Speaker:

Suburban Eastern Australia.

Speaker:

An environment that has over time evolved some extraordinarily

Speaker:

unique groups of homo sapiens.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

So he's out of action.

Speaker:

It's just Joe and I.

Speaker:

So there we go.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

tech guy, Joe, how are you, Joe?

Speaker:

I'm good.

Speaker:

That's good.

Speaker:

So yeah, 391.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Waiting.

Speaker:

Good on you, Whatley.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

What are we gonna talk about?

Speaker:

a little bit of homework on cluster bombs briefly mentioned.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

tort of malfeasance in public office.

Speaker:

school funding Scripture Union.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

disaster for Scripture Union.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

More polls.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It's an important concept.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

two articles, we'll get to those.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

were for this particular family.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Good on you, Ross.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

In your spare time, YouTube videos about cluster bombs?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and what's the big deal anyway?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

further and further out are less and less.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

are spread across that same space.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

effectively it's the same as landmines.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

They're similarly hidden, and posed.

Speaker:

More or less the same danger to civilians.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So his point is that a cluster munitions have already been

Speaker:

used by both sides in this war.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

You shouldn't have these cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Let's all agree, no cluster bombs.

Speaker:

Whereas those people who rely heavily on artillery and

Speaker:

Russia was one of the biggest.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Are going fuck off.

Speaker:

No, they're a really useful round.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

We're not gonna sign up to this agreement.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

anyway, so will clean up custom bombs.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

The Russians have laid huge minefields.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

gonna have to demine the whole area.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to bombard civilian areas mm-hmm.

Speaker:

then realistically there's not much of an impact.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Not so bad after all.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Good Lord.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

book in Woolworths Big W, but Yes.

Speaker:

Oh, big W, right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

playground and showing it to around.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

going on in her school, so, yep.

Speaker:

It doesn't matter the school.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I hadn't heard that statistic.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

lead to better outcomes for the kids.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

arms about it, what's their agenda?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm, yes.

Speaker:

So that's a good counter argument.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

They sell all sorts of stuff.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Hey, the problem with the chats come up again.

Speaker:

So do you listen?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

chat's disappearing from the, screen.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It's coming out for me.

Speaker:

Is it?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Is it showing on the screen?

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Ah, okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Did that refresh for you?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

If it's there, good.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

what else we gotta talk about?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

So, that's what she said.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

really who needs the commonwealth gains?

Speaker:

Is it worth it?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

gonna generate enough benefit to justify.

Speaker:

Expense in these tough times, I think people will probably

Speaker:

be on board with that decision.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That seems to be the line he's running.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

most people don't care.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Shocking.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Almost.

Speaker:

Certainly.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

thing to get my argument up there.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

My reasons are completely different.

Speaker:

Get to the same result.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And it does, is, it is disconcerting.

Speaker:

So anyway.

Speaker:

Alright.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

but I talking about, robo debt.

Speaker:

What, what's his background?

Speaker:

Bill?

Speaker:

Shorten?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

What do you mean?

Speaker:

Bill Shorten is, is he a lawyer?

Speaker:

could be.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

curious that he knows about this.

Speaker:

That's, yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Joe, so it'll mean common knowledge.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

victims won't sue them individually.

Speaker:

So she must have mentioned it in her report actually.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

inflicted by public officials guilty of conscious maladministration.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

seem to cover some of the players Yeah.

Speaker:

In the robo debt scenario.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

people accountable in future.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I don't wanna be in that position.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Oh, cover your ass.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I have to write the cover your ass email.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

So that's one thing.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Can be sued.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

somebody brings a tort of misfeasance or malfeasance against him.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Is give 'em a good legal defense.

Speaker:

But that will be fascinating, Joe.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

chasing lawyers out there.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

But especially those that have lost relatives.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

No, I don't think you could.

Speaker:

But seems a good chance of the tour of Ms.

Speaker:

Fe.

