Suburban Eastern Australia.

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

unique groups of Homo Sapians.

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

a top, 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.

Hello and welcome back to your listener, another episode of the Iron

Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.

We are up to episode 377.

I just keep rolling on by.

It is 21st of March, 2023.

We're gonna be talking about news and politics and sex and religion.

What's gone on in the last seven days?

I'm Trevor a k A, the Iron.

Fist with me as always.

Scott, the Velvet Club.

Goodday.

Trevor, Goodday.

Joe Goodday, listeners.

How are you all?

We're all well And Joe, the tech guys back as well.

Evening.

All right, so what are we gonna talk about?

Well, probably submarines, . No, we'd never talk about them.

Yes.

But in a roundabout way.

Yes.

Yes.

We will be.

We talking about Paul Keating.

Keating going off.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And really the reaction to what he said and how he treated the

journalists is interesting.

Even if you ignore the things he had to say about submarines.

Just the whole, yeah.

Social experiment.

It was a little bit crass, the way he treat that journalist.

You think so?

You know, we'll get onto that in a second.

Yeah.

Just also, we'll quickly talk about robo debt.

We're gonna talk about Nazis and they did Nazi, they coming . And

a few other bits and pieces.

Oh, recent poll came out on the voice.

A few interesting changes in the polls on people's attitudes to the voice.

I also mentioned to you guys did you consider this at all, but what you would

do if you were a benevolent dictator, any changes you would make in Australia?

Did you get a chance to think about that or you I did have a bit of a thing.

Good.

Okay.

We're gonna talk about that as well.

Is so you can think about that one dear listener.

Is if you were suddenly in power as a benevolent dictator in Australia,

what changes would you make?

So, alright.

Before we get on to submarines and Paul Keating, let's

quickly Scott talk about Nazis.

Shall we?

Melbourne?

Yes.

Mm, so there was a Ukraine?

Yes.

Ukraine as well.

Yeah.

Everywhere.

Brazil.

They're everywhere.

So yeah, there was somebody who was speaking, some anti-trans sort of

activist woman was down there and people came out in support of her and also

people came out to protest against her.

And in support of her was a bunch of about maybe 15, 20 guys all in black,

giving sort of Nazi salutes, obviously intending to promote themselves as Nazis.

And.

I don't think they had SWAs stickers, but they were clearly pro Nazi.

I think SWAs stickers are actually illegal now in in Victoria.

Yeah.

I think that might be as well.

And no, it wasn't Margaret Court.

Dawn . And so it was, yeah.

So the police were holding back the, the people who were the, the

contra protest, the ones who were protran and anti-Nazi mm-hmm.

were being held back by the police while the Nazis and the, and the

anti-trans were conducting their uh, well exercising their civic rights.

Mm-hmm.

such as it was interesting scenes really, I thought.

And there's talk about the Andrews government moving to ban the Nazi

salute because of the way the gesture was used in this protest.

So, Gentlemen, thoughts on that whole episode and potentially laws, which the

other states are considering as well for, for banning people doing a Nazi salute.

What do you reckon?

I, I've always been against any form of banning protest,

banning political symbolism.

Mm-hmm.

Because those hate speech laws can easily be turned around

and used against other people.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Historically the hate speech laws were used by the powerful

to oppress the minorities mm-hmm.

and I think they will be in the future.

I, I think implementing hate speech laws doesn't protect anybody,

at least not in the long term.

Mm-hmm.

, I, I think there are better ways, I think.

Social, ridiculous.

Considerably better.

Mm-hmm.

, rather than making things illegal.

Mm-hmm.

, Scott, you sound like you're about to sit on the fence.

You've got an uncomfortable look on your face.

It's one of those things I, I tend to agree with.

I tend to agree with Joe, but, you know, I do not wanna be accused of

being pro Nazi or anything like that.

Mm-hmm.

, if you could guarantee the hate speech laws were gonna be directed only at Nazis,

then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But I do agree that with Joe, that, you know, they have devolved in the past

to be used against minorities and that sort of stuff in the, in the country.

So it's pretty difficult when it's a gesture as well.

Yeah.

This, this is not.

Even speech as such, as a gesture.

And there's already in this group a sort of an upside down Okay.

Sign is some sort of Nazi signal as well oxy groups.

Yeah.

And oh, it's the same as the diving symbol, I believe.

The diving symbol.

Yeah.

When, when somebody, when you're diving, somebody goes, are you okay?

So, so there are perfectly benign reasons to make the sign.

Yes.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

And you could be in under, in your scuba gear going, what are

you doing a Nazi signal for?

So, yeah, look, it's tricky when it's just a gesture and these

people would invariably look at other gestures, although they

really wanna use the Nazi salute.

They're a tricky one to go near.

Obviously we don't want people doing things that are going to.

, you know, we have public nuisance laws, for example, where if people conduct

themselves in a way that is against the grain of what's considered common

decency, then we already stop that.

Like, if you were to walk down the street protesting by swearing, using really

terrible sailors language, for example, you, you'll be locked up if you keep doing

it because we do already say we find that offensive and against community standards.

And sometimes these community standards change.

So a hundred years ago blasphemy, a form of speech that was against

community standards was punishable.

But these days under separate law.

Yeah.

Well, yes.

And, and, and, and you, you wouldn't be locked up.

I think these days for swearing in public.

because I believe that the recent court cases, the, the magistrates

have said that's the kind of language you'll hear on the street.

It's, it's no more offensive.

Mm-hmm.

. Mm-hmm.

, because I think they've tried to charge people with swearing at police.

Mm-hmm.

, I don't know.

There's, there's some specific thing that they were trying to charge someone

and that the magistrate threw it out and said, actually that's perfectly

normal language in this day and age.

Okay.

There you go.

I think it's a risky line to go down as well.

Really, it's kind of handy having people self-identify as Nazis.

It's like, put your hand up if you're a Nazi.

Oh, it's good to know.

Now we know who you are.

It's kind of, I'd rather know who they are than.

and have it all go underground and be kept secret and Exactly.

And that is the whole point, because at least while they're out, out in that sort

of stuff, you can have the special branch photograph them and you know mm-hmm.

You've got, you've got a record of who they are mm-hmm.

. And then after that you can always they can always be raided by the

cops and all that sort of thing.

Mm-hmm.

Shalene says that was an accidental love heart.

What does that mean?

Was it that the upside down?

Okay.

Signs shalene.

I dunno what you're talking about there.

I've haven't kept track.

If you're in the chat room, say hello.

Don's there, Shay's there.

Sticky bits is there.

So, wasn't, wasn't it one of the ACL people who got photographed

with a bunch of white power guys?

No proud boys.

Yeah.

That pillow guy was with them.

And I think they were doing some sort of upside down Okay.

Sign.

Yeah.

It was something like that.

Yeah.

So, sticky Bits says there's a human right to be free of the incitement of hate.

So

there's also human rights about free speech.

Mm-hmm.

as well, isn't there?

There's the problem with rights at that level that are so broad

is that they invariably conflict with each other at some point.

So, it'll be great line that one.

And I, I'm sure that Saudi Arabia are very proud of their laws against

people who incite hatred of, of Islam.

Mm-hmm.

So tricky one to legislate on gestures very not just speech,

but gestures really hitting its dangerous territory with that one.

So, And, you know, very ac you know, I, I think also the Weimar

Republic historically actually locked up the Nazis Nazi leaders

for breaching hate speech laws.

Mm-hmm.

It didn't stop him.

Mm-hmm.

It, it's arguable whether it's slowed them down at all.

I, I think the, the problem is you, you're giving this power to people

who will misuse it when they get into power and you're not stopping

them from getting into power.

Mm-hmm.

. And I think at this point in the movement of modern day nazim in Australia, I think

we're still at the point where we could just take a moment to watch what develops.

We don't have to rush into something immediately.

Let's just see where this movement goes as well, I think is something we could do.

So, so.

Sticky bits.

You're gonna have to be more specific if you want us to to respond cuz

you're speaking in very general terms there of denying what we're saying

but not actually providing any detail.

So provide some detail and we'll respond.

Alright?

Where are we up to?

So, so yeah, that's happened in Victoria and the woman behind the

anti-trans movements trying to head to New Zealand, see what happens there.

