Artwork for podcast The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
Episode 416 - Chinese Spy Pidgeon
5th February 2024 • The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove • The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
00:00:00 01:07:11

Share Episode

Shownotes

Topics:

(00:43) Intro

(05:09) Dutton Wedged

(08:22) Poor Conservative Electorates

(11:33) Median Wage

(21:34) Essential Poll

(28:55) Hecs Vs Mining Tax

(34:11) Boys School Turns CoEd

(39:23) Iran Iraq

(43:56) Chinese Spy Pidgeon

(48:11) Imran Khan

(56:31) Saul Eslake

(01:04:19) UK Version of Robo Debt

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

To financially support the Podcast you can make:

We Livestream every Monday night at 8:00 pm 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 links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week.

We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe

We have a sister podcast called IFVG Evergreen. It is a collection of evergreen content from the weekly podcast.

Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.

Transcripts

Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over time,

Speaker:

evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.

Speaker:

But today, we observe a small tribe, akin to a group of meerkats, that

Speaker:

gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the

Speaker:

current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

It just occurred to me that I don't know the collective

Speaker:

noun for a group of meerkats.

Speaker:

Is it a pack, a tribe, a herd?

Speaker:

Joe, help me out here, because I was just about to declare that, you know,

Speaker:

we've got the full complement here.

Speaker:

Scott the Velvet Glove, who was ill last week.

Speaker:

Apparently it's a mob.

Speaker:

A mob, okay.

Speaker:

We have a full mob of meerkats for you on this podcast, dear listener.

Speaker:

Streaming live to you from Brisbane, 8pm on Mondays.

Speaker:

And, yeah, a podcast where we talk about news and politics, sex and religion.

Speaker:

Like a small mob of meerkats, we're on our little hill, looking out on the

Speaker:

world, trying to figure out what's going on, and trying to explain it to each

Speaker:

other and to you, the dear listener.

Speaker:

I'm Trevor, aka The Iron Fist.

Speaker:

Returning from an illness is Scott the Velvet Glove.

Speaker:

Tell everybody how you are, Scott.

Speaker:

I'm very well thanks, Trevor.

Speaker:

I'm, uh, back over it and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

I was, it nearly knocked me on my arse for two days.

Speaker:

I didn't feel all that good on Sunday night, but I went to bed early and woke

Speaker:

up feeling really shitty on Tuesday.

Speaker:

So, aside from that, I was over it on Wednesday, so I, um, on Monday

Speaker:

actually, so on Tuesday I tested myself again, was still showing

Speaker:

a faint line of being positive.

Speaker:

So I tested myself again on Friday.

Speaker:

And it was almost gone, so I tested myself on Saturday

Speaker:

morning, it was completely clear.

Speaker:

Very good.

Speaker:

Of course, COVID is what Scott had, everybody, so, and uh, with

Speaker:

five vaccinations under his belt, he was able to deal with it.

Speaker:

That's probably why I was able to get over it so quickly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And Joe, you've had your own medical episodes, but we won't go into the

Speaker:

details of those because they're quite messy, really, and we don't, we don't

Speaker:

want to ruin anybody's dinner with that, so we'll just leave that as it is.

Speaker:

Yeah, so if you're in the chat room, say hello.

Speaker:

Nobody there yet, but people normally turn up.

Speaker:

What's on the agenda?

Speaker:

Well, you know, it's a podcast about news and politics, sex and religion

Speaker:

in Australia and around the world.

Speaker:

We're going to start with Australia with the tax changes, stage three.

Speaker:

And the fact that Dutton is now getting wedged by this.

Speaker:

There's an essential poll came out guys, I didn't give this to you in

Speaker:

the notes, but we'll run through Australians and their views on,

Speaker:

uh, Stage 3, Gaza and the Republic.

Speaker:

Um, we'll talk about, uh, a bit of statistics, because we were

Speaker:

mentioning average wage the other day.

Speaker:

And I came across another article talking about how do we talk about average wage,

Speaker:

median wage in Australia, and, uh, a school tragedy that has parents crying,

Speaker:

a spy pigeon, a Chinese spy pigeon.

Speaker:

Scott, do you, one of my favourite animal stories that we did

Speaker:

was, uh, Dexter the Peacock.

Speaker:

Do you remember Dexter the Peacock?

Speaker:

That was the, um Uh, the Travelling Companion Bird, wasn't it?

Speaker:

The support animal.

Speaker:

Support animal, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, it was quite an impressive peacock.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Full sized peacock.

Speaker:

And the person arrived at the airport and, um, expected to be able to

Speaker:

board the plane with their support animal, which was text to the peacock.

Speaker:

That's going back a long way.

Speaker:

That was in the first handful of episodes, I reckon that one's got.

Speaker:

It's probably pretty early.

Speaker:

Yeah, going back about eight years or so.

Speaker:

Dexter the Peacock.

Speaker:

Wonder whatever happened to Dexter.

Speaker:

And, um, might get on to Imran Khan.

Speaker:

I think we'll get on to Imran Khan and Pakistan and what's happened there.

Speaker:

No surprise, but it's going to involve some foreign policy meddling

Speaker:

by the United States of America.

Speaker:

And, um, Saul Eslake described the worst policy decision by

Speaker:

an Australian government ever.

Speaker:

Uh, Scott Morrison's hands are all over it, so we'll mic in onto that.

Speaker:

So that's on the agenda.

Speaker:

There's chapters for this podcast.

Speaker:

If your app is smart enough, you should be able to see some chapters.

Speaker:

You can scoot around the topics, skip some, listen to some twice.

Speaker:

It's up to you.

Speaker:

But, uh, okay, let's get going.

Speaker:

Saw an article that said, um, Opposition leader Peter Dutton's seat of Dixon,

Speaker:

which is your electorate, Joe.

Speaker:

Yep, never voted for it.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Can't blame you.

Speaker:

In the analysis found 85 percent of taxpayers would be better off under

Speaker:

Labor's plan, um, than the original format for the Stage 3 tax cuts.

Speaker:

He hasn't declared what the I don't know what the Liberal Party is going

Speaker:

to do when the revamped tax cuts come before Parliament, but, um,

Speaker:

he's got no choice, has he, Scott?

Speaker:

No, he's got absolutely no choice to back them.

Speaker:

I mean, it was, it was bloody criminal stupidity that the

Speaker:

Labor government actually backed the original Stage 3 tax cuts.

Speaker:

Now, I said right from word go that all he had to do was actually during

Speaker:

the election campaign, he said, look, we're committed to Stage 3, but

Speaker:

we're not committed to the way that Stage 3 has been originally written.

Speaker:

So, assuming we win, we will have a look at them and we will rejig

Speaker:

them and that would have been fine.

Speaker:

And they were worried about being wedged.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

And look, lo and behold, they're now wedged in Dutton.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Because it just makes sense.

Speaker:

The original policy was so bad.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

If you can't take a bad policy And explain it, offer an alternative and

Speaker:

wedge your opponent on that, then you just shouldn't be in the game.

Speaker:

So, uh.

Speaker:

But you do realise that Dixon will still vote Dutton back in?

Speaker:

Of course.

Speaker:

God alone knows why.

Speaker:

Yes, of course.

Speaker:

Yeah, because I gather that Dixon isn't one of the wealthiest

Speaker:

suburbs of Brisbane, is it?

Speaker:

No, well, it's the outer suburb.