Speaker:

Oh, absolutely.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

I.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

No public servant should carry risk for ministers.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

anyway, that's what you need to do.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to address Parliament about it soon.

Speaker:

No way would he address Parliament in a meaningful way.

Speaker:

can you see him apologizing for it?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Morrison has never addressed anything in his life.

Speaker:

He's always scooted around it.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

noisy.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I'm sure they could.

Speaker:

Absolutely.

Speaker:

yeah, so, yeah, I find it weird.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

see that name pop up, there you go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Bronwyn says, yes, that's right.

Speaker:

Trevor.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Ah, that's the world we are in.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

if there is a finding against them.

Speaker:

Why?

Speaker:

But governments don't have to.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and have to pay for it personally?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

the civil service is paralyzed by indecision as it is.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

for every decision they make?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and then not shove that advice.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and not be sued in that situation.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

told that discriminating against the satanists would be, well,

Speaker:

that's a different kettle of fish.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So it's a pretty high bar.

Speaker:

It's gross negligence or it's Yes.

Speaker:

Deliberate malpractice.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

oh, it's a very risky career.

Speaker:

I've chosen, just do the right thing.

Speaker:

That's obvious.

Speaker:

You will be fine.

Speaker:

I would've thought so.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Anyway.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Love to see that happening.

Speaker:

what else have we got?

Speaker:

Joe?

Speaker:

You can still see the chat?

Speaker:

In the chat?

Speaker:

I can, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

All right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Excellent.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

That includes getting reliable advice as to legality.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

the tax section of some law office.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

charge was saying one thing.

Speaker:

And my friend Philip was saying, I disagree.

Speaker:

I don't think that's right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And apparently that was enough that this partner then reconsidered and

Speaker:

the advice was changed saying, right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Pretty ballsy move.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

he had enough experience.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That he would do that.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

in our discussion that you said this.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

young people out there cover your ass.

Speaker:

I cover your ass MIMO email.

Speaker:

That's what you need.

Speaker:

Right?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

received a positive swing of 4.3%.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

what's going on that an electorate.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Because they're doing nicely.

Speaker:

Thank you very much.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You have to look at the demographics.

Speaker:

This is LMP Heartland on the Gold Coast here.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

had previously had 6% of the vote.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And guess what?

Speaker:

4.3% went to, the LMP guy.

Speaker:

So is this federal or?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

He did.

Speaker:

And they didn't have him.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

Christ knows why.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

gonna vote labor or greens, were they?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

oh, let me just see.

Speaker:

I can't see it.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

The one that really fell was the greens.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Ah, okay.

Speaker:

did he swing against greens and went to hemp party?

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It happens everywhere.

Speaker:

Who, who?

Speaker:

Who'd have thought that the geriatrics were potheads?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

They would've thought so.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It is strange.

Speaker:

I love cooling gata where we are.

Speaker:

I don't consider some of Mexicans.

Speaker:

I don't consider cooling gata the Gold Coast.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It's more of a village.

Speaker:

Yes, exactly.

Speaker:

The rest of the Gold Coast is weird.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

title deed for this property, for example.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

have all sorts of CREs against somebody.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

was considered very serious.

Speaker:

And where does their bond?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

un mutual undertaking, blah, blah.

Speaker:

He said, that's fine.

Speaker:

I hang on a minute.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

He said, that's okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

they're cowboys down there.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

ended up down there, didn't he?

Speaker:

Terry Lewis.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Probably.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The bag man.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

All that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Probably.

Speaker:

Was he the bag man?

Speaker:

No, he was just the bag collector.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

For my time.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

What's his name?

Speaker:

He's just been found.

Speaker:

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Sadly, not many like him left.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Not surprised.

Speaker:

Should be, yeah.

Speaker:

Should be, should be required watching in, schools.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Certainly up here.

Speaker:

Mm yep.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

school funding.

Speaker:

There was an article in The Guardian, because they had

Speaker:

done some right to information requests about school funding and.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

more expensive to educate certain kids.