There was a, there was a, a coalition politician involved in the movement, Moira

redeeming and there were moves to have her thrown out of the parliamentary party and

I'm not sure where that's got to, but not everybody was in agreement on that one.

So it's gonna be tricky for the Victorian opposition in dealing with that one.

So, a real right mess for them.

So, so yeah.

Anyway, that was Victoria and.

And really quite shocking really, the vi the vision, if you see it, of the people.

Actually, I think I've got it here in a picture on it.

So, the vision of the people doing their Nazi salute pretty full on.

So, there you go.

That's democracy at work as well.

All right sticky bits.

I've already cited.

Article 19, what's it say?

Sticky bits, article 19.

So what I'm saying is that there's in the human rights legislation, you get

conflicts between your right to do something and somebody else's right

to do something, and they overlap.

That's the problem with human rights in general.

So one person's right to practice their religion, eg.

Israel, fau telling people what he thinks about homosexuals interferes

with somebody else's right not to be.

Have hate, hate speech against them.

So that's the problem there.

So, and yes no expert in human rights ever says what you're saying, eh, none of

them, eh, it's a pretty broad statement.

Alright.

That's good.

Somebody in the chat room, having a ess and and having to disagree, which is good.

Robodi, briefly, gentlemen, , I'd heard about this averaging and I really

didn't quite get what they were what they were saying with the averaging.

And basically it worked like this where people might have, people might

have worked for six oh, or been on the, on the unemployment benefits for

say, six months from July to December.

Then they get a job in January and work from January through to June.

. And then what the department was doing was looking at their tax return, seeing

that they'd earned, let's say $30,000 and assumed that they had earned that

over the course of the whole 12 months, meaning they'd earned 15,000 during

that period when they were unemployed.

And that's how a lot of this averaging worked, where people

had been on unemployment, told the department, I've got a job, and got

off unemployment and then had this averaging provision put on them.

Pretty clear that that was just a very unfair arrangement.

So that's oh, that's how, that's how the averaging worked.

So actually when I first heard that they were averaging and that sort of stuff,

I thought to Jesus Christ, they're gonna get themselves in hell in a lot of

trouble there because, You know, you look at me, I was unemployed for six months

and then I got off unemployment and I went and got a very well-paying job,

which would have had, they have actually applied it and that sort of stuff.

They would've, they would've really fucked me over and they would've

said, well you, you have to pay back a hundred percent of your dollar.

Mm-hmm.

And in the chat room, sticky bit says, do you know Australia is a secular society?

Scott Morrison didn't think so, but yeah.

And sticky bit.

Scott and I did actually stand for the secular party at a Senate election.

So we do know a little bit about it, but we wish it was a secular

society hasn't quite reached it.

That's what we're here for.

Alright.

Let's talk about orcas and more of the fallout from the submarine issues.

Scott, even though I know you are bored with the topic of the submarines.

I've been banging on about it for a long time.

Of course.

And did you, did you listen or watch Paul Keating with, at the Press Club?

Did you see it at all?

Yeah, I did see it.

I didn't, I didn't watch the whole thing, but I did see snippets of it.

Okay.

And I thought he was far too rude to that particular journalist and you know, he

really, he really tore him a new one.

And I just thought to myself, okay, Paul, you've gotta calm down here,

but, but this was the journalist behind the Herald articles that

ran for three days beating up a propaganda of, of a war against China.

Like a pretty dangerous act.

But anyway, there's sort of two parts to this.

What did he say about submarines and then what did he say to the journalists?

So, I'm gonna play a little bit of a clip of what he said about submarines.

First of all, just some of the basic sort of stuff before we get into

his mean words to the journalists.

So, here he is Paul Keening.

So the only way the Chinese could threaten Australia or at,

or attack it, is by, is on land.

That is, I bring an armada of troop ships with a massive army to occupy us.

This is not possible for the Chinese to do because you would need an armeda of

troop ships and they'd need to come 13 days of steaming 8,000 kilometers between

Beijing or Shanghai and Brisbane, say in which case we, we just sync them all.

Let me say this, China has not threatened us, and despite five years of this

China threat appearing in the city, morning Herald, particularly, you

know, written by, you know, provocateur like Archer and people, it's all been.

. Untrue.

So untrue because it's 8,000 tons.

That's big.

They're discoverable.

They'll be discoverable from space.

And what's more, they are too big for the shallow waters of Australian coast.

A 4,000 ton boat like the Collins work perfectly around the

Australian coast because it was designed to protect Australia.

It wasn't designed to sit off the Chinese coast, sinking Chinese submarines.

Right.

So now we've got a big 8,000 ton clunker.

You can't impute threat meaning, meaning invasion with putting a, a

tariff on wine or maybe a silly enough to think that, you know, do you think

you are silly enough to think that Mr.

Keating cyber attack?

Well, what do you think Americans and the Russians are not into cyber attacks?

Who, who in the world is not into cyber attacks?

Or do you think we are not?

You know, just, just remember this The best friend we had in Asia

was a f was a former president of Indonesia, bar two Yono.

You know, he's the best guy.

We had barren for us.

You know, those dopes in asis tapped his telephone and out

of his wife tapped his phone.

I mean, this is what states get up to.

If you let these security agencies Ning, nogs take control, you know,

but you can't impute as your, as your question imputs, that that attacks or

a tariff on wine or Bali is equivalent to, to, to an invasion of the country.

China does not threaten Australia, has not threatened Australia does

not intend to threaten Australia.

You can have all the commercial rows you like.

We can have diplomatic or dust.

Remember, this all happened.

After Maurice Payne, you know, the great non minister of our time went on

the insiders program and said, we're gonna have weapon inspection, weapons

type inspections of, of Wuhan to find out what was the cause of the virus.

It was out of that came all of this, you know, so you can't put a question without

it, you know, I mean, contextualization may not be your long suit, but that's

what you should contextualization may not be your long suit.

Was that mean Scott, was it?

Or is it weird?

That part was fair enough.

No, that part was fair enough.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's just the part that was reported was saying that he, he, he basically

abused the guy, I thought, anyway.

We'll, we'll get onto that to the Sydney Morning Herald guy.

So, but anyway, in these, and I agree with, yeah, I, I agree with Keating.

China has not actually directly threatened Australia.

It hasn't.

But they have made some rather provocative noises about Taiwan.

And Taiwan is a democracy of 25 million people.

Which, but, but, but these are all noises that the but the

world community all agrees with.

They've said everyone agrees to the one China policy, don't they agreed to.

America agrees to it.

Everyone agrees to it.

Believe the Americans and the Australians would be a lot happier if the, if

the one China was, was actually run outta Taiwan rather than Beijing.

But it can hardly be, it can hardly be a provocative statement when

Australia and America in most of the Western world are on the same

page with the one China policy.

Like isn't, how can that be provocative to simply state what everyone else agrees?

I don't get it.

Yeah, but they're talking.

They haven't said, we're gonna charge you next week and take over.

No, I know that.

But they have actually, they have actually conducted military exercises and all

that sort of stuff, very close to Taiwan.

Mm-hmm.

, and they have threatened the independence of that country.

You know, I've said to you before that I honestly believe that China should

actually accept that they won that civil war and that Taiwan is just a remnant of

that is just a remnant of that civil war.

So, you know, they've just gotta accept that.

Mm-hmm.

. Taiwan has evolved into a democracy.

It wasn't a democracy for a long time.

It was a military dictatorship under Shanghai shek, I believe.

Mm-hmm.

He was the bloke that set it up and that sort of stuff.

So it was a military dictatorship for a long time.

Then, then after that, once it started to go democratic and that sort of

thing, they had a situation that they called them the old timers.

These were these old timers that were still representing they were still

representing people in mainland China and that sort of stuff, despite the

fact they hadn't been elected for years, and that's why the nationalists

had control of the government.

Mm-hmm.

. But over time they did actually, they voted themselves out of office and that's

when the, when it became a true democracy.

Mm-hmm.

. So that is why I think that I think that China's actually gotta sit down

and talk to them more than saber rattling because if they talk to

them and that sort of stuff, it's going to diffuse the whole situation.

Now, one of the things I think that they could actually agree on is

that that the south Sea is something that can belong to mainland China,

and that Taiwan can renounce their claims over the South China Sea.

So that is something that they could do.

It wouldn't be a hell of a lot, but it would be something that they could do.

