We need to talk about ideas, good ones and bad ones. We need to learn stuff about the world. We need an honest, intelligent, thought provoking, and entertaining review of what the hell happened on this planet in the last seven days. We need to sit back and listen to the iron fist and the velvet glove.

Yes, hello and welcome out there in podcast land. This is Trevor, the Iron Fist. This is a podcast, this iron fist and the velvet glove. I'm Trevor, AKA, the iron fist. Over there on the screen is Joe, the tech guy. How are you, Joe? I'm good evening all and somewhere, uh, trapped in a bad internet connection is Cameron Lackey, who is our guest for tonight. And we were chatting to him and it was all going very well for about 10 minutes there. And just prior to pressing the button to go live, um, Cameron's. Video froze and we couldn't hear him, and he's madly scrambling around in the background, fusing wires together and peddling on a bicycle to upgrade his internet connection. So we're gonna just sort of fill in a little bit, because to be honest, the podcast was about Cameron who is running in the Senate for Australia's voice. And so we're gonna ask him what's all that about, um, sort of similar to what we did last week with the Socialist Equality Party. So if I seem a little bit unprepared and a little bit out of sorts, it's because we're winging it a little bit. While we're waiting to see if Cameron is going to come back and join us, or if Joe and I are gonna bumble along with a few bits and pieces of different things. So, um, if you're in the chat, say hello and we will incorporate your comments. So, um, I will put the chat up so I can see it. And yeah, if you, um, if you're able to join us, um, and make comments, feel free to do so. Looks like I hear a beep in the background, which might be Cameron joining us and we'll see if his Internet's working or not. Lucky Joe's here. So, yeah, um, Australia first, uh, Australia's voice party is actually, uh, it's the one started by, uh, Fatima Payman, who was the former labor, uh, well still a senator, was a labor senator, and she has, um, left and, and started her own party. So Cameron's there and sorting things out. I'll try not to be distracted by that. Um. Things we could talk about in the meantime, Joe? Yeah. In recent news, um, the Pope died.

What a shock.

Yeah. And you said wasn't like

he was in and out of hospital for the last month.

Yes. You know, I was watching interviews with people and they talk about, um, how shocked they were that he died. And it's like, how can you be shocked? This was an old man Mm. With congestive

heart failure, apparently.

Yes. And unfortunately had just met, um, JD Vance. Yes. Uh, that's, that alone could knock over a healthy person.

So, uh,

apparent he

gave up the will to live after that.

That's right. You sent me an article titled The Pope, uh, Pope Loser's Will to Live after meeting JD Vance. Yes. This is, um, from News, news Thumb, which I guess is like the Onion or the chaser or the, I, I assume so. Yes. Yeah, one of those. And, uh. The article said, um, the pop died a few hours after meeting JD Vance with Vatican officials saying that Pope lost the will to live after a brief meeting with the vice president, after a brief audience that Pope was heard, to mutter Christ we're all doomed, absolutely doomed before adding. What's the bloody point? Yeah, that'll do it to you. There's

also been a meme going around of, I dunno if you know, the, the game Bang, marry, kill? No. So you've given three names and you have to pick which one you'd bang, which one you'd marry, and which one you'd kill.

Oh,

yeah. Okay. And it was the JD Vance one. So, so there was the couch for who? He'd bang, then there's his wife, right. And then there's the Pope for who he'd kill, right?

Uh, yeah. I saw like Donald Trump had a tweet saying, you know, that he and Melania are going to go to. The funeral service and that he was looking forward welcome and that he was looking forward to it. I wonder if he was even invited. Maybe that was way of it. Probably not. Yes. It's probably a way of ensuring that he got invited. So, um, yeah. Um, old noisy is in the chat room. Uh, good on you. Old, noisy. So Cameron's still connecting wise, you know, if it doesn't work out, we'll just do it again another night soon. 'cause it's not long to go to the election. Joe. We're in a position with this election that, um mm-hmm the, the coalition opposition are still yet to release policies about certain things and costings and things. And they're like, they keep saying, we'll, we'll release it all in good time. And people are voting so. They're leaving their run late. I think so. Um, now that's looking promising. I can see Cameron there and I can see obvious movement. So maybe we've Yes, and I can actually hear Cameron, you're loud and clear. Terrific.

Sorry about that, Jen. So, uh, everything is fine. Then all of a sudden it decided to shut itself down. So technology, eh?

Yeah. You are on a standard broadband connection of some sort there, are you? Yeah, right.

We've got, um, what do you call it? Um, NBN, yes. Fox is right next to me, so we should be alright. Okay.