Speaker:

And so kids from difficult, low socioeconomic backgrounds are

Speaker:

statistically more expensive to educate for a variety of reasons

Speaker:

than kids from upper middle class.

Speaker:

And so the government should be paying more to schools that

Speaker:

educate those sorts of kids.

Speaker:

Than they do to schools that educate, the others.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

students with parental involvement anyway.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So there's a filtering aspect that takes place.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Or doing that.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Let's make sure every school gets frightening depending

Speaker:

on the caliber of kid.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That is an Australian thing that Yeah.

Speaker:

Did.

Speaker:

Right?

Speaker:

Just like I don't get public transport.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

go into public chat support.

Speaker:

It is the same argument, isn't it?

Speaker:

It is.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

$300 a year or whatever it is.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

It's the same thing anyway.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

from 2012 to 2021 and funding for independent and Catholic schools

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

it's just been getting worse.

Speaker:

And,

Speaker:

but who made the promise that the private schools would be

Speaker:

no worse off under Gonski?

Speaker:

Gillard made a promise to pacify them and did that.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

school, surely, and when things are tough.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

The future for private schools is gonna be Bleecker and Bleecker

Speaker:

cuz people just cannot afford it.

Speaker:

I wouldn't have thought.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Really?

Speaker:

Goodness sake.

Speaker:

Oh yes.

Speaker:

Cuz you know the old boys network.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Total rubbish.

Speaker:

Complete rubbish fury.

Speaker:

I dunno.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

How old are you?

Speaker:

Oh yeah.

Speaker:

And it was when I was 17.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

So they look at their grades now.

Speaker:

okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

That made it tough on their old school.

Speaker:

Are there, are there that many?

Speaker:

I don't know.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And that we should be resuming them.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

We'll take that off.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And there you go.

Speaker:

Here's some money back.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and then see you under an investor state.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

You're right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It'll never happen.

Speaker:

But that's a theory anyway.

Speaker:

Look.

Speaker:

so, what's this one from Bronwyn?

Speaker:

I've written an interesting article recently written by some

Speaker:

educational researchers about the public versus private issue.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

of their students and the taxpayer.

Speaker:

yes, David Gillespie has a book on schools.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

search bar of your podcast app.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and there are good public schools.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

yep.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I haven't seen her name come up.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

might be in the car at some stage.

Speaker:

So Allison listen with Mother.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

misusing their school ministry funds deductible gift recipient status

Speaker:

because they were giving people tax deductible receipts for donations.

Speaker:

And the problem was that the.

Speaker:

Tax deductible status was specifically for donations to provide religious

Speaker:

instruction in government schools.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

providing religious instruction.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

supposedly cuz the donations were for religious instruction.

Speaker:

Meanwhile, under a scheme in which they were prohibited from

Speaker:

providing religious instruction.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to extend that special arrangement.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

everybody else is subject to.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

they used to Crime and River Joe.

Speaker:

Sure.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Alison, one of Queensland and Australia's.

Speaker:

Best of secular activists for sure.

Speaker:

So, yeah, there you go.

Speaker:

It's only taken five years.

Speaker:

Alison's in it.

Speaker:

She plays the long game.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Fantastic stuff.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

So, so that was great work for Alison.

Speaker:

Great result.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

We'll take what we can get.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Last time we were talking about a news poll.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

at, which was essential poll.

Speaker:

A news poll was really giving quite a negative prognosis

Speaker:

for the voice referendum.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

they've decided to put in now.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

43 no and 10% unsure.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

cuz it was seemed to be a lot close.

Speaker:

It was in the sixties before.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Like so.

Speaker:

So yeah, that's the current essential pole.

Speaker:

I say brackets if unsure.

Speaker:

Which way are you currently leaning towards?

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I dunno.

Speaker:

Yeah, you're right.

Speaker:

I dunno what that means.