Speaker:

Yeah, no, so it wouldn't be, you wouldn't have many millionaires

Speaker:

out there, so, God knows.

Speaker:

I mean, it's not like, even, um, the, the guy that's, um, Max,

Speaker:

whatever his name is, the, um, Green.

Speaker:

You know, he represents Bulimba and Hawthorne and all that sort

Speaker:

of things, which are really the premier suburbs in Brisbane.

Speaker:

And, you know, I, I just think to myself that Dutton is really You know, I cannot

Speaker:

believe that he was actually going to try and make out that this was a terrible,

Speaker:

ghastly thing that the Prime Minister did by breaking an election promise.

Speaker:

You know, it's one of those things, like I remember at the time you

Speaker:

were saying that either the shovel or something else was saying, oh,

Speaker:

but we didn't think he was serious.

Speaker:

Sue Albanese, you know, which is just, it's one of those things.

Speaker:

It was so blatantly obvious that it was wrong that anyone that actually tried

Speaker:

to defend it need their heads read.

Speaker:

Yeah, because the vote is here.

Speaker:

We'll be looking at Facebook adverts from Dutton, which will

Speaker:

no doubt spin it in his light.

Speaker:

Well, I've joined the Liberal tribe and as part of their loyalty to

Speaker:

the tribe, they will vote for them.

Speaker:

Even if the policies are against their best interest.

Speaker:

Their personal interest, yeah.

Speaker:

Because Labor raises taxes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And they're gonna be worse off under a Labor government.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And because Liberals are much better economic managers, just all those things.

Speaker:

But there's really an interesting class thing happening here because

Speaker:

traditionally, you know, the Liberals and the Nationals were

Speaker:

the conservatives who were seen as, as the party for the well to do.

Speaker:

And if you look though, at their actual electorates that they're

Speaker:

representing, because they've been pushed out into these.

Speaker:

Regional suburbs, regional areas have actually been pushed out

Speaker:

where their remaining base is the lower socio economic group.

Speaker:

So, I saw this tweet from Koz Samaras, um, saying that, uh, did you know that

Speaker:

the National Party with the LNP and to a lesser extent the Liberal Party

Speaker:

hold well over half of the top 20 poorest federal seats in the country.

Speaker:

Um, they now hold none.

Speaker:

Of the top income electorates.

Speaker:

So they really need to work out, um, which class they want to represent.

Speaker:

And it's because all those electorates fell to the Teals.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

You know, it's just.

Speaker:

Yeah, or to the Greens.

Speaker:

Or to the Greens.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, so they still think of themselves as a party for the upper class Mmm,

Speaker:

sort of financially, but they've pitched themselves Through sort of culture war

Speaker:

issues, I guess To a policy platform.

Speaker:

The lower middle class.

Speaker:

That that is It's really only finding favour in the regions where people are

Speaker:

poorer, so this party of the upper class is now representing, effectively, the

Speaker:

lower class at the electorate level.

Speaker:

They're the party of theocracy, and a lot of the poorer, certainly the

Speaker:

western Sydney suburbs are the more religious, it's the hills, uh, I think

Speaker:

it's much more the party of family values rather than the party of Um, The Rich.

Speaker:

I mean, yeah, economically it definitely is the party of the rich, but socially

Speaker:

it's the party of family values.

Speaker:

Yeah, so they've just reached this point where their policy talk on

Speaker:

things like tax and, and the, well, what did, uh, Nationals leader, uh,

Speaker:

what's his name, uh, David Littleproud?

Speaker:

Littleproud, yeah.

Speaker:

By the way, my wife taught him when he was in primary school in Chinchilla.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Yeah, they're fun fact for you.

Speaker:

She obviously didn't hit him hard enough.

Speaker:

Now, now Joe.

Speaker:

Yeah, I think his father was some sort of state member.

Speaker:

at the time.

Speaker:

I think it was, I think he did, he did have that sort of lineage

Speaker:

that his father or something like that was some kind of other.

Speaker:

He was obviously a National Party man and he was probably in the State

Speaker:

Parliament because back then anyone could get in if you, if you just held

Speaker:

your flag up and said I'm a National Party man you'll get a job there.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, um, so that was Chinchilla.

Speaker:

Chinchilla, by the way, was, um, considered just east of

Speaker:

Too Far West because it was a three and a half hour drive.

Speaker:

So, if you really had something on in the weekend, you could

Speaker:

make it back to Brisbane.

Speaker:

So, anyway, I've digressed.

Speaker:

But, um, what did he say?

Speaker:

He said that, um, um, the tax cuts in their original format were

Speaker:

about giving everyone a fair go.

Speaker:

And that, um, 190, 000 a year is not a lot, is what Lizzie Price is saying.

Speaker:

I suppose it's not when your starting salary is 210, 000 a year, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah, I think maybe I'll skip forward to, um, what is a lot, or what is the average?

Speaker:

We're going to say 190, 000 is a lot.

Speaker:

So, um, guys it was a bit further down in the notes, but

Speaker:

let's just skip through to it.

Speaker:

Um, because the Prime Minister noted that under the revision to the tax

Speaker:

scales, an average wage earner on 73, 000 per year would be 1, 500 better off.

Speaker:

So, Albanese was saying that the average wage earner is on, uh,

Speaker:

comes out at 73, 000 per year.

Speaker:

If he's correct, then when Little Proud says 190 is not a lot,

Speaker:

I think Little Proud's wrong.

Speaker:

But, um, yeah.

Speaker:

So Two and a half times as large, isn't it?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, so when they were selling the package, because remember,

Speaker:

this is a goddamn policy.

Speaker:

It's nearly six years old, like stage one, stage two, stage three.

Speaker:

The craziness of this is policy written six years ago that has

Speaker:

finally sort of come to the point where it was due to be implemented.

Speaker:

Um, so back in 2018 when the Morrison government was Morrison, it was one

Speaker:

of the conservative governments, was selling the idea and um, at that time,

Speaker:

um, of the budget, they were saying the annual wage was 84, 000 per year and the

Speaker:

treasury forecasting a rise to 103, 000.

Speaker:

So um, if, if the budget was talking about the average as being 84,

Speaker:

000 back then, how can Albanese be saying it's 73, 000 now and what

Speaker:

exactly is the average income?

Speaker:

And, as this writer in an article says, and you get the article in the

Speaker:

show notes, dear listener, it's Harry, uh, Chamai, writing in, I'm pretty

Speaker:

sure it was the John Menendee blog.

Speaker:

Um, he says, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

Speaker:

We found that during the COVID, um, yeah, time.

Speaker:

Boy, did we torture some data, or did some people torture some data?

Speaker:

Oh yeah.

Speaker:

We won't go there.

Speaker:

Um, so what he says, on closer inspection, the PM's reference to 73, 000 is a

Speaker:

reference to the average current taxable income across all full time workers.

Speaker:

Um, and, um, back in 82, oh, sorry, and back in 2018, um, it was the

Speaker:

annualised average weekly earnings of a full time adult at the time,

Speaker:

rather than all full time workers.

Speaker:

And, um, what we've got, of course, is, dear listener, the incomes at

Speaker:

the top end are extremely high, which skew the average to a higher point.

Speaker:

Then if you had lined every Australian up and walked along the line and

Speaker:

stopped at the halfway point, thereby getting the median wage.

Speaker:

So that to me Would seem like the best measure of the average Australian.