Alright. Fingers crossed. Um, if there's a major problem, Cameron, we'll just do it another night. Like, yeah, what the heck? So, we'll, we'll do the best we can. So, um, uh, we briefly mentioned that the paper died and that the opposition are yet to release policies and costings with people still vote, you know, starting to vote. But anyway, let's talk about your situation with. Australia's voice and you've decided to be a candidate and you're standing in Queensland and you're second on the ticket for Australia's voice. So we interviewed you, um, about nine months ago because you and I agree a lot on foreign policy defense. Yep. The ridiculousness of orus, our relationship with the United States, how the empire is crumbling and a whole bunch of things. So we're, we're of the same mind on those things I think we're Yes. And that's, that's your sort of forte if you like. Mm-hmm. Obviously Australia's voice has got other policies that we might get to about housing and bank reform and other things, but, um, why don't you kick off and tell us, um, you know, who you are and how it came about that you got invited or you asked to be part of the party and. And just a bit of a, uh, sort of a elevator pitch as to why the hell you're doing this, Cameron?

Yeah, sure. Good question. Um, I, I asked myself that as well. Um, I guess very quickly, I, myself, so, you know, I'm a Victorian originally, um, joined the Army. I was 17, straight outta high school. Um, went to the Australian Defense Force Academy in Duntroon. So I graduated as an officer, um, 24 years later, decided it was time to do something different. I, um, so I ended my military career as a major, did three deployments, so one to East Timor, one to Solomon Islands. And I went to, um, uh, Sumatra after the, um, tsunami, the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004. And I'm a bit of a slow learner. Um, it took me, um. At least half my military to career, start questioning why we're doing the things we're doing. And then, you know, by the end of our military career, I, I was just sort of thinking, why are we doing the things we're doing? I think we're going against our national self-interest, um, our alliance with the United States to actually detrimental to our, both our security and prosperity. And, and yeah. So I got to the point where I think I, I need to leave the military. Um, so I, I finished off an agricultural engineering degree, um, which I got a university metal for, um, and found myself doing a PhD in soil science, uh, and now work as a, a soil scientist at, um, uh, and that's my profession. So that's my, uh, I guess background in, in a minute or two. Mm-hmm. As to, and, uh, Trevor, you know, I write quite extensively. I, I sort of write, there's a bit of a stress relief. So when something bugs me about the world, which happens reasonably regularly, um, I, I tend to write. And part of that's, you know. To, um, you know, bit my frustrations. Uh, also part of it's to help a bit like what you do with this podcast bit, um, you know, to help me understand the world better. Um, 'cause I think the more we read, the more we research, the more we think. And I think writing's very good at articulating, helping you to articulate exactly what you think. Um, so yeah, and I, much of what I write about is obviously Australia's defense policy and things we're doing in the world, and think how we could approach things different differently. So, um, and I guess through that, um, and you know, I guess reasonably active on Twitter in particular, I. You know, you make connections, you meet people, you get opportunities. So, um, so through my writing I became involved with the Independent Peaceful Australia Network. Um, I did, I made some submissions to their People's Inquiry into the US Alliance. Um, and I also, um, on the, uh, members, sorry,

who's, who's that group? What's it called again? Independent one called

ipa. So it's a national group. It's independent and Peaceful Australia Network. So it's basically, uh, an organization of people who want us to be independent and peaceful, um, in the world. And so they've actually, they've done some quite good work looking at things like the Forced Posture Agreement, which we might talk about later. Um, and, and the Alliance and orcus and things like that. Yeah. Um, you know, things that don't sort of tend to get discussed in the, uh, amongst the duopoly and in our sort of mainstream political debate. Um, and also Australians for War Powers reform.

Mm.

Um, and that's an organization who argues that, uh, which I firmly believe that we should have the Parliament vote on the decision to go to war as in an overseas war, not with regards to defending ourselves. Um, rather than just having it at the whim of the Prime Minister or the, the executive government. Um, and, you know, I think that as, as the most important decision the government can make, it's sort of in a democracy, it should be a democratic decision. So, um, yeah, I got involved in those organizations. And then, um, I guess where all this Australia's voice, uh, started from was I did a speech last year, last Palm Sunday. Um. In King George Square in Brisbane. Uh, and basically, you know, spoke about orus and what a bad deal it was and why we should get out of it. And from that, I, you know, a couple of people came up to me, uh, afterwards, uh, and one of them was Michelle McDonald, who's a, uh, journalist who works in the communications man, uh, manager for the Anglican Diocese in Brisbane, or, uh, Southeast Queensland. Um, so we had a bit of a chat and, you know, a few conversations. Um, and there, yeah, so that's sort of where this Australia's voice started from. 'cause, uh, earlier this year is, um, as Australia's voice sort of only formed late last year, um, and they're looking for candidates. Um, and Michelle gave me a, a call, we had a few chats and I had a chat to Senator, uh, payment and I did an interview with them. Um, and I think our, our values align and what we're sort of arguing for Align. And, um, when I got the opportunity to be on that Senate um, ticket, I thought, well put your money where your mouth is, and here I am.