Speaker:

anyway, still not looking good for the voice.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

other states, but lots of don't knows.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

44, no, with 11% unsure.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to say no compared to females.

Speaker:

Young people more likely to say yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

were also more likely to say no?

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Under touting, touting something about women saying No voting.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Well, under this essential poll, females 49%.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

40% No males.

Speaker:

47%.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

44%.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

young people are a yes.

Speaker:

Old people are a no.

Speaker:

Sure.

Speaker:

Carra.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And Labor and Greens voters are Yes.

Speaker:

Coalition voters are no minor parties and independents.

Speaker:

Big nos.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I suspect we make up the 18%.

Speaker:

which 18% was that Joe Green?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Voters.

Speaker:

Oh, the green.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Voters.

Speaker:

Yes, indeed.

Speaker:

Indeed.

Speaker:

That's us.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Scott is just never gonna vote green.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

He just refuses to, to admit it to himself.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

They easily The most secular.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

spokesperson, penny Alman Payne.

Speaker:

So the gap in funding between private and public schools that

Speaker:

created one of the most unequal and segregated school systems.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

of gonski has been a failure.

Speaker:

By no measure.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

rich and poor kids and lowering average student performance.

Speaker:

You'll never get a labor education spokesperson.

Speaker:

God using language as Franken.

Speaker:

Fearless as that.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

his ideology, education and health.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm mm Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

education, secular public education.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

No, nothing encouraging from them.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

this one's from Caitlyn Johnston.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

popular electronic pressure cooker whose parent company recently

Speaker:

filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

A pressure cooker manufacturer, Joe filing for bankruptcy.

Speaker:

Why would that be your thought?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

no, no.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and does the thermo mix thing?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Are you a sous V guy?

Speaker:

Are you?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

On and off.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

steaks generally, but also, chicken is incredibly tender.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

and scrambled eggs are really, really nice.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

can understand that You have one joke.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So, yeah, instant pot.

Speaker:

what doomed the Instant Pot?

Speaker:

How could something that was so beloved sputter.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

in one, you were set for life.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

profit and growth performance metrics.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah, it's sad.

Speaker:

so much these days.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Because the goods are so cheap and labor is expensive.

Speaker:

A lot of things don't make sense.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

it's 165 grand pack.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

$6 something.

Speaker:

It was on special.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Normal price is $6 something.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I'm just a humble podcaster.

Speaker:

I can't afford it.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

But we also needed a new frying pan.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Three aisle down.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

they were doing the whole mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Liter for a dollar.

Speaker:

They were staying effectively.

Speaker:

It was bleeding the farmers down in, Eastern Victoria.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

were just not making any money.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I think they were losing.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Cuz who else are you gonna sell to?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

this price, Take it or leave it.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

industry, there's few players involved.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And, so yeah.

Speaker:

Calls a bit of back again.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, too many oligopolies.

Speaker:

But anyway, that's an interesting one.

Speaker:

Instant pot.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

it's not a recipe for success.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

the name of it, the light bulb cartel.

Speaker:

And it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Speaker:

This, this is, an interesting story.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

for every additional hour.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

trading law at the time, at the time.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

talking about l e d light bulbs.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

and effectively they run the light bulbs at half the power

Speaker:

that they're sold elsewhere.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And that gives you a 10 times lifespan.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And he says they just last forever.

Speaker:

They, they deliberately run them hot.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So they burn out.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

they burn out much more quickly.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

Nothing would surprise me.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Race, monogamy and other Lies.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I might have that one, right?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

No, it would've been around monogamy.

Speaker:

I have Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Grabbed various.

Speaker:

That's upside down.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

what is culture and how race is.

Speaker:

A myth, but culture isn't.

Speaker:

And culture is real for people in it.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

but it's not just genetics plus culture.

Speaker:

There's a real intertwining and intermixing and interrelationship

Speaker:

that's quite complicated.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

is trying to think about culture.