They, they could renounce their claims over parts of Mongolia

and and areas like that, that the Taiwanese are still claiming to

which I, I agree with you there.

They, they should renounce all those claims because they lost that.

They lost the Civil War.

Mm-hmm.

You know, the nationalists lost the Civil War, so they've gotta

actually accept their their.

What's the word I'm groping for?

They're much smaller part of the territory and that sort of stuff.

They've got to accept it and they've got to accept it.

So if they accepted it, then that would be something that China could then

say, okay, these guys are actually starting to make some more sense.

Mm-hmm.

? Yeah.

But I honestly believe it's time that I honestly believe it would be

preferable if China would actually grow up a bit and actually not.

Not threaten Taiwan anymore.

What, what threat?

Okay.

Well, they have, honestly, the threats.

They have not actually threatened them, but they have, they have conducted

military exercises very close to Taiwan.

How could they not conduct a naval military exercise

that's not close to Taiwan?

It's impossible that that would be, could they not?

Had they have accepted that Taiwan was an independent country, then they

wouldn't be lobbing shells into their, into their . But you, you can't say the

fact that they're doing it off their own coastline is a provocative act

because where else are they gonna do it?

Yeah, but they're not, they're not actually, they're not actually lobbing

shells or anything into their own.

. You know, if you actually, if you actually looked at the distance and

that sort of stuff between the two, then you'd have to divide it between.

You'd have to say, well, okay, 50% of this belongs to the prc, 50%

of it belongs to the R o C, but that would be a two China policy.

Yeah, I know.

Which is where I'm headed to.

And I believe that.

I honestly believe that that's where we've got to get to that.

We've got to have something like that.

Mm-hmm.

, because that would be preferable to them just beating their

chest and that sort of stuff.

Now, I honestly believe it was, there's no chest beating.

There is chest beating Trevor, there is chest beating.

They're lobbing shells at them and all that sort of stuff.

They haven't lobbed a shell on Taiwan.

No, they haven't, but they've lobed shells in their waters.

Well, well, it's like us flubbing shells into Morton Bay almost

like it's, it's not that.

It's not Morton Bay.

Morton Bay is Australian territorial waters.

Yeah.

You know, look, in terms of provocative acts, there's so much greater

provocation by, for example, United States completely encircling China.

That's provocation, like honestly conducting their own military exercises.

But we've been over that before.

Just diverting back to Paul Keating.

So essentially he was making all the same arguments that I've been making

all these years, is that it's an inappropriate to have a nuclear submarine.

You want something small and nimble that can hide it's way too expensive.

And and ridiculously, what the hell, there is no threat from China anyway.

It's all just bullshit.

And how, how would China invade us?

Because they'd have to have this massive ahorre of troop ships,

which is incredibly difficult to do.

And we could pop 'em off easily because we've got plenty of notice

as they make their way day on here.

So, so he was really, I could have written his, the, the, the part that

he wrote in his written speech, I could have written that, that was.

That was a summary of, and I agree everything inside.

I agree with Keating that, you know, there is no, there is no threat to Australia.

And that is why I just thought to myself at the time that it was just a little

bit ridiculous that we were considering buying nuclear submarines and then we went

down there out of actually buying them.

And now, you know, three outta the 68 billion.

Mm-hmm.

That is a ridiculous sum of money.

Mm-hmm.

And you know, if we went back to the original, the original plan for

the submarines, it was by Abbott and that sort of stuff, he said

he wanted to buy them from Japan.

Now, how do you have actually spent 12 billion buying 12 submarines from Japan?

Happy days because we'd have, we'd have the, we'd have the capacity and that sort

of stuff to protect ourselves over here.

We would not get involved in any adventures.

. Correct.

In the South China Sea, we would've defensive submarines

rather than offensive.

Exactly.

And that is the whole point.

Like, you know, it appears that the Yanks looked at, looked at us and

said, okay, well we're gonna need to, we're gonna need to expand that.

We're gonna need to expand our bases and that sort of stuff, so we're gonna

need to put them down there and that type of thing so they can go ahead

and make a nuisance of themselves.

One thing that Keating said in his statement, which was news to me that

was amazing, was that basically Scott Morrison called them in him Penny Wong and

Miles, and said, I've got this Orca deal.

And What do you reckon?

And within 24 hours the Labor Party agreed to it.

Mm-hmm.

Something as massive as orcas.

Within 24 hours they agreed to it and Keating was scathing about that,

saying, what the hell are you doing?

Agreeing to something as momentous as that within 24 hours.

And he's got a really good point there.

So he was quite scathing of penny Wong and suggesting or saying that

she had a policy where she just didn't want any difference between labor and

liberals when it comes to defense, cuz she didn't want any wedge issues.

So essentially the entire, you know, labor program has been to fall in line with the

conservatives on defense issues so that they wouldn't be wedged in an election.

bugger any principles that you might have about what our policy

should be on these sorts of things.

It was just, let's not create a target.

Let's not allow ourselves to be wedged and let's just agree

to whatever they're doing.

What a pathetic, pathetic arrangement to come to.

And shameful.

And obviously Paul Keating knows exactly what's going on in the Labor Party, so

there's nothing fanciful about that.

He's not making it up.

That's what would've transpired.

Penny Wog just been a chicken and a coward and willing to just give up the

idea of an independent labor foreign policy just to avoid a fight with the

liberals in an election, pathetic, and to, and to agree to ORs within 24 hours.

Just an abdication of duty by all concerned.

and it's really got me worried about prospects for what Albanese might do over

the next he's gonna do anything about Julian Assange or other issues like that.

So, hard to imagine.

Well, he made some sort of positive statements and all that sort of

stuff pretty shortly after he was elected about Julian Assange.

So we'll have to wait and see on that.

Yeah, it may well be, it may well be a part of the backroom dealing and that

sort of stuff, saying, well, you know, you want us to pay $368 billion for

these for these submarines that have a off-the-shelf price of $10 billion ahead.

Mm-hmm.

, you know, I think you're gonna have to come good with Julian Assange.

So, yeah, I, I was hoping that's what he would be doing in the background

and I was hoping that when it comes to stage three cut tax cuts, he'd be

saying, prior to the next election.

Guess what?

We're not gonna allow that.

Yeah.

I'm having serious doubts about the guy.

So, so it wouldn't surprise me that stage three tax cuts could get

knocked on the head before the budget.

Yeah.

Because it's it's one of those things.

Yep.

Now let me just get onto the other part of Keating's speech, which was

where he was getting into journalists.

So in particular, the guy from the City Morning Herald.

So this is the so-called nasty bit with with what he was up to.

So I'll play a bit of this, Matthew, not from the Sydney Morning

Herald and the age has a question.

Hi Mr.

Keating.

I'll ask two parts if I could.

You've been extremely critical.

Of the Albanese government including ministers uh, Richard Miles and Penny

Wong, are you concerned that your comments today could represent a

fundamental rupture with the party?

You've already said that the Prime Minister hasn't responded to your

request to brief him on this.

And secondly, you have a, a tremendous skill for invective and criticism.

Could I ask you now to turn some of that to the Chinese Communist Party and its

treatment of Uyghurs, for example, its treatment of pro-democracy activists

in Hong Kong will you be similarly critical of them as you are of people

in your own party and journalists?

After what you co-wrote with Har last week in that shocking presentation in the

Herald on Monday, Tuesday, and when you should hang your head in shame, I'm, I'm

surprised you even have the gall to stand up in public and ask such a question.

Frankly, you know, you ought to do the right thing and drum yourself

out of Australian journalism.

You know, , I mean the, that's the, the most egregious, the worst,

the most biased presentation.

You pick up four specialists.

You could have picked up John McCarthy, a long-term specialist Alan gk.

You pick up four China Hawks, the, the biggest of the mall, gen, gen

Jennings you know, Davina Lee.

These are all China Hawks.

You represent them to the community as having an independent view where you

know full well that you've sat, you've, you've, you've, you've selected them.

Two that do this thing.

And here you are asking me about Uyghurs and you're asking me about if I said to

you, and I did say when I saw her last time, here's the Prime Minister over,

there's all everyone over in India.

Not one question from any one of you about, about Modi shutting in the Muslims

in Kashmere, in the pro Hindu policies.

Nothing.

But there is still a question, Mr.

Keating, about the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs.

Yeah, well understand the treatment of the Uyghurs.

I'm not to defend China about the Uyghurs.

