn't really respond because I was the customer and therefore,

but she said, stop at you two.

I don't, don't wanna have to send you outside for fighting.

And I just look at her going, what is she smoking?

And she's going, why are you being so mean?

And it's like, cuz he's my friend.

Yes.

This is normal.

Yes.

There you go.

But yeah, she was deep South American and all, all politeness.

Mm-hmm.

And she couldn't understand that friends would talk to each other like that.

Mm-hmm.

So there you go.

Speech, in different cultures.

Yes.

Can mean less than actions and can intentionally be the opposite of

what it's actually meant to be.

On the face of it, there might be some underlying subtext

there that is missed by people.

Well, a a lot of the Asian cultures where the concept of face is true mm-hmm.

Where you are very happily say, yes, yes, yes.

Mm-hmm.

Or I'll think about it, which actually means no, but you can't

possibly say no to someone.

Mm-hmm.

Yes.

I think in indigenous culture that's a thing as well.

Where can possibly, I think some footballers were found when they

were in environments, that they couldn't say no to certain things.

Like, you've gotta be here on Sunday or something for a special training thing.

And like, they didn't know how to say no because culturally that just

wasn't something they could do so well.

That was, something that was raised in the courts.

Mm.

Was the fact that aboriginal people, when a question is put to

them, are taught to be deferential.

Yes.

Mm.

and therefore, you know, did you commit this crime?

Mm-hmm.

they're instead of outright.

No.

Yeah, exactly.

Yes.

Yeah.

There we go.

Culture must be understood.

Mm, yes.

Right.

Well, dear listener, hope you enjoyed the story.

Scott will be with us next week provided his NBN is operating fixed.

Yeah.

And, we can talk more about culture cause I reckon I'd be

finished this book by then.

So I'll get into the weeds.

I bit of culture thanks in the chat room for your comments.

and there've been good ones and good on you, Alison, for a victory

during the week of some sort there.

And we'll talk to you all next week.

Bye for now.