Speaker:

Scott, would you agree that if you just lined everybody up, poorest

Speaker:

to, well, lowest income to highest income and stopped halfway, that's

Speaker:

a better assessment average?

Speaker:

Well, I would have thought so, but um, I'm a fairly simplistic bloke.

Speaker:

I just like to add it up and divide by the numbers, that's all.

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Joe, what's your preference for talking about an average Aussie income?

Speaker:

Well, see.

Speaker:

There are three averages, isn't there?

Speaker:

There's the mean, median and mode.

Speaker:

And the mode is, is actually the most numerous of all incomes.

Speaker:

So you, you take, you break people into bands or whatever, and then you

Speaker:

take the most popular of those bands.

Speaker:

And that probably is the better outcome.

Speaker:

But the median is considerably better than the mean.

Speaker:

That's a myth.

Speaker:

The mean is, the mean is simple, but it gets skewed by outliers.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I know, which it does.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Alright.

Speaker:

So that's, you know, I understand what you're saying.

Speaker:

You're criticising my choice of mean, so.

Speaker:

Yeah, I'm surprised by your preference for it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, you know, I'll take anything.

Speaker:

You know, I'm not going to sit there and actually calculate it myself, so

Speaker:

I'll just take the mean, the medium.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Let me scoot forward to get to, um, um, uh, he says in this article,

Speaker:

the suggestion that 200, 000 might be a middling income, uh, must

Speaker:

surely push the bounds of credulity.

Speaker:

And um, uh, he says the median is not 200, 000.

Speaker:

Um, basically, ah, what does he say here?

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

uh, data indicates that the average full time adult worker Yeah,

Speaker:

earning 85,000 in 2018, um, is earning around 99,000 in May 23.

Speaker:

So average full-time adult worker.

Speaker:

The median full-time earnings, um, uh, back in 2018 was

Speaker:

76,000, and now it's 88,000.

Speaker:

So if you're looking at full-time job.

Speaker:

Um, then the median full time job, uh, salary in Australia

Speaker:

is currently around 88, 000.

Speaker:

I think that's a sort of a fair, seems about right to me.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

A long way short of 190, 000.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

So, let's go back to, um, Essential Report.

Speaker:

And let me just find this, um, So they've been polling people about their

Speaker:

reactions to the, um, to the Stage 3 tax cuts and what's been going on.

Speaker:

And basically, overall, um, only, now it depends on the poll that you look at.

Speaker:

The essential poll says Only 22 percent of people want the Stage

Speaker:

3 tax cuts to remain unchanged.

Speaker:

So that's a huge proportion of the population agreeing with Labor at

Speaker:

least that it needs to be changed.

Speaker:

And that's the wedge that Dutton is facing.

Speaker:

That if he was to insist on no changes, only 22 percent of

Speaker:

people would agree with him.

Speaker:

Um, uh.

Speaker:

Actually, maybe I can share this screen.

Speaker:

Let me try and do that.

Speaker:

I suppose that, um, you know, how big a threat are the

Speaker:

Greens and that sort of stuff?

Speaker:

Could they actually cross the floor and vote to actually No, they wouldn't

Speaker:

actually keep them, would they?

Speaker:

If they did, they'd look very bloody stupid, wouldn't they?

Speaker:

Oh, the Greens will try and push for, um Yeah, I know they're going to push

Speaker:

to have more of it heading down the lower end, but I just think to myself

Speaker:

that they've got a choice in the end.

Speaker:

They either take what Labor has offered them, or they actually, um, vote to

Speaker:

maintain the current package, which would make them look very bloody stupid.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, top chart there is basically overall.

Speaker:

Because they ask people a year, um, sort of In November 23, what they thought,

Speaker:

then they asked them again in January 24, nothing changed much, but essentially 22

Speaker:

percent of people say leave it as it is.

Speaker:

The rest, to some degree, want things changed.

Speaker:

And, uh, males, 27 percent want to leave the tax cuts as they

Speaker:

were designed by Scott Morrison.

Speaker:

Females, 17 percent want to leave them, so Uh, women more likely

Speaker:

to want the tax cuts changed.

Speaker:

And age wise, this one's interesting, 18 to 34, um, 17

Speaker:

percent want them to continue.

Speaker:

Um, middle aged Australians, um, also want them to continue, 26%.

Speaker:

It actually decreased a bit for the boomers.

Speaker:

So the boomers aren't as bad as they normally are when it

Speaker:

comes to that age demographic.

Speaker:

They're not earning income.

Speaker:

Yes, that's it at that point.

Speaker:

You're right, Joe.

Speaker:

They're asset rich and income poor.

Speaker:

Of course.

Speaker:

Ask them what they think of franking credits and you'll get a different story.

Speaker:

Oh, absolutely.

Speaker:

We'll get on to franking credits.

Speaker:

And Coalition, according to Essential Poll, 33 percent of coalition

Speaker:

voters wanted to leave the tax cuts as they were originally designed.

Speaker:

Uh, everybody else is around the 16%.

Speaker:

So, that was, um, that was on the, uh, sort of Australian view on the tax cuts.

Speaker:

Um, just while we're here on the Essential Poll, uh, next one coming up is Attitudes

Speaker:

to the Israel Palestine conflict, and the third one on the chart is the one that

Speaker:

gets me here, guys, is to what extent do you agree with the following statement?

Speaker:

And the statement is, the Israeli response is proportionate, and 12

Speaker:

percent of Australians agree with that, and 20 percent somewhat agree, and 45

Speaker:

percent neither agree nor disagree.

Speaker:

So, to some extent, 32 percent of Australians think that the

Speaker:

Israeli response is proportionate, and 45 percent just don't know.

Speaker:

That leaves only 22 percent of Australians who think that the

Speaker:

Israeli response is disproportionate.

Speaker:

Does that seem, um, strange to you?

Speaker:

Well, I think 45 percent of people just don't care.

Speaker:

Yes, you did right.

Speaker:

45 percent just don't care.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Gender wise on that one, let's see what the, um, break up is.

Speaker:

Uh, and the Israeli response is proportionate.

Speaker:

39 percent of males agree, only 25 percent of females agree.

Speaker:

And voting intention.

Speaker:

Ah, the Israeli response is proportionate, uh, 45%, 44 percent of coalition voters

Speaker:

agree, 15 percent of Greens voters.

Speaker:

It's just interesting that something that's, you know, a conflict in the

Speaker:

Middle East between two countries splits opinion here so much along

Speaker:

party lines, party political lines.

Speaker:

It's like Our political parties don't have strongly stated foreign

Speaker:

policy views going into an election.

Speaker:

Nobody really looks at foreign policy and it's just amazing that it breaks down on

Speaker:

party lines so much what people think.

Speaker:

Yeah, but Dutton did make a big song and dance about it and all that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, he accused the Labor Party of being anti Zionist or

Speaker:

something like that, didn't he?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

He used to be very anti Semitism.

Speaker:

But Palestine has long been a, a thing of the left.

Speaker:

And therefore it doesn't surprise me that, um, the greeds voters, 'cause I

Speaker:

really don't consider labor left anymore.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Possibly centrist.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

Um, and, uh, you know, LMP voters are again, theocrats

Speaker:

who want the end of the world.

Speaker:

And the sooner that the Arabs and the Israelis keep killing themselves,

Speaker:

the sooner Jesus comes back.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

In Australia?

Speaker:

Have we reached that point in Australia, Joe?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

I don't believe it's that large a proportion, but No.