I mean, there's disputes about what the nature of the, of, of the, of the

Chinese affront of the Uyghurs are.

There's a spirit about that.

But one thing we can't be sure what if the Chinese said, but look, what

about deaths in custody of aboriginal people in your, in your prison system?

You know, wouldn't that be a valid point for them?

Wouldn't it be a valid point?

In other words, great power diplomacy.

is cannot be about reaching down into the low social end trails of these states

any more than they can with us, you know?

But the Sydney Morning Harold, frankly, has, has lost as, as it's, it's, it's,

it's a newspaper without integrity.

And, and, and, and the age follows it in Paul Little, like

a little pup running behind.

You know, I mean, if I were you mate, I'd hide my face and never

appear again on, on the subs.

For the record, Mr.

Getting, we're, we're very proud of our journalism and, you know,

we think that's made an important contribution to the national debate.

But can I just clarify, do you think that it really is in dispute about

what China has been doing in Jang?

It's been a very well chronicled by the United Nations, which

issued a detailed report last year.

Right.

Well, let me ask you, do you, what do you believe Modi and his Hindu party is?

To, to the Muslims in Kashmir.

You've got a view on, there's not a question about China back to one because

you are, because you are not honest enough to recognize that the guy you support.

Mai has the same sort of problems as, as the Chinese have.

You know, we we're reported on problems in, in India as well,

but we're talking about China.

No, you don't.

You're all a soft touch on India.

That's a, was that so rough?

Really?

He basically said the three pages, the three days of articles by you guys

was a terrible piece of journalism that was irresponsible and dangerous.

And it was, yeah, it was.

Now there, there's no argument.

So, but heating still has not answered the question about

the treatment of the Uyghurs.

And yes, the journalist never asked the question of the, of the Modi regime

and that sort of stuff over their treatment of the Muslims in cashmere.

Okay.

Separate issue though.

The Uyghurs are a separate issue, but, but on the, on the claim of abuse, but just,

let's just deal with the abuse claim.

Well, he was very rude.

Well, does somebody deserve respect?

Who utilizes a major newspaper outlet and runs a campaign that's against Australia's

interest and is incredibly dangerous?

What that's gonna be called out, hasn't it?

Like, and he basically called him out and said, you should hang your head in

shame for printing that he said, he said that, you know, you, you've, you ought to

hang your head in shame, which is let's.

What's wrong with that?

A little bit over the top.

Is it?

Is it over the top?

It was just a little bit over the top.

If, if, if somebody is drumming the, you know, beating the drum of war

unnecessarily and inciting Australia to enter a war by, by outright propaganda,

an incredibly biased report that had nothing from the other sort of argument,

isn't, isn't that about as bad as it gets?

What, what?

I mean, the guy could zig hale down the main street 24 7, it'd be

nowhere near as bad as, as, as what he's doing with these newspaper.

Like, that's one of the worst things an Australian could do, would be to try

and get us into an unnecessary war and to try and beat up an unnecessary war.

I, I think Keating went light on him.

I, to me, it seemed an incredibly, it didn't seem over top at all to be.

to be putting it on somebody like that and saying you, what you've done is shameful.

I'd have to take that way and think about that.

Okay.

Might have convinced you a little bit.

You've made me question myself.

Hmm.

I, yeah.

Dunno, it could be my old liberal party roots and that sort of stuff

coming outta me and that sort of thing.

Thinking if Keating says something, it's obviously wrong.

Mm.

But Keating hasn't said too much wrong there.

I just think that he was just a little bit too rude to I don't think

he, just a little bit too rude.

That's all.

And with the other journalists, what I saw when I watched it, and I've watched

it sort of probably twice now cause I was trying to pull out clips and things was.

Often journalists would frame try and frame a situation with a question.

It wasn't necessarily genuinely, what do you think?

Because some of the questions, like there was one journalist who asked a question

about how this affected our relationship with Indonesia, and Keating was absolutely

straight up and down and, and dealt with the issue of what that meant with

Indonesia because it was a good question.

Like it was a question that was relevant.

And Keating really treated it with a straight bat and I dunno that's the

right expression, but basically paid respect to the question, answered

it, and didn't abuse the journalist.

And there was another question of a similar ilk where basically Keating

just dealt with the question, but others would enter it by, by framing and

saying, well, you know, in the light of China's provocations, , blah, blah, blah.

Here's my question.

And he would say, stop right there.

What do you mean provocation?

Why are you using that word?

So, are you so naive as to think that that, you know, wine

tariffs are, are an attack?

So to me it was plain speaking and it was pulling people up and

genuinely listening to what they were saying and responding to it.

So whereas politicians now basically say whatever they want to and totally

ignore the question, like that's what we get most of the time now is politicians.

Doesn't matter what the question was, they will head off with a spiel of

whatever they wanted to talk about.

He at least had the courtesy to say, I've listened to what you've said and

I truly understand the way that you've framed it, and I'm gonna deal with.

the way you framed it and the question, and I thought it was very well done.

So, like Keating made a heap of mistakes in government, like way too many.

But so he wasn't right on everything by any means, but he's right on this one.

So, yeah.

Well, I did have to agree with Keating when he said that we had to find our

security within Asia, not from Asia.

Mm-hmm.

I think he was right there.

Mm-hmm.

You know, it's one of those things.

Mm-hmm.

So, so anyway, and it was interesting that in the aftermath of the Keating

interview, people were talking more about the style rather than the substance and,

and couldn't really engage properly.

So, it was all an interesting exercise, so, Hmm.

Right.

Let's just divert back sticky bits, mate, or whoever you are, you,

you're rattling off 50 messages.

There's no way we're gonna be able to deal with all of them.

We can't interrupt every train of thought to deal with

everything that you wanna say.

So, but let's just backtrack a little bit then for Article 19 human Rights

Act, which yeah, let me just go back to the chat and what do we say here?

Article 19 h speech explained a toolkit, article 19.

Article 19 says, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to

seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media.

And regardless of frontiers.

Doesn't really say much about hate beach in there.

It seems to be on the side of saying, say whatever you like,

doesn't really provide many caveats.

You've got the right to express yourself, the freedom to hold

opinions, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.

So, I just returned to the Israel for hour situation where he would say under Article

18, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion.

This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,

either alone or in community with others and in public or private to

manifest his religion or belief.

So, conflict between the two.

That's what happens when you have general rights.

So, so yeah, that's back to the the problem of competing.

Human rights.

Right.

What are we up to next?

I've found it, I follow Hillsong survivors on Facebook.

And I have to say, I've, it's a content page is mostly memes.

Mm-hmm.

and I, I was getting fairly turned off by them actually recently because

they seemed to be very homophobic.

So they Hillsong survivor group.

Yeah.

Right.

So they were still Christian, just not Hillsong anymore?

Well, I don't know.

I mean, they seemed to be atheist, so lots of atheist memes.

Right.

But particularly pointed at the Evangel evangelical Church.

Mm-hmm.

. But, but lots of jokes about.

How various people are gay and how they're all having gay sex in the prayer

room, and lots of things like that, which just seem to be unwarranted, Joe,

if you're gonna hang around Hillsong chat rooms, even ex hillsong chat

rooms, anyway, don't, don't hang around.

They're hoping for great things.

They, they, they put five posts up about how Keating was a dog and how

dare he talk about anyone like that.

Ah, and I said, so we're gonna have posts about this, but not about the

fact that they've jumped straight on board an LMP thing and gonna spend

however many billion dollars on this.

And they said, well, yeah, of course that's bad.

Okay, but where are the memes?

Where are the posts?

You know, here you are bagging Keating, but you've said

nothing about the submarines.

Yeah.

So just back to the Uyghurs.

Yes.

What Keating said was, look, I don't know about the Uyghurs Uhhuh , essentially.

and it's disputed as to what is going on with the Uyghurs in China.

But he said essentially, you don't ask these questions about India.

Why?

Why do we have to deal with them with China if you're not

prepared to ask them about India?

And fair point, like, fair point.

It, it is in dispute what's going on with the Uyghurs.

Who knows who honestly, who knows where the propaganda from either side starts

and finishes with that one, particularly when one of the guys behind it was some

crazy evangelical guy, was the main source of a lot of the stuff going on there.

So I really, honestly dunno what's going on with the Uyghurs.

And it is genuinely disputed.