Yep. Yep. So, um, last week we had the Socialist Equality Party on and they had the difficulty where they needed 1500 members in order to be a registered party. And they had problems with that, with the electoral commission. And, um, when you said you were running, and I, you know, I looked and I thought, Australia's voice, who are they? And then I saw that it was the party created by, um, Fatima Payman. And basically the system dear Listener, works like this, that if an existing sitting member of Parliament, um, forms a party, then as I understand it, you don't need that 1500 member requirement. The fact that you've just got somebody in the parliament gets you across the line for registration as a political party. So, um, so, um, does that all sound correct to you or you never thought about too much? Uh, I.

I couldn't actually answer that. Um,

right, fair enough. That, that's just my understanding.

I'm not sure, I'm not sure on the numbers, but I know, I know, I think it was October, November when they actually got registered. Um, yeah. So, um, but the mechanics of all that I, I wasn't in involved with, so, yeah. Um, yeah. But it's obviously, you know, we're on the Senate ticket in, in Queensland, new South Wales, Victoria, south Australian, Western Australia. Yeah. Um, so the Australian Electoral Commission's obviously given us the thumbs up that we're legit a legitimate party and, you know, people vote for us.

Now, some people might be under the impression that the Fatima Payman party, let's call it that, well, that the Australia voice being associated with her, that she was out to create some sort of Muslim party or something like that Islamic party, so. Mm-hmm. Um, it. Um, what do you say to that? Is that true and what's the story with the religious sort of Yeah. Um, element of this party?

I'm an atheist, so that gives you a bit of a hint. Um, no. So obviously, uh, Senator Payman is, is a Muslim, um, and they're members of the Party, a Muslim. Um, and I think we have reasonable amount of support, uh, uh, in the mus uh, Islamic community. So, for example, um, Muslim votes matter has endorsed our lead candidate, Michelle McDonald in Queensland as their, um, sort of Queensland candidate. Um, so yes, we have support in the, um, Islamic community and that's great, but you know, it's a party for all Australians. So, you know, the three, um, it's the three candidates in Queensland. Um, I got Christians myself as a, um, as a, um, atheist, um, and I mean. You know, I'm a soils, um, and, you know, how do you help grow a healthy garden? We have lots of diversity and I think what we need at this point in Australia is sort of political development, is we need more diversity. Um, you know, people representing us. Uh, you know, when you get a group of people together from different backgrounds, different contexts and different experiences, whether that's, you know, where they come from, religion, education, whatever it is, that's when you get better outcomes. So, um, yeah, I guess, and that's the, I think that's the strength of Australia's voice, is it, you know, it's a party with all Australians can, can, um, sort of, um, be a member of, it's not, you know, linked to, it's not, you know, a a Muslim party.

Yep. Just, just as further background for people who aren't aware, um, Fatima was a member of the Labor Party. Mm-hmm. And, and basically crossed the floor over the issue of, of Palestine and Gaza, where she was, um, uh, seeking, roughly speaking. Recognition. Yes. Recognition of Palestine. And, um, and that's why she then left the Labor Party and joined, um, well started eventually her own party. So, um, I think like we'll get into talking about the policies and things, um, in a moment. Um, I guess one, the first, the very first question I have in my mind is why not say The Greens, for example, I, I'm looking at a lot of the policies and we'll talk about 'em, but Yeah. Um, you know, I think she crossed the floor to join a motion that the Greens had about Palestine. So any major differences or can you talk to that? Or, or, yeah. Well,

the, the way, um, Senator Repayment puts it is that, um, Australia's voice sort of situated between the greens and labor. So I think, um, you know, labor's moved more right over time and, you know, arguably, uh, doesn't particularly represent workers. Um. Um, or to, to the, the extent that they used to. Um, and the green's obviously, you know, big on the environmental issues and social issues. Uh, whereas Australia's voice link is aiming know, you know, the average Australian, the working Australian. Um, so I think that's where, where we fit into that spectrum. And yes, um, there, I mean, um, I guess, uh, in my view, the vote we're competing for is, you know, we're trying to get the liberals, we're not really competing with the greens. We're, we're trying to get the, sorry, not the liberals, you know, those labor voters who are disaffected with labor. And I think there's, um, quite a proportion of them are, and also young people who the, um, you know, the way the economy is and that is not really working to their benefit, uh, um, at the moment. So I think that's the sort of demographic that we're, we're looking at. Um, and also, you know, people who, um, um. I mean, personally myself. I mean, uh, I hadn't heard of, um, Senator Payman. I was, you know, western Australian senator till, until she crossed the floor. Mm-hmm. Um, but I mean, all the rights and rungs and, you know, October 7th, a mass blah, blah, blah, all that. But, um, that's no excuse in my view for a genocide. Um, and I think, um, you know, I have no doubt in my mind that that's what's occurring. Uh, we have the Genocide Convention Australians signed up to that. We have responsibilities under that, which, um, the current government's not meeting. And if, and liberal deliberate, um, party was in power, I doubt they'd be meeting as well. Mm-hmm. That doesn't sit well with me. Um, so I think that people are disaffected with the, you know, the direction of our two main parties, which really, I, I call 'em a duopoly. 'cause I think there's not really that much difference between the two on the key issues.