Speaker:

But there is certainly part of it.

Speaker:

Part of it is that thinking.

Speaker:

You know, there is some within the Liberal Party that would actually hold

Speaker:

that view because their mates over in the Yanks in America believe that.

Speaker:

They also polled people about Australia Day and asked people, um, will you

Speaker:

be doing something to celebrate Australia Day or will you just be

Speaker:

treating it as a public holiday?

Speaker:

And, um, basically, people have tended towards treating it as a public holiday

Speaker:

and not necessarily doing something, um To celebrate the Australian ness of it.

Speaker:

But if you look at the age breakdown, the older you are, the more likely

Speaker:

to you are to celebrate Australia Day as Australia Day, rather than

Speaker:

just enjoying the public holiday.

Speaker:

And just finally, they also asked people about support for

Speaker:

Australia becoming a republic.

Speaker:

And Scott, strongly support.

Speaker:

Young people recorded the lowest.

Speaker:

So, um, only 12 percent of the young people, 18 to 34,

Speaker:

strongly supported a republic.

Speaker:

Whereas the, um, the older age groups, that was either 22 or 23 percent.

Speaker:

So you're a, you're still a card carrying member of the, um,

Speaker:

Yeah, of the Republican movement.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, that doesn't surprise me.

Speaker:

Um, I think that, um, probably the Republican movement's biggest

Speaker:

problem is that we're facing a generation of they don't care.

Speaker:

So as a result, uh, you, it really doesn't surprise me that people

Speaker:

don't care and that type of thing.

Speaker:

So that's where you've got those sorts of numbers coming up.

Speaker:

It's one of those things that, um, I did see something with it.

Speaker:

They reckon that the crown has had probably a bigger impact on the Republican

Speaker:

movement than anything else has.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That series on Netflix.

Speaker:

Yeah, it did.

Speaker:

It did actually paint.

Speaker:

The old girl is a complex figure, you know.

Speaker:

Complex, yes.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

A complete bitch at times, and you know, at other times.

Speaker:

A complete bitch at times, but at other times quite a human being.

Speaker:

One of those things, apparently she has watched it and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

And she actually admitted that, um, she does feel somewhat bad for

Speaker:

the way she treated her sister.

Speaker:

This is Queen Elizabeth.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Was it, was it produced before she died?

Speaker:

Yes, it was produced before she died.

Speaker:

Oh, right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

I only just saw her.

Speaker:

Been out for a while.

Speaker:

I only just saw her.

Speaker:

Been out for a long time.

Speaker:

Six months ago.

Speaker:

Something there, that's how far behind the times I am.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah, it's, it's apparently that, um, she admitted to someone that she feels

Speaker:

Badly for the way she treated her sister.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Over her marriage to Peter Townsend.

Speaker:

Mm hmm.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

So, you're right.

Speaker:

The younger group have a bit more ambivalent about it all

Speaker:

and don't have any strong views.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, that was Essential Pole.

Speaker:

Get rid of that from the screen.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

And Alison's in the chat room and says she saw a report that said two

Speaker:

thirds of people earning over 200, 000 or above support the changes.

Speaker:

I saw a similar thing.

Speaker:

I think that was from the Australia Institute.

Speaker:

That was it, yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And, oh, look, just briefly, one more chart to show you because I've

Speaker:

got it here, which was just a chart showing how much is carved off from

Speaker:

helping the top end and And then comes in to assisting the bottom end.

Speaker:

So that was a good chart, if it shows up correctly on there.

Speaker:

But, uh, does it?

Speaker:

Hang on.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's showing up.

Speaker:

Yeah, good.

Speaker:

So that was that one.

Speaker:

I think that, honestly, they've got to be very comfortable with

Speaker:

it because they're getting four and a half grand out of it all.

Speaker:

Which, on a weekly basis, turns out to be 86 bucks a week, which is fine.

Speaker:

You know, you compare that to the 9, 000 they're originally going to

Speaker:

get, then that is just too high.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, um, so there's a guy, Richard Dennis, from the Australia Institute.

Speaker:

He, um, used to have a podcast that I listened to whenever it came out.

Speaker:

It was the, um, can't think what it was called, but he was a, he's an economist.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And he does actually, he turns up sometimes on 7 a.

Speaker:

m.

Speaker:

too.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Talker.

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

He's got some things to say about mining tax and hex.

Speaker:

Here we go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I listened to it.

Speaker:

Listen to this.

Speaker:

Consider the fact that in Norway, they tax the fossil fuel

Speaker:

industry and they give university education to their kids for free.

Speaker:

In Australia, we subsidise the fossil fuel industry and we charge

Speaker:

our kids a fortune to go to uni.

Speaker:

Choices matter.

Speaker:

And the Australian government collects more money from HECS than it does

Speaker:

from the petroleum resource rent tax.

Speaker:

Thank you, children.

Speaker:

You're the backbone of our economy, not the gas industry.

Speaker:

That's an interesting statistic.

Speaker:

It's really fucking wrong, isn't it?

Speaker:

If you could just reach people and tell them that, you wouldn't have to argue

Speaker:

too long to say this is clearly wrong.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Look what these other guys are doing, maybe we should be doing the same.

Speaker:

How about we do it?

Speaker:

If you don't like it, don't vote for us, but if you do like it, vote for us.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, I just think that, I just think to myself that,

Speaker:

um If we actually did follow Norway's example, do they honestly believe that

Speaker:

the coal miners and the gas frackers and everything else that are over

Speaker:

here in this country, do we honestly believe that they would actually

Speaker:

pull up stumps and move elsewhere?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

They wouldn't.

Speaker:

They come here and they invest here because our ground is full of shit that

Speaker:

they can dig out and sell overseas.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Just criminal.

Speaker:

Future generations are going to be so angry with our generation.

Speaker:

And even if they did have sticks, the stuff's still in the ground.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Wait for someone else to come along who's willing to play the game and

Speaker:

say, Okay, here's a deal for you.

Speaker:

You're still making lots of money.

Speaker:

Just obscene amounts of money.

Speaker:

It's criminal.

Speaker:

Future generations are going to look back on Australia in the last 50 years.

Speaker:

And just go, what a chompy bunch you are.

Speaker:

And they're going to be very rightfully very angry about it, you know?

Speaker:

Well, I mean, the whole, um, wasn't it Sussan Ley?

Speaker:

Who was held originally to be responsible for future generations, the state of

Speaker:

the climate for future generations?

Speaker:

I know it was overturned on appeal, um, but is that not precedent for

Speaker:

suing governments for inaction?

Speaker:

Just over the amount of money that's being wasted.

Speaker:

On behalf of a future generation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I don't know what the current legal position is on that.

Speaker:

I do remember there were those cases.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So they won in the lower court and I think it was overturned

Speaker:

in one of the higher courts.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

But it might have been on a technicality.

Speaker:

Possibly.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There really should be a Minister for Future Generations who

Speaker:

gets to say, Hang on a minute.

Speaker:

This is just, um, lining the pocket of the current generation at the

Speaker:

expense of the future generation.

Speaker:

Well, I think that's really bloody crooked that, you know, the HECS

Speaker:

is higher than the mining resource rent tax, for Christ's sake.

Speaker:

Mmm.

Speaker:

Yeah, there we go.

Speaker:

But even when things are obvious like that, can a government actually sell it?