And that's all Keating said was it's in dispute.

He didn't say the Chinese were innocent.

He said he's not there to defend them.

He's just saying, really, why are you raising this if you, you are not

prepared parties that we do India.

It's, it's hypocritical.

It's a double standard.

And they could just as easily turn around and talk about our treatment

of indigenous people in prison and deaths and custody, et cetera.

Well, I dunno that they could No, but that's what he said.

That's a fury.

But yes, that's what he said.

But um, and we are selling uranium to India.

Yeah.

We're selling Iron ore to China.

Well, presumably to make the bombs, but they're gonna drop on us.

Whatever happened to the, you know, what's the pig Iron?

Pig Iron.

Bob Pig Iron Bob.

Right.

Because he was selling pig Iron to Japan.

Yeah.

Which was turned into steel and that sort of stuff, which was used to make the ships

and that sort of stuff that sailed south.

So prior to the second World War, the wary said, looks like we're

heading to war with these Japanese, what are we doing selling them?

Pig Iron.

. Mm-hmm , it's gonna end up as artillery or some weapon to be used

against our boys and had to stop it.

If these people were genuine about fears about China wanting

to invade us, what are we doing?

Selling them Iron Ora

doesn't make sense.

Okay.

So that's Paul Keating.

That was good.

What else we got here?

Albanese has said it's a different world now to what Paul Keating was dealing

with, and I had an article by guy called Michael Pasco basically talking about

how people were complaining about what Keating said or how he said it, but they

couldn't really complain about what he said and we hadn't really had a debate.

And so that was a good article there.

Right what we're nearly done with subs and I promised, dear listener

Scott, I'll make this promise now.

I will not mention the submarines again next week.

Okay.

This is the last little bit here, here and now.

Okay, fair enough.

Are we gonna talk about the Hillsong papers and that sort

of stuff that the independent Tasmanian Wilkie Wilkie, that's him.

We will, as soon as I finish with my last bit on submarines, Excellent.

, which is just what did the, what did, what did people think?

What's, what's public opinion with this stuff?

So, Australia's need for nuclear powered submarines, so essential poll asked people

in Australia and said, these submarines, it's gonna cost up to 368 billion.

Which of the following is closest to your view on Australia's need

for nuclear powered submarines?

And 26% said we need nuclear submarines and it's worth paying that amount.

27% said we need nuclear powered submarines, but it's not worth that much.

28% said we don't need nuclear powered submarines.

And 19% said they were unsure.

So only 26% of the Australian population, according to this survey,

thinks that we need the submarines and it's worth paying that much for them.

And tell me, do they all read the Australian, those 26%?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that's a problem for labor down the track.

Great for the greens, would've thought So how does this pan out in terms

of a breakdown of male and female?

So that one about people who n who like the idea we need the submarines

and they're willing to pay the price.

35% of males think that, but only 17% are females.

So that's a big difference.

35% male, 17% female.

Lots of males who like a shiny, expensive submarine to shoot

things and only 17% of women.

So, the other statistics there were not that interesting.

And lemme just go for one more here on submarines is this one here?

My age 18 to 34.

Age group.

. Only 20% I think we need them at that price.

But in the older age group, 55 plus it's 32%.

And then just one more on submarines, on statistics would be voting patterns.

So 41% of coalition voters would say Australia needs those submarines

and it's worth paying them.

Only 26% labor.

So essentially, if you are old, if you are male, if you are a coalition voter, that's

the demographic that wants a submarine, a nuclear submarine at that price.

Anyway, so I thought the gender one was a really striking one.

So any of that surprise you guys?

No, none of that surprises me.

Mm-hmm.

, so.

Alright.

I think we're just looking at the LMP demographic, aren't we?

Yeah.

So Scott Valley Bank collapsed.

Just one thing before we move on.

Yep.

The stage three tax cuts are projected to cost 245 billion over the next 10 years.

So that goes, say that again, Scott.

Sorry.

That's gonna cost 245 billion over the next 10 years.

That's the stage three tax cuts.

Mm-hmm.

. Now, if they knocked them on their head, they've gone a very long way to covering

the whole cost of the 368 billion.

Now, you know, I think that there's a hell of a stronger argument

to knock that on the head, cuz you've gotta sit up and down.

You're gonna say, which do you want?

Do you want these tax cuts or do you want these nuclear subs?

You would think at the next election that's what they would do and say.

Because we need these subs and because it's more expensive than we thought.

That's our reason for deciding to cancel the stage three tax cuts.

You would think so?

Mm-hmm.

But I don't know.

I just, I'm lost a lot of faith in this labor government.

Yeah.

Which is no doubt that you have lost a hell of a lot of faith, which is fine,

but it's just I still think they'll do it, but I'm not so sure as I was, yeah.

I was really confident previously that they would just do it bef because they

don't come into effect until another three years or something anyway.

No, they, they're still a long way on.

They're start, they're starting, they're starting, they're starting to

implement them before the next election.

Mm-hmm.

. So that is the whole bloody problem that they've got is that, you know,

Albanese was able to implement the changes to superannuation because

he says, if you don't like it, don't vote for us and kick us out.

which is fine, but he hasn't got the same sort of, he can't say the same

thing about the stage three tax cuts.

Mm-hmm.

, because they're the implement, the implementation policy and the

implementation of the policy and all that sort of stuff has already been voted on.

That sort of thing.

It's gonna start before the next election.

Mm-hmm.

. So that is a, that's a bit of a bugger for him.

When he said that he was, he was committed to the tax cuts.

Mm-hmm.

Which was just a little bit foolish, I would've thought.

Mm-hmm.

John in the chat room made a good point.

Sticky bits.

You are welcome to reach out via email.

Go to the website, Iron Fist velva Glove dot com au.

Send me an email and we can discuss your heart's content the things

that you're talking about here.

But I mean, I didn't cherry pick, I did actually put the hole of Article

19 on the screen, ring it out so, I read the whole thing and how I could

have been accused of cherry picking it.

That was it.

The whole thing.

Alright yeah, we're just gonna have to put you on quiet for a while.

Sticky bits.

Scott.

Mm-hmm.

Silicon Bank.

Yeah.

Went belly up.

Mm-hmm.

So this was a bank, dear listener based in Silicon Valley and

had an old, an old-fashioned bank run, essentially occurred.

It wasn't your typical bank.

This was a bank that had a lot of wealthy people with large

amounts of money in there.

So this was a lot of people connected with the PayPal Mafia teal and

Watson was in PayPal, wasn't he?

Oh Musk.

Yeah, exactly.

All that crowd had a lot of money in in that.

Bank.

So, essentially it wasn't, when you're dealing in those sorts of numbers with

those sorts of people, when somebody like that does a quick runaround to 20 of his

closest mates and says, I think the bank's in trouble, let's get our money out.

Or I've got my money out, I think you should too.

Then it's easy If you are ever gonna construct a run on a bank, then that

was the bank to do it on where you could quickly get people on board.

So, and they they had issues where they had had these bonds

which they owned, which were government issued treasury bonds.

And because interest rates have increased, the value of the bonds, which were at

low interest rates were decreasing.

And they don't have to show that on their books.

Until they actually sell them.

So even though the market value of these bonds had decreased,

they didn't have to show them.

So their books kind of looked better than what they were anyway.

We are really entering a period, dear list note where we've had record low interest

rates since the global financial crisis.

And coming out of that where we go back to more normal rates of interest

is not gonna be necessarily that easy.

And there's gonna be people stuck with low interest treasury bonds, which

are then devalued, and it's just not gonna be the easiest thing to work back

into a normal interest rate situation.

So it'd be interesting to see what happens with TR treasury

bonds, though, usually worth more because they're government backed.

They, they're a conservative investment, yes.

With a guaranteed rate of return.

, like the bond, you know, says it's a 3% bond or whatever.

Mm-hmm.

. But the problem is when people, when the interest rates go up to five or 6% Yeah.

Then the value of that bond is now decreased because people go,

oh, what do I want a 3% one for?

I could have a 6%.

So what would that bond be worth if it was paying 6%?

And so yeah, that's where it gets into trouble with the, they do drop in market

price when the interest rate increases, which is essentially what you're talking

about there, is the, is the is the secondhand value of those bonds because

they were, you know, if they were, if you were just, if you were just valuing at

the, at the list price and that sort of stuff, you just, you wouldn't move it.