Yep.

Um, well, I think there's, you know, so proportion of the population who, you know, here's an, uh, an alternative that you can. Vote for, um, who, you know, we're unequivocal on that position that there's a genocide occurring in Palestine and that needs to stop and Australia needs to stop being complicit in it.

Yeah. Sort of labor. Labor seems to talk with pride about being in lockstep with the liberals over foreign of, you know, defense and foreign policy as, as if this is a good thing and it's a terrible choice.

Uh, well, yeah. So, um, I guess this is another reason why, why I'm running is like, I, I, you know, I'm a sinus engineer, that sort like thinking in systems thinking like terms of evolution and the, um, you know, really the, the last four or 500 years, whenever we wanna start, of the western world being dominant in the global system. I think that's coming to an end. Um, you know, arguably you can, you could make an argument it has already ended, um, and. Um, that's not the end of the world. I actually think it's a great opportunity for Australia, um, given where we're located in the world and what we can offer the rest of the world. Um, but the liberal and labor parties, um, you know, they've, they've developed their power base and evolved over time in that context of a western dominated world, particularly, you know, since the end of the last 30 odd years, since the end of the Cold War. And, um, you know, the unipolar moment when the United States was the dominant world power. Um, that's world's coming to an end. But what quite happened, there's a great little, well, not little book, great book, a bit of a heavy read called on the Psychology of Military Incompetence. Mm-hmm. One of the quotes in that is, um, is that, you know, the more events proved, uh, people wrong, the firm and their beliefs. You know, in their, the stronger their beliefs in their sort of existing preconceptions became that, was it butchered that quote. But basically the idea is that, you know, the world's changing around them, but they couldn't adapt with that. So they just doubled down on what they originally thought. And I, to me, that's what's happening with the, the liberal labor parties. They're clinging fingertips to the existing system because that's, you know, what they're comfortable with. That's what got them in power. That that's what maintains their power. Even though that's dissolving, you know, liter as speakers. Like you look at Trump and sanctions and where the US is heading. Um, and so from a, you know, a. Evolutionary perspective, what's gonna happen? There's gonna be any sprouts in somewhere coming else elsewhere, and that's gonna replace the existing system. So I guess, I think I, I think that's what we need. We need alternatives. They're not gonna come from the core. You know, we need different levels of the, the levels of thinking that created, the problems we have now aren't gonna fix it. We need new levels of thinking, new op alternative views, new ideas. Uh, and from that, um, you know, hopefully we'll come to a better way of, you know, managing our relationship with the rest of the world and, and, and, you know, getting along, um, as opposed to the direction we're currently heading.

Mm-hmm. You and I, uh, hang out in a, in a, a bubble where basically everybody recognizes that orcas is the most ridiculous hair brainin screen, uh, scheme that was ever dreamt up. Yeah. And, and it's clear that America's not gonna save us from anything. It's gonna drag us into war like it always has and there's no denying the rise of. China and we're, it's our best customer in that normally you try and improve your relationships with important customers. So, so we are in a, in a world where we see things completely differently. Mm-hmm. Like I say to people, you know, China's not the threat that it's made out to be. It doesn't have a history of invading countries. If they want the stuff from us, it's just so much easier for them to buy it. Like, it's just so much easier and it's really difficult to, to send a, a, a, a force across an ocean and start taking things forcibly. But if you sit in a coffee shop and talk with people in this way, they will think you're nuts. You're a commie. You're, you're completely a lunatic, you're a clown. You're like, people are so indoctrinated into, into thinking that, well, I. Uh, China bad. Um, America good. Um, and Israel justified and, and all these things because of the, I'm thinking boomers in particular here, Cameron. Um, they're just indoctrinated by a mainstream media that is, is forcing that onto them. And, and I get, you know, I see it all the time, you know, for my sins, I subscribe to the Courier mail just so I can see what nonsense they're producing. I read it as if it's an LMP newsletter, propaganda sheet, which is what it is with a bit of sport and weather thrown in. And, um, but what really gets me sometimes, Cameron, and I think you get this, is the A, B, C. Mm-hmm. Following a lot of the lead of, of the Murdoch press and repeating a lot of the nonsense when you would think they're not under the same pressures to do so, but. So many of the journalists fail to provide the context of these conflicts and, and parrot the same nonsense. So you, I've seen it in your posts and things, your thoughts on the ABC's role in, in this indoctrination process.