Speaker:

And, of course, we had Shorten could not make it into, um, being the Prime

Speaker:

Minister on the basis, probably, of the franking credits and how, um,

Speaker:

that panned out and, uh, there we go.

Speaker:

There's a chart showing that the richest 10 percent received 70 percent

Speaker:

of the franking credits in 2020, 2021.

Speaker:

But they need them.

Speaker:

It's one of those things that I find incredibly frustrating.

Speaker:

Oh, man.

Speaker:

I was very much in support of it and I just said to him, I

Speaker:

said to him once, I said, why?

Speaker:

You know, it was designed not to be a, it was designed not to pay you back the tax.

Speaker:

It was simply designed to stop you being double taxed.

Speaker:

And it was just something that Peter Costello invented because he was

Speaker:

embarrassed by the amount of money that was flowing to the government.

Speaker:

So they had no choice but to actually give it back to people.

Speaker:

Governments in good times are really dangerous.

Speaker:

Oh God.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

They're Costello Government was dangerous.

Speaker:

They could do all sorts of things.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And lock us into systems and become really hard to turn around.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

. Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, oh, here's another clip for you.

Speaker:

Um, like, you know, I unfortunately in high school went to an.

Speaker:

All Boys School, and it's one of the, I don't know if you can say regrets of

Speaker:

life, but, because I didn't have any say in it, but boy I wished I'd gone to a

Speaker:

co ed state school, and um, it took me years to overcome what had been done to

Speaker:

me there, and um, and so I was really determined that my kids would go to a co

Speaker:

ed school and have a normal childhood, which they did, thankfully, but um, Let

Speaker:

me just get a clip here, because one of the schools in Melbourne, I think it

Speaker:

is, has I believe it's Sydney, isn't it?

Speaker:

Sydney, was it?

Speaker:

No, I think it's Sydney.

Speaker:

Um, previously a boys school has, a principal has decided to make it a co

Speaker:

ed school, and here is the reaction.

Speaker:

I'm an old boy at the school, and my son is also an old boy, and the intention

Speaker:

was always that I'd have a grandson.

Speaker:

But I won't bring him to a co ed school.

Speaker:

It's all part of this sort of woke, toxic masculinity type palaver.

Speaker:

I'm sorry, but I'm not a, uh, a co ed person.

Speaker:

It's a boys school, it's always been a boys school, and, uh, uh, there's

Speaker:

no, um, justification, no explanation, no evidence to support this move.

Speaker:

I know my grandson was rejected from going to, uh, to year three in a

Speaker:

couple of years time because they had, uh, Thoughts of young ladies.

Speaker:

We are protesting against the school's decision to, uh, Uh, not

Speaker:

notify the parents and gag the parents and the students from having

Speaker:

a free voice to be heard about the school and the headmaster's

Speaker:

decision to make the school co ed.

Speaker:

It wasn't as strong as I would have liked to have seen today.

Speaker:

Well, I just think it's, uh, ridiculous that after 160 years of thinking

Speaker:

it's a good idea to have a boys, you know, a boys only school for the

Speaker:

development of boys through, you know, a very developmental part of their

Speaker:

lives without being influenced by.

Speaker:

Considerations of what, you know, they should look like or how they

Speaker:

should act in front of girls.

Speaker:

Why is that wrong after 160 years?

Speaker:

We have another meeting tonight that we're going to try and

Speaker:

look at more at the legal side.

Speaker:

Yeah, 160 years.

Speaker:

I mean, it's, it's not like we've ever seen evidence of, of private

Speaker:

school boys behaving badly.

Speaker:

Traditionally, it's just peer pressure from dead people.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It's one of those things.

Speaker:

I mean, you know, it's one of those things when I was at my old boys school

Speaker:

and that sort of stuff, I remember thinking at the time that I would be

Speaker:

better off in a co ed school because guys behave differently in front of

Speaker:

girls than what they do on their own, because they behave like utter wankers

Speaker:

when they're on their own, you know?

Speaker:

The bullying and everything else would evaporate overnight

Speaker:

if you put girls in there.

Speaker:

Oh, I'm not so sure about that, but Well, it would help.

Speaker:

Educationally, I think boys do better off in co ed and girls do worse off.

Speaker:

Absolutely, they do.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

Which is one of the things that I thought to myself that, um, because they say that

Speaker:

girls do better in single sex schools, but boys do better in co ed schools.

Speaker:

So My kids went to, you know, just a state high school, co ed, obviously,

Speaker:

and they reckon at university You could pick the kids who had gone to a single

Speaker:

sex school, like, their disbehaviour was really obvious, I reckon, so, um, yeah.

Speaker:

Alison, are you still there in the chat room?

Speaker:

Did you go to an all girls school, Alison?

Speaker:

Um, did you find at university a difference between, uh, kids Boys who

Speaker:

went to an all boys school, for example, where they I wouldn't be surprised

Speaker:

that, um, anybody that'd go to a co ed school and that sort of stuff would

Speaker:

probably say that boys were just a little less mature and that sort of

Speaker:

stuff by the time we got to university.

Speaker:

But the girls as well!

Speaker:

I know that, um, my daughter's daughter said that, uh, girls.

Speaker:

Mackaya State High School is where Alison went to high school.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But Alison, when you went to uni, did you notice any difference between those, you

Speaker:

know, who had your fellow students who had been to single sex schools or not?

Speaker:

Just curious as to whether you noticed anything.

Speaker:

So, yeah, there we go.

Speaker:

So that's private school.

Speaker:

First world problem there.

Speaker:

I can't believe that guy was crying.

Speaker:

Yes, you know, it's it's one of those things like I was gonna have a

Speaker:

grandchild, but I can't have one now.

Speaker:

Yes I thought it was weird that all private school boys

Speaker:

all wore the same clothes.

Speaker:

There you go So I had a certain type of dress style.

Speaker:

That's what Alison is saying.

Speaker:

I think at university Hmm.

Speaker:

Okay That was that Let's look around the world now Get away

Speaker:

from Australia, uh, Iran, Iraq.

Speaker:

So now we've got, um, there was an attack on a U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

Army base, um, in Jordan.

Speaker:

Killed three U.

Speaker:

S., three U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

soldiers.

Speaker:

Um, the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is blaming, um, Iranian backed militants.

Speaker:

Uh, some sort of drone, I think, came into the camp.

Speaker:

Um, and they've then launched attacks on what they say are

Speaker:

Iranian facilities that are in other neighbouring countries and places.

Speaker:

So they're saying it's Iran's fault and they've bombed a few

Speaker:

Iranian place, Iranian backed places in non Iranian territory.

Speaker:

Because, hey, they're the US and if you're not bombing some brown people in

Speaker:

the sandy desert somewhere, then just, you know, you're not doing your job.

Speaker:

And uh, of course, Iraqi resistance is claiming responsibility.

Speaker:

Um, uh, and the base is actually mostly in Syria and is used by the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

to steal Syrian oil and the Iraqi government wants the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

to leave as well.

Speaker:

So there's still enormous numbers of U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

personnel and U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

bases in these countries.

Speaker:

Despite the new government's wanting them to just piss off and go home,

Speaker:

but they insist on staying there.

Speaker:

So Guys, you reckon they might, you know, we did predictions at the beginning of

Speaker:

the year and I don't know that anybody predicted a sort of a hot war in the

Speaker:

Middle East Like getting quite sizable, but I don't think it's going that way.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

They're really keen to blame Iran for stuff They talk about the Iranian

Speaker:

backed Houthis And they're clearly trying to pin Iran for this, and Iran's

Speaker:

one of the bigger militaries able to Yeah, they've wanted to pick a fight

Speaker:

with Iran for a long time, but Yes.