Right.

Which is where the bank got into trouble because it wasn't actually reducing the

value of the, of them on their books.

Hmm.

And So, and they're a long-term thing, so mm-hmm.

, it'll be interesting to see what happens with with these guys.

So, alright.

The voice Mm mm Support to the voice has dropped significantly.

Okay.

So, support for the voice overall.

Back in February 23, only a month ago, 65% in favor, 35% against.

In favor has now dropped 6% to 59.

That's a big, that's a big drop.

59 from 65 to 59%.

Just breaking that up into different demographic segments.

So those in favor, males, 56%, emails, 63%.

Also age group, if you are young, 18 to 34, 70 9% in favor of the voice.

If you're old 55 or older, only 40% in favor of the voice.

I'm starting to see a similar demographics, Scott, to submarines here.

Ooh, interesting.

Here.

It's, it's gonna line up pretty much the same way.

By state in favor of the voice.

New South Wales, 61%, Victoria, 67% Queensland, 49% South Australia, 62%.

Western Australia, 55%.

So Scott, for a referendum to get up, what, what do we need?

You need a majority of states with, you need a majority of the

population saying yes, and you need a majority of states saying yes.

Mm-hmm.

So that would look, if you were to look at that, then Queensland would be voting No.

Wa Yeah.

Then you'd, it's probably intentional.

Tasmania is, I wonder why Tasmania didn't get on there.

Dunno that chart.

Yeah.

Maybe they didn't have enough respondents for a, for a good sample

size because Tasmania doesn't count.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's only got half a million people down there.

It's bloody ridiculous that their own state.

Anyway, Queensland on that chart.

The only state at this stage okay.

This is the interesting one for the, the hard Yes and the hard no.

Mm-hmm.

and, and guys, do you remember last time we talked about this in the greens?

There was actually, I've got it on the next slide.

I'll go forward.

One.

The slide at the moment is the February slide and people who voted

greens but were a hard no was 3%.

And at the time Jay, you were pointing out that was probably me.

, yeah.

Guess what?

Thirteen's percent?

Yeah.

From 3% to 13% Greens voters who are a hard No, that was a really

interesting statistic, but.

A hard yes and a hard no is oh, I suppose it's little chance.

I thought it was zero chance that their mind would change.

Cuz I'm gonna say these people have changed their minds.

Yeah.

But the thought there is that maybe with Lydia Thorpe and what she was saying,

where she was kind of, saying just like against the voice because she's thinking

it's seating sovereignty, for example.

So maybe more people in the greens along the lydia thought line where

there's saying no because it doesn't go far enough or because it potentially

seeds sovereignty rather than the other reason why people say no.

What do you reckon could, what do you think's most

likely happening there, Scott?

Well, I think it's probably, you think you've probably hit

the nail on the head there.

It looks like the, it looks like the green voters and that sort of stuff that they're

were asking were being asked probably from the hard left faction of the greens.

Yeah.

And they are very much on Lydia Thorpe side.

Mm.

Wanting a treaty first, for example.

Yeah.

Or not because they don't ultimately want this this sort of voice, but

they want other things first or they wanted increased even more.

So, you wouldn't have picked that a month ago, Joe, when I was in the 3%.

If I'd have said to you then, you know what, like within four

weeks that 3% is gonna be 13%.

You would've, yeah.

I mean, that's what I was smoking it, it seems to be.

If it is that then.

That survey really doesn't, it, it shows what people intend to vote,

but not why they intend to vote it.

Yes.

And therefore can be misrepresented Yes.

A as being a people aren't in favor of the voice because they're racists.

Yep.

Yep.

And I'm sure it will be used to bandy about, look at other country of racists.

We are mm-hmm.

. Mm-hmm.

. So, so yeah.

So that's interesting.

The movement there is interesting.

We're still a way off from any referendum.

Why has it moved so much?

I, I dunno.

I see.

Look, you look at the Labor party vote, and you've only

got 20, you've only got 50.

You've only got 77% of that being.

Yes.

Now it's 50% being the hard Yes.

And 27% being the soft.

Yes.

Now what was that originally?

I dunno, I'd, I'd have to go back through it all.

But yeah.

Overall, is this one of those things?

I would, I would just be very interested to see, I would be interested to know

why it's moving in that direction.

Mm-hmm.

It's just, we haven't really started the campaign or anything like that,

so there's nothing that you can actually say, oh, look at this.

Mm-hmm.

Anyway, it's, it's gonna get ugly.

Oh, it's gonna get extraordinarily ugly.

Mm-hmm.

It's not a, it's not gonna be at all pretty mm-hmm.

. Mm-hmm.

, you know, and it's one of those things like

yeah, I won't say it, but you know, up here in Rocky and

that sort of stuff, you do see.

A hell of a lot more indigenous people out on the streets up here

than what I just saw in Mackay.

Mm-hmm.

. And unfortunately you do tend to see the not so nice right.

Of them, which isn't pleasant.

Mm-hmm.

. So it's one of those things.

And I just think to myself, if a voice is actually gonna stop this

sort of nonsense, yeah, let's have it.

But I just don't think that it will.

And of course, Queensland has a large regional population.

Yeah.

We do.

Compared to other states.

Yeah.

But surely so does the territory.

We didn't have the territory result.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

But so does wa No, not nearly as much regional as you know, a lot.

wa people are really stacked in around Perth and Yeah.

That corner of, of so, so it's Perth and the mines and that's it.

Yeah.

Australia's got Queensland's got a lot more higher sort of, regional

population than any other state.

Mm-hmm.

. Yeah.

In the chat room Landon says the voice is an issue that people will

care about if they are feeling good and secure about their own lives,

cost of living, et cetera, are bigger issues for the average Joe now.

So, but does that mean they'd vote No.

Just because they're not feeling secure or they're just not paying attention?

Hmm.

Yeah.

True.

See where it all ends up?

What's the timeline for this?

Have we been given one?

It's sometime later this year.

They're talking about October, I would've thought.

Yeah.

They're currently deciding on in the Labor Party as as to how to

organize the show and how much.

Money if they need to give to the different arguments and stuff like that.

So.

Hmm.

We come from the racist.

See, that is the whole bloody point about this, is if you can, you know, I can just

see it coming that you're gonna have, you're gonna have people on the Yes side

that are actually saying, unless you vote for this, you are obviously a racist.

And it's just going to, the whole thing's gonna fall down exactly the

way Hillary Clinton did when she said, you know, same as Bri said.

Exactly.

You know, and, and I wish I knew that the guy, that name of that bloke that

said that, you know, we'd just got a, we just gotta look at what we did

wrong here and that sort of stuff.

And, and thankfully we'd moved on and then we had Hillary Clinton saying, oh,

I could put half of Trump's supporters into a basket of deplorables, you know?

Mm-hmm.

, and that was when mm-hmm.

, that was when she, she lost the election.

Mm-hmm.

, you know, it's one of those things, um mm-hmm.

. Hmm, John, John in the chat room says, I think you guys need to

review the comments a bit more.

John, what we're gonna do at the end of this one actually is we're gonna

scroll through the, the chat at the end and which might take a little

while, but I'll do it at the end cuz it might get edited out because of this.

So much delay.

But before we just under the final segment that I want to do, so my

son was helping me shipping some furniture down the coast the other day.

So we were in a truck together for an hour and a half each way.

And most of our discussion on the way down was on whether I,

I maintain that the reserve bank should not be independent anymore.

It should be a proper function of government and we're

crazy for delegating this.

And he was arguing the opposite.

He thought it was still a good idea to have it as an independent operation.

Basically he did agree with his son basically because he

felt that our democracy is so terrible and works so badly the.

He was better having a non-Democratic controlled, you know, that Reserve

Bank, Scott would've just, Scott Morrison would've just made himself

head of the Reserve Bank as well.

He would've as well if he'd name or two and wouldn't have told anybody.

Just exactly.

Yeah.

But anyway, and then part of our discussion then as well was what would

you do if you were suddenly installed as a benevolent dictator and so you could pass

whatever laws you wanted to in Australia as some sort of benevolent dictator.

And it was good sort of thought experiment to do.

And I thought I'd quickly run through some ideas with you guys and see what you had

in your mind as a benevolent dictator.

But you know, as I was thinking about it, probably.