Yeah. Yeah. So if you look at my Twitter feed, I regularly dissect a, B, C articles. Um, I think the A BC is a very important, this is why I'm so critical of the A, B, C, because I think they're a crucial, um, part of our national sort of infrastructure. Like, you know, if we need that, um, government funded way of, you know, being able to disseminate information and if, if they did that in accordance with their charter, et cetera, um, you know, I think we need that and I support that. But the way the A, BC is, and it's reporting on pretty much anything to do with, and I mean, my main focus is foreign affairs, so I, I'll, I'll stick to that, but it, it is, um. I don't know, woeful might be, might be too strong a word, but it's getting towards that, that end. And, and the way they, they do it in the main is what? Yeah. It's a US journalist called Patrick Lawrence, who's, who's brilliant, um, consortium news if you, if you wanna follow him, he publishes there and I think he's got a substack as well. But he's, he's brilliant, but he calls it the power of leaving out. So it's what you were talking about before, it's leaving out that context, you know, the historical, um, reasoning, the timelines and they do it over and over again. And it's also the subtleties. So, um, um, in language, so for example, in, um, you know, the Hamas had, you know, hostages it took, um, and Israel, you know, also got a lot of Palestinians and was the subtle language. So when they did the exchanges. The A, b, C called them the Israeli hostages, even though most of them were actually military members of the, um, Israeli defense force versus Palestinian prisoners. So I was just giving that little slant of legitimacy to the Israeli hostages and

prisoners who'd never been charged with anything, never faced a court of war. That's right. And, and we're essentially hostages.

Exactly. So it's, but it's those little slants and, you know, and for the, the average reader who's just glossing over. Um, and I mean, because I, I know the areas that I focus on, I think I have a reasonably good group of what's going on, and, uh, I apply that same template to every other story I read. And you think, you know, I'm always thinking, what's the angle? And that, because it's never, you know, it's, it's narrative management, you know, that's what, that's what the ABC has become. It's managing a narrative. Um. And you know, that narrative might, may or may not more often not have much relationship to, you know, the actual cause of events or what's happening in the world, but it's there to make a sink a certain way. Um, so it can support the government policies where that's coming from. I don't know, is that internal to the A, B, C? Is it, you know, the management? Is it government dictate? I don't know, but, um, it's doing Australia a major disservice. Um, and a practical, practical, uh, example, this is what's happened in the last couple of weeks with Indonesia. Mm. Uh, and the, and the Russian, you know, the Russians gonna have a, you know, military. Air base or use Indonesian air bases and that. Um, so yeah, big hoo-ha and, you know, storming a teacup as far as I'm concerned, because you just have to look at Indonesia's foreign policy and there's no way on earth they're gonna let a foreign power, unlike us have a military base, you know, permanent military base on their, on their soil. Um, sorry, I was just lost my train of thought where I was going. Oh, sorry. But what's Indonesia just joined Bricks. Yes. You know, they joined Bricks as a full member last year, and there is no mention whatsoever in virtually any Australian media on the fact, including a, B, C that Indonesia has joined bricks. Yeah. And what as, as has Thailand and Malaysia as, um, you know, partner countries, Vietnam's looking at joining now. And just in the last couple of weeks there's been, uh, noise about that. Um, and it's like, we don't even get, you know, it's not even mentioned like this is, this is like, um. I, I, you know, this is a, an enormous change in, in, you know, trading relationships and diplomatic relationships and, and that, and we just head in the sand ignoring it as if it's irrelevant. Um, yep. It doesn't get

any media play at all. I've spoken with friends who are well informed about things, you know, doctors who keep an eye on politics and stuff, and I, I say, what do you think about bricks? And they go, what's that? I have no idea. Um, that's

right. And like yeah, brick and bricks is now bigger than the G seven. Yes. And it's growing bigger, so each year it is gonna get bigger. The G sevens become less influential, less powerful. Yes. Um, and you know. My way of thinking, that's an enormous opportunity.

Um, yes,

John Men, I put on Twitter today, uh, he had one of the little graphics I did for an article and it had, um, you know, flags over all the countries with Australia heading north and, you know, had all the flags, India, China, you know, all the, uh, Asian countries in between. Um, and I think like, and we're base for that. And it's like, you know, this is the future that's haw bannis, you know, well known Singaporean diplomat. Um, you know, rights, you've got a little book, it's freely available. Um, the Asian 21st century, we're living in the Asian 21st century and we're, you know, at the bottom end of Asia, we've got all these resources and things that we can trade and benefit from, yet we've got our head in the sand ignoring, you know, the elephant in the room. And I think that's gonna be to our great detriment if we don't sort of wake up, um, pretty damn quick.