Speaker:

I think they've always been scared off because it is one

Speaker:

of the bigger militaries.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That's why they've backed Saddam for so long.

Speaker:

It's one of those things, if it does actually come to fisticuffs and all

Speaker:

that sort of stuff, I've no doubt that the US will eventually succeed.

Speaker:

But, they're going to have to withdraw their support from Ukraine and

Speaker:

everything else, put everything into the Middle East, and they will succeed.

Speaker:

It's going to take them a very long time.

Speaker:

But they will do it.

Speaker:

Succeed as well as they did in Afghanistan?

Speaker:

No, it's one of those things, they're just gonna, they're just gonna leave behind

Speaker:

a wrecked country and all that sort of stuff that wasn't perfect but was stable.

Speaker:

And they're gonna fuck it up completely and then they'll withdraw.

Speaker:

Yeah, they'll succeed.

Speaker:

They'll succeed in transferring funds from the hands of taxpayers into

Speaker:

the pockets of big corporations.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

The military industrial complex and the makers of weapons and Yes.

Speaker:

Mills Steel complex, but but also the, the private security industry that

Speaker:

follows along, behind and builds all the infrastructure rebuilds the country.

Speaker:

Mm, yeah.

Speaker:

That was Dick Chinese company, wasn't it?

Speaker:

Holywell or something like that?

Speaker:

Or Holywell was one of the companies.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, it was also sort like that Black something.

Speaker:

Black rock.

Speaker:

Black Rock.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

I can't remember what it was.

Speaker:

I thought it was Black Rock, anyway.

Speaker:

Yeah, so, anyway, they're spoiling for a fight over there, and You know, if

Speaker:

they want to fight and that sort of stuff, they're going to get a fight.

Speaker:

But then their only, their only, their only support in the region is going to be

Speaker:

Israel, which will make it all that sort of a hell of a lot of a mess for them.

Speaker:

And, you know, it's, you know The 67 war, the Israelis won.

Speaker:

I'm not convinced that it would actually win another concerted effort

Speaker:

of Arab countries if they, if all, if all three of the Arab countries

Speaker:

actually took on Israel again this time.

Speaker:

But they do have nukes.

Speaker:

I know they've got nukes now, and I honestly believe that Israel would

Speaker:

actually be prepared to use them.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yeah, I think they would.

Speaker:

Blackwater, according to Don.

Speaker:

Thanks, Don.

Speaker:

Um, yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, they're spoiling for a fight over there.

Speaker:

See what happens.

Speaker:

Um, that's, um, the Iranians, and I like this one about the spy pigeon.

Speaker:

So Yeah, I was reading them, I thought to myself, Jesus Christ,

Speaker:

how the hell did that happen?

Speaker:

Anyway.

Speaker:

A pigeon has been released in India after being held in detention for eight months

Speaker:

on suspicion of being a Chinese spy.

Speaker:

The pigeon's ordeal began in May last year when it was captured near a port in Mumbai

Speaker:

with two rings tied to its legs carrying words that appeared to be Chinese.

Speaker:

Yeah, they could've got used.

Speaker:

They could've got them They used in the past.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But they could've got them translated, couldn't they could have actually got

Speaker:

the, they could have actually got the words and that sort of stuff translated

Speaker:

into Hindi and that sort of stuff.

Speaker:

And then there was, oh yeah.

Speaker:

It's not a spy pigeon, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So , uh.

Speaker:

But, um, Don in the chat room says you do know that the birds aren't real,

Speaker:

they're all surveillance drones, yeah?

Speaker:

Because you've heard about that person starting that movement, Birds Aren't Real?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So you've actually got dickheads out in the US actually dragging around

Speaker:

signs saying birds aren't real.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So the guy who started it did it as a joke.

Speaker:

Yeah, I know.

Speaker:

It seemed like there were enough people who were prepared to sign up

Speaker:

to the belief that it became a thing.

Speaker:

But, uh, yeah, anyway.

Speaker:

The animal turned out to be a racing bird from Taiwan, which had

Speaker:

escaped and travelled to India.

Speaker:

So it was in Chinese.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Joe, when you said they've done it before, Like, they've used

Speaker:

carrier pigeons to pass messages.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, so there's an April Fool's, so on the internet, there's a bunch of standards

Speaker:

that are called RFCs, and quite often there's an April 1st RFC, and one of

Speaker:

them is IP over Avian Carrier, which was literally sticking a thumb drive

Speaker:

onto a carrier pigeon to send messages.

Speaker:

And it has been done in real life.

Speaker:

Somebody decided to print out a message, a computer message, onto

Speaker:

paper, stick it on the leg of a carrier pigeon, er, a racing pigeon, send

Speaker:

it across town and then decode it.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

See, some people have just too much time on their hands.

Speaker:

Obviously.

Speaker:

Anyway, with typical Indian efficiency, it took them eight months to figure out that

Speaker:

it was just a harmless, um, racing pigeon.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Apparently, it's not the first time a bird has come under police suspicion in India.

Speaker:

In 2020, police in Indian controlled Kashmir released a pigeon belonging to a

Speaker:

Pakistani fisherman after a probe found that the bird which had flown across the

Speaker:

heavily militarised border between the nuclear armed nations, was not a spy.

Speaker:

And, um, yeah, so it's not the first time, and I thought, blowing it, blowing it.

Speaker:

What are they going to do with a bird?

Speaker:

What are they going to do, put a gun to its head and say you've

Speaker:

got to confess or we'll shoot you?

Speaker:

Well, you know, it's just one of those things, you just Well, I don't know.

Speaker:

They could just shoot it, and it would be dead.

Speaker:

It's a very, it's a very effective method of transferring messages.

Speaker:

We used to do it.

Speaker:

Yeah, it is.

Speaker:

Back up until the end of the First World War.

Speaker:

Exactly, but you know, you could find out what that message actually said.

Speaker:

They just actually have to take the paper off it, get it translated

Speaker:

into Hindi, and they say, oh fuck, it's got nothing to do with it.

Speaker:

But it's in code.

Speaker:

Yeah, and you know Indians got lots of important stuff that China would

Speaker:

just want to find out about, so.

Speaker:

I don't know about China, there's only Pakistan.

Speaker:

I know that China would like to know what India's up to, but it's just,

Speaker:

you know, they have come to blows over their Indian Chinese border, but you

Speaker:

know, it's just one of those things.

Speaker:

I just I don't believe that they kept a bird in custody for eight months.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Anyway, um, it was in ABC News, reported by the Associated Press, so one

Speaker:

assumes that the incident is correct.

Speaker:

So, had you guys been following Imran Khan at all?

Speaker:

And Yeah, I Had you had any understanding of what's going on there?

Speaker:

It's one of those things I didn't re I know that he had actually

Speaker:

spoken out against the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

and all that sort of stuff before I actually read the

Speaker:

whole thing that you sent us.

Speaker:

And it's one of those things, uh, was he too cooperative with Vladimir Putin

Speaker:

and Chinese President Xi Jinping?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

It's just one of those things.

Speaker:

He's probably too close to the Russians.

Speaker:

But anyway, he's also, he's the Prime Minister of an independent country.

Speaker:

He's entitled to have any sort of relationship he wishes

Speaker:

to have around the globe.