, you know, I thinking you could make all these changes, but then

eventually you're gonna die.

And if you can't install your son as , as the next benevolent dictator,

then everything that you've possibly tried to do could just be unwound

very easily by the next dictator.

I, I, I don't know.

I think there are some social institutions that were you to dismantle

them, it would be very difficult to get the support to recreate them.

Yes, yes.

But I was probably gonna, yes, you're right.

If you destroy something, yes.

That's probably a long lasting reform.

Yes.

Then if you create something that could easily be torn down, so for example, if

you wanted to get rid of Medicare mm-hmm.

, then getting rid of it, easy, hard to reintroduce.

Yeah, yeah.

I, but I, I think.

Medicare is one of those that would have the political support that people would

say, I want that back, but hang on.

Yeah.

Yes.

So anyway, part of my thought process was that, you know, as a,

as a benevolent dictator mm-hmm.

, who really wants his reforms to be long lasting.

Mm-hmm.

Even beyond my lifespan.

Cuz hey, it's no fun just to get everything you want in life.

You want it to be on everybody else forever as well.

What I, what I was thinking was that I'd want to somehow control the education

curriculum to ins install media literacy, critical thinking, citizenship history,

and religious education in some sort of mandatory subjects that every

kid did, such as people understand.

What's going on in the world and are basically enabled to figure

it out as they go along and how to look at things, how to research, how

to think, how to think critically.

And that would probably be the most important reform I think I would want to

do beyond the other things we'll get into.

But number one was just be trying to undergo some mass education

project where people really understood a lot of these issues.

So when you moved on, they would be better at position to decide whether

to keep 'em or throw 'em away.

Or be carry on.

Yeah.

I mean, if, if you taught formal debate the ability to particularly,

I mean, at my school, the teacher very much would throw us in the

opposing camp to our personal beliefs.

Yep.

To force you to think through the issue and to str uh, to, to steel

man your opponent's arguments.

Yes.

By, by, you know, deliberately picking you and putting you in, you know, the opposing

camp to, to your personal beliefs mm-hmm.

, that, that would force you to investigate the best arguments on the opposing side.

Yep.

And challenge you the, your, your, your own s Yep.

Which I think is good.

And somebody's mentioned science, literacy you know, growing up even as

a com, finishing school and having done physics at a level I, I still thought

that science was a body of knowledge.

Mm-hmm.

, I didn't understand that it was a process.

Mm-hmm.

, and, and that to me, I think is the biggest thing I think

that schools are failing at, is to say, science is not this.

This single thing.

It is a way of thinking.

Yep.

And our approach, it's a way of challenging beliefs.

Mm-hmm.

And, and seeing through our own personal dogmas to arrive at an

answer that we can all agree on.

Mm-hmm.

And like everyone would have to learn some basic statistics, which I think

the you know, COVID 19 situation really demonstrated when I was having

arguments with was and with Paul about these various studies and what

they were saying about lockdowns and the effectiveness and mm-hmm.

vaccines and the effectiveness and, and, you know, people would point to studies

of 50 people . It was like, that's not a, yeah, that's not a proper study.

That number is insignificant.

The margin of error on that is way too high, you know?

Yeah.

Just.

Some basic statistical knowledge so that people don't get conned

by these reports as well.

Are, are you across the whole mask report that came out a couple of weeks ago?

The what?

Report?

Mask Wearing Report?

No.

So Cochran, who are a they, they produce meta-analysis of scientific reports.

So they'll go and pull the best scientific papers on a medical study, on

a medical issue and collate the results.

And then do so you can take a whole bunch of 50 people studies, which are small

and group them together, assuming that they have similar trial outcomes mm-hmm.

, and effectively make them into one single big study.

Okay.

And there was one that was done, which effectively said, , there is no evidence

for or against wearing masks in public.

Right?

And that was touted by the anti-vaxxers as, Hey, your masks don't work.

And realistically the report said, look, we don't have good e evidence either way.

And that's, that's what the report said, but that's not what was read.

Mm-hmm.

, and the science-based medicine people have said, this is the problem.

We take evidence.

And we take, and it's the same with homeopathy and things like that.

We take a bunch of studies and look at them in aggregate.

And, and the problem is the underlying science just doesn't exist.

This idea of homeopathy folds at its first hurdle when you look at the science.

And the same with mask wearing the physics says, , if you have water droplets,

which contain the virus, which is what most of your breath out is mm-hmm.

is water droplets.

A mask in front of your face is gonna catch the majority of those water

droplets and is gonna reduce the number of virus particles in the air.

Mm-hmm.

. So effectively performing these studies is irrelevant.

Yes.

Because we know the underlying science.

Yes, yes.

Yep.

And this is the problem, is the misuse of studies to prove a point.

Mm-hmm.

. Now I remember I did that one where Rowan Dean did that

thing on hydro, what was that?

Hydroxy Chloro.

Hydroxy.

Oh yeah.

And he referred to the study of studies and yeah.

Delved into 'em.

And some of these studies were, even as a layman, I could look at it and

go, this is just a rubbish study.

But so yeah.

Sort of an.

educating people about that sort of stuff?

I think yeah.

I mean one of the studies was the same num, the same people had been repeated

multiple times to up the numbers.

Right.

So they'd got 50 people and then repeated it six times to get 300 people.

Mm-hmm.

, and some people had died before the study had even started.

Mm-hmm.

. So they were obviously fudging the numbers.

There was a whole load.

Eventually the paper got pulled.

But that, that, because it was such a large study that skewed

the output of the meta-analysis.

Yeah.

Even if the rest had been perfect.

That one study was so big in terms of number of people that

it just skewed the output.

Yep, yep.

Things like history.

People need some basic, you needed some basic Chinese history to

understand the relationship between China and Taiwan and to understand.

China's reaction to Australia proposing to have weapons inspectors come in

and check out their wet markets.

You know, if you weren't aware of the a hundred years of humiliation,

you don't grasp the significance of that insult to the Chinese.

Yeah, so a whole, I think that's a critical thing.

I think that'd be, if I could control the education curriculum and, and do it long

enough to get people thinking in a certain way, then that would be possibly my number

one aim as a benevolent DIC dictator.

Other ones, I have war powers, so at the moment some dickhead, like

Scott Morrison with Stuart Robert and a handful of other mates can

just decide if he was Prime Minister.

Well, we're off to war.

It's just the Prime Minister and a group of close friends

just doing a captain's pick and.

There's just no reason why it's not a joint sitting of

parliament for the war power.

So, so that would be another one.

Wealth tax.

I reckon I'd introduce central Bank, not independent private banks,

get rid of them and nationalized power generation and distribution.

And of course no funding for private schools or private hospitals.

They were, and to nationalized private schools and also telecommunications

infrastructure, road infrastructure.

Yeah.

I wouldn't fund the private schools, so they would quickly fall over and I

would just pick them up for nothing.

So well, yeah, that's how I would see that playing out.

What about you, Scott?

Benevolent dictator, Scott Clark, what would you be?

Putting forward, you're gonna make me sound like an extreme right-winger

here, but I would actually, I would actually reintroduce conscription,

but I would make it illegal to have conscripts serve abroad.

I think that conscripts should only be serving in Australia.

Conscription.

Mm-hmm.

Army training.

Yes.

How to shoot a gun.

Yes.

What, what other skills are you seeing as necessary in this conscription?

It's just a, it's just a thought that I've always had that I just think to

myself it's, it wouldn't hurt if you had a trained body of people that

could be called up if you needed them.

So that is why I think to myself that it's not a bad idea that you have a

trained body of people that you only have to do 12 months full-time, and then

after that you go into the reserves.

and you stay in the reserves probably for a couple years compulsory.

And then after that you can just decide whether not you're gonna remain

in the reserves for good or not.

So kind of like Israel.

Yeah.

Suppose antimilitary service in Israel.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You know, it's one of those things is wow.

Well, okay.

Would would it be across genders?

Yes, it would be.

And that is exactly what I was about to say.

I think it should be both men and women should be called up.

It's one of those things, I just honestly believe that it's something that, it

would be better if you call up both men and women and that type of thing.

And if you do have conscience ob objectors, then you would also have

you'd then have, you'd have them go and do something that would be different.

You'd have them, you might have to do, you might have to do it for five years, but

you'd have them doing something different.

Well, how about a peace call?

Well, you could do that.