Yeah, it's, it's, um, I. It's a cultural ignorance as well. I think in that we'd been just force fed this, you know, a America, you know, basically indoctrinates everybody that, you know, they go around the world protecting democracy. It used to be, uh, capitalism. But, um, you know, you sort of look at, uh, the Chinese system now and it's, it's, it's got a lot of capitalist elements to it. So they talk about, you know, protecting freedom and, and, and democracy. And really you've just gotta stop with people and say, look, just because we in the West are used to a certain system now of predominantly two party elections and our voting system, that we just arrogantly think that that's the best way of running a country. And that's democracy that reflects the will of the people. And anything else than that is. Is so inferior and, um, the poor people who live under it or under authoritarian regimes. And it just totally ignores the culture of, of, of different cultures. And people operate in different ways. And the proof is in the pudding in China, like the way they've lifted so many people out of poverty and improve the living standards of so many people that, um, that whatever label you want to call the system that they've been operating under, it's been pretty damn effective. And when you ask, when they poll people in China, Western backed groups, poll them, um, in situations where they know they're getting honest answers, uh, there's enormous satisfaction from the local population there. So we are just, we've gotta grow up in this country and recognize that, that Asia has a, and China in particular a, a collective mentality. That we don't, and maybe we should start adopting some of this, this whole sort of freedom of the individual forgetting about the collective, the responsibility to the collective group. You know, we've got stuff we can learn from these people, but we're so arrogant that we dismiss them as primitive,

arrogant, hubristic. Um, you know, pride comes from before the fall. Um, and you know, another reason why I'm running is because, uh, in the Army used to use this term like, admire a problem rather than fixing it. You admire the problem. Um, mm. We do a lot of that in Australia and our politics, you know, it's all about the big announcement, the glossy brochures, the, the 24 hour news cycle or whatever. Um, but we're not particularly good at actually fixing issues. So when you never fix issues, of course, you know, they keep popping up. Over time, they get bigger, they get worse. Uh, whereas you look at China, I'm not saying China's perfect by any means, like any country's got, you know, problems and issues and all that sort of stuff. But from what I can tell, um, they fix problems. You know, they come up with plans, they put the resource resources towards it. It's largely done by consensus from what I can understand of their political system. So we call a rubber stamp. That's because we don't understand, you know, the Chinese culture and, and you know, how they build consensus. Um, and I was very fortunate last year. I actually went to China for a week. Um, yeah,

I

was

gonna ask you about that. Yeah. Was that, I saw that to do with soil sort of stuff.

Yeah. Yeah. So my, in my employment, I got a, uh, a, um, study exchange. And this is like one thing I will give the government a pat on the back. Um, see, uh, I can't remember the exact exact name. It's, um, Australian government funded, um, program, Australia, China, um, sorry, I can't remember the name. But there's a, there's a foundation basically to help improve Australian China relations. They put out grants, um, and I was fortunate to go with my university to, um, to China. Went to Lanzo and Yang Ling, which is on the Yellow River. Um, and you know, Lanzo is a third tier Chinese sitter city. And oh my goodness, if that's a third tier city, I would hate to see a first tier. I mean, there's still, you can still see there's, you know, areas for development. It's not all wealthy in that, but, um. The infrastructure

is incredible, the

infrastructure's being built, the efforts they're putting in. Um, and like for example, I think on, you know, Australia, there's a paper put out not long ago about the Australian agricultural workforce. Uh, I think it was a year or two ago, and saying, you know, agriculture might be without a workforce if we don't do something to fix, you know, the number of graduates who coming through to, to fill agricultural positions. And we went to one university from one province in China, and I think every province in China has an agricultural focus university. And they graduate 15,000 students a year.

Wow. Wow. So

when you've had, and I was just looking just before we came out. There's a thing on the leading iq, you know, country's leading iq, uh, um, in the world and China, um, you know, tops that, so you have lots of people and lots of smart people. What does that mean? You can solve problems. So I think yes, that, you know. Obviously, you know, there's different context and, and when they've got such limited land area as they have per capita arable land area, uh, unlike Australia, the margin for error for getting things wrong as far as food production is, is slim. So they have to put a lot of effort in it. Um, but yeah, there's, there's so many things we can learn, um, if we were just willing to have a bit more, um, you

know, but surely in, in the mind of JD Vance, there's just a bunch of peasants and you were going over there to tell how it's done.

I mean, this is just good material for memes, isn't it? Like how, how do you like when they make comments like that, it's just complete ignorance, complete hubris. Um, and, and you know that you can tell, you know, they're in positions of power, but you can tell they're not serious people. Um, I guess maybe, maybe it not might resonate with their core voters or whatever, but it's obviously not gonna resonate in fixing problems or with the rest of the world. And actually, you know, it's just, it's joke material really, isn't it? Like, yeah. It's

in, in the comments. Julia says, preach Trevor. What do you mean, Julia? What do you mean preach? I'm a bit worried about is that a negative one or what's, what do you mean by that, Julia? But anyway, make a comment and I'll, I'll try and figure that one out. But,

um, see, old noisy is talking about the, um, the poster on my wall. It's not a geological poster, it's the Australian saw classification. So close. Right.

Okay. There you go. Just so you can turn around and refer to it. So yeah. So just before we leave the soil thing then, like I take it that you learned as much from them as they learned from you. Is that, what, was it a exchange of information two A or were you there for other, how was it supposed to work?