Speaker:

Uh, I honestly do not believe that what he was actually crucified for was that bad.

Speaker:

All he said was, you've got to actually solve this, you've

Speaker:

got to solve this, um, fight diplomatically, not on the battlefield.

Speaker:

Which is a perfectly valid thing for a country to say.

Speaker:

Aggressively neutral, I think it was described as.

Speaker:

They might call it aggressively neutral, maybe, eh?

Speaker:

Why are you being so aggressively neutral on this issue?

Speaker:

I just think to myself that Imran Khan, you know, he was probably the

Speaker:

best that Pakistan had to offer and all that type of thing, so I'd Joe,

Speaker:

were you going to say something?

Speaker:

Sorry.

Speaker:

Yeah, I thought that, um, he was scarily religious in some things.

Speaker:

Yeah, but he wasn't as religious as some of the others.

Speaker:

His wife is very, um, wears the full burqa, I think, or a fairly full covering.

Speaker:

A niqab, doesn't she?

Speaker:

Maybe not the burqa, but the next level.

Speaker:

Yeah, a niqab, doesn't she?

Speaker:

Yeah, I think she might be quite, uh, religious, but Yeah, I thought there

Speaker:

was something about blasphemy that, um He'd made comments on, or he'd brought

Speaker:

in some blasphemy law that was, maybe he wasn't such a As much of my, as I'm pro

Speaker:

secular, whatever he did in that line isn't enough to justify the US coming

Speaker:

in and organising regime change and having him thrown in jail for 10 years.

Speaker:

So, um, which is what's happened.

Speaker:

So, there's an article from Jeffrey Sachs.

Speaker:

You guys probably don't like Jeffrey Sachs because Uh, he was kind of taking

Speaker:

my, well I was taking his line on Ukraine and stuff, so, um, um, anyway.

Speaker:

So, in this article by Jeffrey Sachs, he says there's strong

Speaker:

reasons to suspect the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is behind, uh, the overthrow of Imran Khan, and, um, he says of

Speaker:

course, regime change by the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

is routine, and there's a link to a report that counts 64

Speaker:

covert regime change operations.

Speaker:

The U.

Speaker:

By the U.

Speaker:

S.

Speaker:

between 1947 and 1989, that's a lot, and he says that Imran Khan's sin was to be

Speaker:

too cooperative with Putin and Xi Jinping, and while seeking to just have normal

Speaker:

relations with the United States, and Khan from the start said the conflict should

Speaker:

be settled at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield, like, guys, stop

Speaker:

killing each other, and start negotiating.

Speaker:

Um, he probably sealed his fate though when he held a large rally and he berated

Speaker:

the West and particularly EU ambassadors for pressuring him to condemn Russia.

Speaker:

And he also, uh, complained about NATO's war against terror in

Speaker:

Afghanistan as having, um, It's been very devastating for Pakistan.

Speaker:

And he told the cheering crowd about, uh, the US ambassadors wrote a letter

Speaker:

to us, meaning Khan and Pakistan, asking us to condemn and vote against Russia.

Speaker:

What do you think of us?

Speaker:

Are we your slaves?

Speaker:

That whatever you say, we will do?

Speaker:

He said, we are friends with Russia.

Speaker:

We are also friends with America.

Speaker:

We are friends with China and with Europe.

Speaker:

We're not in any camp.

Speaker:

Pakistan will remain neutral and work with Um, those trying to end the war.

Speaker:

So, one day after that rally, there is an Assistant Secretary

Speaker:

of State for the Bureau of South Central Asian Affairs, a Donald Lu.

Speaker:

So he's the American, um, he meets with Pakistan's ambassador,

Speaker:

um, an Asad Majid Khan.

Speaker:

And basically, um, a cable is then sent from Khan back to So, from the Pakistani

Speaker:

ambassador back to Pakistan and um, the cable quotes the American guy as saying

Speaker:

to the Pakistani ambassador, um, the people here in Europe are quite concerned

Speaker:

about why Pakistan has taken such an aggressively neutral position and then

Speaker:

said, quote, uh, I think if the, if the no confidence vote against the Prime

Speaker:

Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven.

Speaker:

Um, so basically telling the ambassador that the US will forgive Pakistan

Speaker:

if there's a no confidence motion against Imran Khan and otherwise

Speaker:

it's going to be tough going ahead.

Speaker:

So five weeks later after that threat, the Pakistan's military, um, controls or

Speaker:

has a hold over the Pakistani parliament.

Speaker:

and ousted Imran Khan in a no confidence vote.

Speaker:

And then they, according to Jeffrey Sachs, um, brazenly manufactured

Speaker:

charges of corruption against Imran Khan, put him under arrest.

Speaker:

And when Khan made known the existence of that diplomatic cable and the threat

Speaker:

made by America, the new government charged Imran Khan with espionage.

Speaker:

And that's what he's been convicted of for 10 years.

Speaker:

So the Americans threatened Pakistan, basically saying, life's

Speaker:

not going to be good for you.

Speaker:

Unless you do a no confidence motion against Imran Khan.

Speaker:

And when Imran Khan revealed that message, he was in charge with espionage

Speaker:

against Pakistan and given 10 years.

Speaker:

Ah.

Speaker:

When asked about Khan's conviction, the State Department had the

Speaker:

following to say, quote, it's a matter for the Pakistani courts.

Speaker:

And there we have it.

Speaker:

A man in another country thrown into jail for 10 years.

Speaker:

For being aggressively neutral.

Speaker:

It's quite a story, isn't it?

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Joe, any thoughts on that one?

Speaker:

Any hesitation?

Speaker:

Any sort of sounds about right?

Speaker:

Or you're like, yeah, it's a bit of a beat up?

Speaker:

Or you just don't know?

Speaker:

It's Pakistan.

Speaker:

I can't say I'm surprised.

Speaker:

Um, there's a lot of corruption in there, as far as I know.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There is, but as, as to whether or not Kahan was actually knee deep in

Speaker:

it, like they allege is another story.

Speaker:

Mm-Hmm.

Speaker:

, you know, it's, and fine.

Speaker:

Sorry, go on.

Speaker:

It's one of those things I, I don't think we're ever gonna

Speaker:

know exactly what the truth is.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But if he, if he wasn't, and his opponents were, it's a good thing

Speaker:

to smear him with, isn't it?

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Apparently that, that um, that message is in the public domain

Speaker:

now, it's been leaked and it seems it's legitimate, so, there we go.

Speaker:

A successful regime change.

Speaker:

Chalk up another one for the United States.

Speaker:

And finally, in the show notes that the patrons get, will be

Speaker:

an article from Saul Eslake.

Speaker:

Um, he says, so, you guys um, ever heard Saul Eslake speak?

Speaker:

Never heard him speak.

Speaker:

I've read a lot of what he's written.

Speaker:

Never heard him speak.

Speaker:

Very, very smart guy.

Speaker:

Oh, he's a very intelligent bloke, for sure.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I was at some talk about financial planning stuff and, uh, he just spoke for

Speaker:

an hour and just had everybody captivated.

Speaker:

Like, intimate knowledge of all sorts of statistics.

Speaker:

Really quite a bright guy.

Speaker:

Anyway, he says, I regard the changes made to the carve up of

Speaker:

GST revenues among the states and territories by the Morrison government.

Speaker:

in 2019, um, as possibly the worst Australian public policy decision

Speaker:

of the 21st century thus far.