Speaker:

It is, after all just an ideology like religion.

Speaker:

How dare you say that?

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

We'll finish off with this one.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

China settled there in large numbers.

Speaker:

Mansfield Park also boasted an extensive collection of public

Speaker:

housing, which ensured that underemployed Anglo Australians like

Speaker:

my parents, were well represented.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Asian migrants, Adelaide.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Slopes and nips were not taboo words in our household.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

I suspect the shame I felt about my parents' racism

Speaker:

spraying mostly from experience.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

seemed more admirable than mine.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

abstract notions of morality or equality.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

among working class whites never had.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

the Chinese and Vietnamese migrants.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Heard that one before Joe?

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Hardworking.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

They're not the people for you.

Speaker:

Oh, I can believe that.

Speaker:

I can believe it as well.

Speaker:

Why not?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

speaking here as a middle class person.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

For precariously employed unskilled laborers, the prospect

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

In short.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

and values are largely untested.

Speaker:

he goes on, I might skip that bit.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

It was a simple experience, experiential lesson.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

paralysis and deep poverty.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

things got slightly better.

Speaker:

One worldview worked the other didn't.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

teens spiraling into a life.

Speaker:

Of drug aled indigen, they could simply brush themselves

Speaker:

off and enroll again next year.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

This is a part I found interesting coming up.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

that ridicule middle class anguish.

Speaker:

Those who cannot afford to see themselves as disadvantaged are

Speaker:

instinctively repulsed by those who harp on about disadvantage.

Speaker:

it's true enough.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

and we were all talking about our woes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

could express their feelings.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

is kind of what the argument is here.

Speaker:

To some extent.

Speaker:

You really.

Speaker:

Really suffering.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

you can't show that weakness.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

She's struggling.

Speaker:

Vulner vulner abilities.

Speaker:

Interesting.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

We've got a few minutes.

Speaker:

This is be the last thing.

Speaker:

The rules of speech are habitually negotiated in the working class

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

that was the extent of the surveillance.

Speaker:

It was also understood that if they performed their job well

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

How is it.

Speaker:

That middle class progressives are unwilling or unable to make similar

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And he tells his story.

Speaker:

I was working in a recycling center for some years.

Speaker:

One of my workmates was a kid called Ricky.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

We were both right.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

And Ricky was duly irritated.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to loosen the seatbelt to escape.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

wheel quickly, found the brakes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

He says, my parents were the racist.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Did that make them secret racist?

Speaker:

Who hid their racism from the wider world?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Who can possibly say?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

to the wrong side of the political fence.

Speaker:

Anyway, I thought that was a good story.

Speaker:

Some good ideas to bear in mind.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

you do play with these ideas.

Speaker:

You tell the shocking jokes.

Speaker:

Not because you truly believe the underlying concepts.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

you the world and deliver nothing.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Good example, Joe.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You think that's Australian?

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

that was a surprise to him.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

where was he from?

Speaker:

He was Dutch.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

But, but he was saying our sales team.

Speaker:

Were very much about the outward image.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Because people feel happy.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Oh no, I can't do that.

Speaker:

People feel let down.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

And Americans will find that quite shocking.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

All the time.

Speaker:

Instead of positive, loving, warm words.

Speaker:

That is an Australian trait as well, I think.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

but she said, stop at you two.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

This is normal.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So there you go.

Speaker:

Speech, in different cultures.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

what it's actually meant to be.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

there that is missed by people.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

possibly say no to someone.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

wasn't something they could do so well.

Speaker:

That was, something that was raised in the courts.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

them, are taught to be deferential.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

they're instead of outright.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There we go.

Speaker:

Culture must be understood.

Speaker:

Mm, yes.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Well, dear listener, hope you enjoyed the story.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

finished this book by then.

Speaker:

So I'll get into the weeds.

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

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

Speaker:

during the week of some sort there.

Speaker:

And we'll talk to you all next week.

Speaker:

Bye for now.