Yeah, well, I mean, we, we went to a couple of universities, uh, two universities. We, you know, met with the, the, um, you know, students and some of the staff had some tours. So, I mean, we didn't get into technical details of that, but it's just, it's interesting, um, you know, a different approach to the world. And it's funny, like. Um, their English varied. Um, they could, because they, the English is the language they use for a lot of their papers, like, and that, but, um, but they, 'cause the, actually the areas we went to, there's not a lot of, you know, English speaking people actually visit. Um, so I think it was a good opportunity for 'em to actually practice their, their English. But, so, you know, communications, there are some challenges there. And my ability to learn Chinese is about zero. I, I had, I started with one word and I think I finished with two. Um, um, but the, the conversation we had over, over, and I treated us like, you know, kings, we, you know, we were very well treated, um, um, and respectfully treated. Um, but what sort of, you know, just general chitchat is they have exactly the same problems as what we have, as in, you know, what are they worried about, how much it costs to buy a house except, you know, they save for a house before they buy it. Whereas we go into debt and buy a house, but it's, you know, they have exactly the same, um, sort of concerns. Um, and, you know. What's China about? In my view, it's about trying to fix China's, you know, not fix China's problems to, to develop China so it can, you know, address its challenges and raise the standard of living for its people. And I mean that's, I think, you know, that's, isn't that the purpose of government? Mm-hmm. Isn't that what the purpose of it all, it's all about is to, to make people's lives better.

And, and putting a whole lot of troops on a ship and sending 'em over to Australia to invade to start taking stuff is pretty low on the, on the, the

order. Yeah. Especially when you can just, you know, put some money in a bank account and transfer it somewhere. That's, yeah. It doesn't, doesn't really stand out to much scrutiny, I don't think.

Yeah. Do it the easy way. So, so, um, let's talk some policies then. Um, yep. So on your Twitter feed, uh, you gave four reasons why you are, you, you've, you're running, the first one was the power to declare war. So what's the Australia's voice policy on that?

Yeah. So, um, pretty clear the, the Australian's voice policy is that, um, the Parliament should make the decision to go to war. Mm-hmm. Um, so I mean, and that's one of when, when I sort of discussing my potential candidacy with, um, with, um, Senator Payman, and she asked me for, um, three things, you know, three things I, I would like to happen. That was number one on my list. Mm-hmm. Um, and she straight away said, yep, we agree with that. So, um, yeah, and I mean, you know, we take it for granted 'cause we're not at war, but where we are in the world with the United States and where it is, China's rising, United States getting desperate. The cha this is not an abstract thing in my view. We're actually in a position where, um, you know, the United States gets desperate enough. Not, not, you know, it'll be, it'll all, they'll, they'll create a, a reason. So, you know, it'd be Taiwan or you know, Chinese aggression or something. There'll be some reason, but you know. You, you just have to scrape away the surface. And we know it'll be the United States in an order, in an effort to try and, you know, resurrect its position in the world, could trigger a conflict with China and Australia, you know, based on orus, the forced posture agreement. And that will be drawn into that. And the only safeguard we have to prevent us being dragged into a war with China, you know, the source of our prosperity is that the Parliament has the vote that has the power to say no. So that's, you know, I I, I put that as almost an existential, uh, issue. So you, I'm more worried about the state of our soil, the state of our environment in the big picture for our future than I'm about conflict. But if we get dragged into a conflict like that, all that's irrelevant.

Mm.

So we need, you know, we need the capacity for the Parliament to nip that in the bud before we, you know, end up goodness knows, where

if, if you can't get a majority decision in the Parliament, then you just shouldn't be going to war. And it's not like, um, it's necessarily so super urgent. So our entry into Iraq and Afghanistan and all that, we had all the time in the world to convene Parliament and vote about it. But instead, we just get the Prime Minister and not even the full cabinet, just a handful of his closest advisors. Um, you know, sitting around going, yeah, I think we should do this, and, and committing us to these things. So,

and, and that's the thing if like, it's easy to create excuses and, you know, normally it's about intelligence. Yeah. It's an excuse, not a reason. You know, I'm saying from what's our principle, you know, we're a democracy, therefore this decision, which can send us off into a totally different trajectory of our future, including, you know, an existential risk. Um, so that's the principle is that the parliament should decide that not just, um, the the, the executive, but if you look through history, you know, and from, you know, or any of the conflicts Australia's been involved in, for us to actually go to war, you know, it takes months of preparation. Um, so time is not an issue.

Yep, yep.

And, and actually time. The longer it takes, the better because it's easy in the heat of the moment, easier in the heat of the moment. You know, people, you know, rush of blood, alpha, male chest beating. Political opportunism, you know, it's much easier in that short term to say, yes, we're gonna do it. But once you are, because once you're committed, we had the, the inquiry into overseas armed conflict and they put a few pathetic little, you know, um, additional requirements of having to report back to the parliament that last year. But, you know, they missed the point. Yeah. Nothing's really changed. It's just window dressing. Um, because once you've made that decision, once you've engaged to war too late, you know, it is too late. So you need to make sure that decisions, I'm not saying we shouldn't go to war. There might be reasons when we could, I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Yeah. But

you, you don't cross that line until you've got all your i's dotted, your t's crossed and you're doing it for a very good reason.