Speaker:

Big statement.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Could it be worse than AUKUS, I ask you?

Speaker:

I don't know that it is, but it's probably a close run thing.

Speaker:

And essentially, the story is this, that when the GST was created, and it's the

Speaker:

federal government collecting money, which is then distributed to the states,

Speaker:

and There was a principle of Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation, which was if some

Speaker:

states are financially better off than other states, then they'll get less of

Speaker:

the GST pie, a very sort of socialist approach to carving up the GST money.

Speaker:

And for most of our history, uh, Victoria and New South Wales Um, would have been

Speaker:

the most prosperous states, which would sort of lead to them getting less and

Speaker:

the other states getting more per capita.

Speaker:

But of course, we've had a massive mining boom in Western Australia, huge boom.

Speaker:

And um, similar, as he says here, from 2004 onwards, Western Australia

Speaker:

Got, um, as Paul Keating would say, kissed on the arse by a rainbow.

Speaker:

Where the iron ore price rose to over 100 per tonne.

Speaker:

So, for example, Western Australia's iron ore production, um, in 1999 was 3.

Speaker:

7 billion, and Um, in the last six years, it's averaged 111 billion.

Speaker:

So in, in 14 years, uh, it went from 3.7 to 111 billion per annum.

Speaker:

So, um, massive, um, production and similar stories in

Speaker:

relation to gold and um.

Speaker:

LNG, um, as well, like Big Boom, obviously, in Western Australia,

Speaker:

and, of course, Western Australia will get royalties from all of that.

Speaker:

Which means that Western Australia is doing very, very well and is

Speaker:

outpacing the other states because of that, more than any state has

Speaker:

ever outpaced the other states.

Speaker:

And, um, what Morrison did was changed, well, called for a Productivity Commission

Speaker:

report, but basically stitched things up so that the report was not done properly.

Speaker:

Um, Saul Estlake says people who worked on it were not happy with the way it was

Speaker:

done and some people resigned afterwards.

Speaker:

And the result was that they, um, changed the GST carve up.

Speaker:

So that, um, Western Australia would never get less than 70 percent per

Speaker:

capita of what it would have got had there been none of this equalisation.

Speaker:

So essentially, the previous system of, of less money to the wealthy

Speaker:

states was, changed by that system.

Speaker:

And why would the other states agree to it?

Speaker:

Well, Morrison put in a deal that no other state will be worse off

Speaker:

for the next like, uh, let me see.

Speaker:

For like 15 years or something like that.

Speaker:

So it was a thing that a government could, one of the other states

Speaker:

could just um, kick down the road.

Speaker:

Not, not going to be their problem, not going to be around in 20 years time.

Speaker:

So, so basically Morrison did a deal that was extremely favourable

Speaker:

to Western Australia, where it gets to keep a much bigger share of the

Speaker:

GST carve up than it would have.

Speaker:

And why did it allow that to happen?

Speaker:

Because They were about to throw their toys out the pram.

Speaker:

Because they had a number of Western Australian representatives.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

So, a relatively large contingent of, um, So, since the 2013 election,

Speaker:

the Liberal National Party Coalition held all but three of Western

Speaker:

Australia's seats in the House of Reps.

Speaker:

And after the narrow victory in 2016, they knew that if they were to have

Speaker:

any chance of retaining government in 2019, they needed to keep as many

Speaker:

Western Australian seats as possible.

Speaker:

So that's why the LNP, Liberal National Party Coalition, agreed, well, did this.

Speaker:

Why did the Labor Party agree to it and vote for it?

Speaker:

Because they wanted to pick up Labor.

Speaker:

They thought that they would then, if they didn't do that, they were

Speaker:

no chance of picking up seats for Labor in Western Australia.

Speaker:

So, Labor agreed to it, and um, so conversely the Labor opposition knew

Speaker:

that if it were to have any prospect of winning government at the 2019 election,

Speaker:

they had to win at least some of those seats from the Liberals, um, yeah.

Speaker:

And the title of the bill is, wait for it, uh, Treasury Laws Amendment.

Speaker:

Making sure every state and territory gets their fair share of GST, Bill

Speaker:

2018, harshed both houses of federal parliament with overwhelming majorities,

Speaker:

even though it was a crummy deal for everybody outside of Western Australia.

Speaker:

Problem with this podcast, it gets quite depressing.

Speaker:

So many bad stories.

Speaker:

So many bad stories.

Speaker:

Let's just add that to it.

Speaker:

Were you guys aware of that one at all?

Speaker:

Yeah, I was aware of it.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah, I never knew the details like that.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

I knew that, um, I knew that Western Australia had some kind of sweetheart

Speaker:

deal on it, but I couldn't, I couldn't tell you what the numbers were.

Speaker:

Yeah, so there we go.

Speaker:

Good job I saw S Lake explaining that in quite some detail,

Speaker:

which I've just paraphrased.

Speaker:

So, there we go.

Speaker:

Well Guys, we've finished on a sour note, I reckon.

Speaker:

Imran Khan and the Western Australian GST carve up.

Speaker:

Have you guys heard of the UK Post Office scandal?

Speaker:

Yeah, that is bloody crook what's going on over there.

Speaker:

Tell me about it, Joe.

Speaker:

It's their equivalent to Robodat.

Speaker:

Um, so, the UK Post Office, which basically is the government

Speaker:

department in small villages.

Speaker:

Uh, it was all outsourced, and they rolled out a new computer system,

Speaker:

which was overpriced and late, what a surprise, and suddenly said

Speaker:

that all of these postmasters had been, um, siphoning off money.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And, uh Accusing them of fraud.

Speaker:

Accusing them of fraud.

Speaker:

So, a whole bunch of them got sacked, and the government demanded money from them.

Speaker:

A number of them were actually charged with criminal offences, and it turns out

Speaker:

that the computer program was at fault.

Speaker:

And that the government, this, this happened well over ten years

Speaker:

ago, uh, and that the government is only just admitting to it.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

So, you know, there are literally thousands of people whose lives

Speaker:

have been turned upside down by a computer system that the government

Speaker:

maintained was perfectly accurate.

Speaker:

Like I said, Shadows of Robo Death, all over again.

Speaker:

Yeah, very much a Robo Death thing.

Speaker:

Anybody got a happy story?

Speaker:

No, I don't have a happy story.

Speaker:

It's, one of those things, I find it really bloody crooked that a, something

Speaker:

like that could go that you've got to the point where people were imprisoned.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And they had to prove that they were innocent, more so than the other

Speaker:

side proving that they were guilty.

Speaker:

Had the proof, had the, had the onus of proof not actually being

Speaker:

reversed, had the proof been on the prosecution, then someone would

Speaker:

have found out that the computer system was fucked a long time ago.

Speaker:

You know?

Speaker:

I imagine they probably had suicides and just a bunch of marriage breakups.

Speaker:

They did have suicides and marriage breakups and God knows what else.

Speaker:

Ugh.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

Come on guys, something positive.

Speaker:

I'll work on it for next week.

Speaker:

Sorry dear listener, but there you go.

Speaker:

That's the state of the world at the moment.

Speaker:

Um, I guess we'll be back next week with more news and

Speaker:

politics and sex and religion.

Speaker:

We'll talk to you then.

Speaker:

Bye for now.

Speaker:

And it's a good night from me.

Speaker:

And it's a good night from him.

Speaker:

Good night.