Yeah.

, you don't see any danger in having military people able to indoctrinate young

minds for 12 months and tell 'em about the evil Chinese and how they need to be able

to point this gun correctly and take that hill and Well, and I think that you've

gotta look at, yeah, I think you should gotta look at some of the countries around

the world that still have conscription in their countries, which is the Netherlands.

Mm-hmm.

. Okay.

Do they Yeah, they do Switzerland I think as well.

Switzerland's got compulsory military service.

Right.

And Sweden's only just got rid of theirs.

Right.

It's just one of those things.

I just think to myself that if you look at these bastions of Western

democracy, Then they have a compulsory military service, which is part of it.

So I don't have a problem with that.

In the chat room you were, you were asking about, you were asking about military.

You, you're asking about being a benent dictator.

And that's something I would do.

The other thing I'd do is I'd also abolish the state governments.

But anyway, that's a good one.

Actually.

I'd come back to that in the chat room.

If you are a benevolent dictator and you had the chance to pass

laws then what would you do?

Tell us in the chat room.

So, Scott, I like, I forgot about that one.

States.

Mm-hmm.

Irrelevant really, aren't they?

Oh, they are.

Mm-hmm.

And it's absolutely crazy that, you know, you've got Tasmania with a

population of half a million people.

It's got 12 senators.

Mm-hmm.

, you got a population of New South Wales being what, five, 6 million?

They've got 12 senators.

Yep.

You know?

Yep.

And just you know, the different education departments for example.

Yeah.

Like why?

Some central education of course cuz of my plans with education.

I need it centralized.

So, yeah.

Really local government say, needs to be of a good size.

So like Brisbane city council is a good size for being big

enough to get stuff done.

One of the crazy things in Sydney is they have all these tiny local councils,

councils that are way too small.

So, get rid of the state governments and put in and in some of the local

governments, make them a bit bigger.

Do you not remember when they amalgamated all the state

gov, the local councils here?

But as soon as the liberals got back in Nua Livington and a couple of the others,

d amalgamated as soon as they could.

And it was, that was pure politics.

. Yeah.

But remember there could be tears, but I'm a benevolent dictator, so it just happens.

Well, yeah.

So that's, we're not talking about realistic things here.

I'm, I'm thinking we ought to have a good review into all the land that

has been given to the churches over the years, particularly in CBDs.

Mm-hmm.

. It was handed to the churches because they were deemed as

a force for good in society.

I think they've proved that they aren't.

I think we should take that land back.

There we go.

Yeah.

It's, it's prime land in cbd.

We can use that money to recompense the victims of the churches.

Mm-hmm.

I, I think we need a good review on taxation.

Mm-hmm.

, in fact, this, these Hillsong papers, there's been some

questions around transparency.

Mm-hmm.

, I think we could, and, and this is the sort of thing I'm talking

about, the, the soft theocracy.

That gets away with it because of historical rights.

And I think if that soft theocracy was demolished, it would be very difficult for

them to regain it because that would be exposed to the scrutiny of public debate.

Yes.

I, I think whilst it's the status quo, the public don't think about it.

But if it was introduced and, and yeah, it doesn't matter with the

10% of Squealers, it would be very difficult to get it through parliament

because most people would say no.

I'm again, that Yep.

True.

Yep.

So, Scott has a benevolent dictator.

Anything else that you'd be up for?

I think the whole review of taxation would be very good.

You know, it's just, I, I think it is ridiculous.

Like, you know, those, those Hillsong papers were

absolutely outrageous, you know?

. And I think that with that, you know, I think there's a very strong

argument for the government to actually say, nah, enough's enough.

Mm-hmm.

, you know, because, and particularly with Hillsong, because it was,

it was talking, there were in the papers that were talking about the

amount of money that was generated from commercial activities, which is

their music and that type of thing.

And that is no longer ex, I don't think that is, that is

definitely no longer acceptable to have that as tax-free income.

Mm-hmm.

for a church.

Yep.

They're, they're operating as businesses and Exactly.

And their so-called charity work, they should be proving

rather than just being assumed.

I, I think we split out the charities from the churches.

Mm-hmm.

And so the churches are a not-for-profit.

And they can run as a not-for-profit.

And if they turn a profit, we tax 'em as a business.

Yes.

And the charities run as independent charities that are

nothing to do with the churches.

Yes.

Yep.

Yep.

Alright.

And if they want to keep their tax for exempt status, they've got to

actually they've got to comply with the overwhelming desires of community,

which is that, you know, that gay people are fine, that trans people

are fine and that sort of thing.

I think that they've actually got to start living up to that.

Mm-hmm.

. Yep.

Just scrolling back through some of the chat stuff John said in

our previous conversation about the subs, don't be worried.

Trevor, US Congress will never approve the sub sale.

Well, they're gonna give us.

, secondhand clunkers.

They don't want anymore.

That's what we've gotta get.

So they probably will give us that.

They'll be very happy rather than having to decommission, they flog 'em off to us.

Yeah.

Or or even less.

They have to put in, they'll have to put in a new reactor, won't they?

Because these reactors are sealed and that type of thing.

So they're not so I thought we were actually buying British subs.

We are buying British subs as part of the second phase of it.

But the first phase is we're gonna buy three of the Virginia class.

Virginia class.

Yes.

They're Virginia class submarines that are manufactured in the United States

that are superfluous that they don't need.

Exactly.

So we are looking at purchasing three of them, but at the same time we've

got to, we've got to shell out money for the US to go and build a third

manufacturing line and that sort of stuff so they can build more sub submarines.

So, you know, it's, it's looking more and more like Keating was right?

That we are the mugs that are paying for it, you know, we are indeed.

Alright John, I flicked back through the messages.

A lot of it was sticky bits complaining about wanting me to look at Article 19

and then when I eventually did not being happy . So, how was a question about,

he sent you an email on some interview.

I dunno.

I'll come back to John separately about that another time.

So, okay.

We were a little bit distracted dear listener at the beginning of this cuz

there was so many from sticky bits that, that were just sort of a bit I was a

bit distracted anyway, so, there we go.

Mark Kenny interview.

Mark Kenny interview.

To be honest, John, if you send me video stuff often just don't have the time.

Like, if it's an article or something, I can quickly skim

through and see if I like it.

But if somebody sends me a video, YouTube video that's long.

I don't really wanna devote half an hour to watching it.

It's just too time consuming.

Like, send me an article or gimme a bit more information.

So, yeah.

Shalene says, come on, you're dictators.

What do you need a review for?

? Shalene, what are you doing as a dictator?

Tell us.

So, alright.

I think that's enough for this, this episode.

We're at 9 0 4 and we've done all right, I promise.

Look, even two weeks, no submarines.

Absolutely done and dusted on submarines.

Really until the next August thing comes out, we really beaten a dead horse there.

So we'll let that one go.

We'll see what happens during the week.

Maybe we'll talk about Russia a little bit.

Other things that come across, who knows what's gonna happen between now and then?

I would never have suspected that that 3% figure of green's voters who are against

the voice would be 13% a month later.

You never know what's gonna happen.

So.

Alright.

Oh, and a reminder book club next month is gonna be Kenneth

Malik, not so black and white.

A history of race from white supremacy to identity politics.

Get hold of that one.

That's gonna be the book review at some stage.

Oh, and I did get a message from Paul from Canberra.

He wasn't happy with us making fun of the Governor General's wife.

He wants more of it, he thought was being, he thought it was being unfair

and picking on her and that she was Yeah.

All I can say I did, I did email back.

Look, if she was just joining the local choir coral group.

and telling her stuff, there's no way I would criticize that would be poor form

to make fun of somebody in that situation.

Like, yeah, but she's knock yourself out.

But you're, if representing Australia at government functions,

you are not the governor General, you're the governor general's wife.

And it's apparent that you've inserted, she's inserting herself

into these by giving these lame songs as some form of speech.

And it's a poor reflection of us.

So we are entitled to criticize.

If it was things you were doing in private of our own accord, I would not criticize.

But when you're purporting to represent the rest of us, I think you're fair going.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

You know, besides, she's a bloody awful singer, right?

So, well, you see, Paul thought she was in tune.

And his sentiments weren't nasty.

But anyway.

Alright we're off.

We'll talk to you next week about something.

Not sure what.

Talk to you then.

And bye for now.

And a good night from me.