It, it should not be easy. It shouldn't just be a prime Minister's decision. Even we don't have nuclear weapons here. A friend of mine, Cameron Riley has this joking, uh, hypothesis or theory about America with um. Launching nuclear weapons in anger against another country that the president, um, shouldn't be able to do that so easily. And in fact, the key to pressing the button should be, uh, surgically implanted into the vice president. And if the president wants to launch nuclear weapons, he is gonna work, work with the team and carve into the chest of the vice president to pull out the key to fire the nuclear weapons on the basis that if he's not prepared to do that, 'cause it's an ugly thing to do, then he shouldn't be sending a nuclear weapon off. So even better

do it for his kids.

Yes. So, um, I'm not suggesting that as a, as a policy for Australia's voice, but the concept is there that should be, you've gotta recognize what you're doing.

Yes, exactly. And I mean, every, really, every time we've gone to war, why have we done it? It hasn't been for our defense,

it's

been to, for our, um, alliance. Yes. So that is why we've gone and, um, Clinton, Fernand Fernandez and his book, um, sub Imperial Power. You familiar with that?

Um, yes, I, yes, I think,

yeah, I've got it right here. Sub Imperial, power y.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think I, I think I covered that. I just got one. It's only a small one, but it's a great little book. But he said they knew when we went to the Iraq War that it would increase the risk of domestic terrorism in Australia, but they took the decision anyway because the alliance was more important than the domestic terrorism threat.

Yeah. So

for the sake of alliance, which is really, really a mafia protection rack, we increase the terrorist threat in Australia. You know, what sort of decision making is that? Like that's, you know, I have no words for how evil I think that sort of decision making is.

The people behind this should be shamed afterwards that they. They're, they're still lauded, but anyway, okay, next policy orca. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Can I just talk on the nuclear weapons? Yeah. Yeah. So, so we, we don't have, but you remember Penny Wong, our current foreign minister, said we have an either confirmed nor deny policy, um, as far as what the United States military aircraft or ships have when they come to Australian territory. Right. So via the forced posture agreement, which was signed by the, uh, or started with the Gillard government and signed in by the, the liberal government in 2014. So both parties are like this. They're one and the same. Um, you know, that gives the United States the ability to occupy areas of Australian soil where we have no control over that. Um, including when they fly aircraft in, um, that they may or may not have military weapons, uh, nuclear weapons on them, and we have no recourse or capacity to check or prevent that from occurring.

Mm-hmm.

Now. If you think, and, you know, real time example of what's happened here. So, um, the Nautilus Institute did a report based on, um, you know, all the information they could gather and some of the bombing by B two bombers that left the United States involved. B two bombers flying over Australian air space. Those B two bombers being refueled via US Air Force refueling tankers that flew outta Cairns Airport, flying to Yemen, Yemen dropping bombs on Yemen, which is in violation of the United, you know, the UN charter. Um, and then flying back through Australian airspace.

Really, we, we refueled some of the planes that we didn't do,

we didn't refuel them, but

on our s they do that

assets on our, our shore did. So we're complicit in a crime.

Mm mm We're

complicit that now we switch targets to China. Um, and, you know, the United States obviously the only country in the world that's actually used to, uh, nuclear weapons. If it gets that, you know, given the sort of fanatical, um, you know, exceptionalism, um, bent they have in the United States, if the United States gets into position where they see no other option to try and rescue their empire, um, you know, I don't think it's unforeseeable that, um, they could use nuclear weapons. Um, oh, good goodness. I hope not. But they could very well do that through Australian facilities and airspace. Um, because, you know, then it's not coming from mainland. The United States and the Chinese have the capacity to respond in kind. So RAF based amli, um, you know, RAF based towns or some of our port facilities, they could become targets. Um. In, you know, in exchange of missiles and, and worst case, even nuclear weapons if it got to that point. So, I mean, we're talking about what, you know, the not just life and death of individuals life and death of countries and potentially the whole planet. Yeah. All because we're unwilling to, um, stand up for ourselves and say, we're an independent sovereign country and we're not gonna let you use our territory for hosting your foreign military bases. And you're certainly not bringing nuclear weapons here.

And up to this point, uh, establishment has said, well, the Americans are the responsible good guys of the planet. We've now reached the point that they're irresponsible and they're not good guys. It's clear to everybody. It's, but this

is, this is, this is good. We're actually in a, a relatively good spot here because like I've been saying, and I'm not the only one, you know, you, you're obviously saying too Trevor, and that, but saying the same thing about the United States for time and you know, people just poo pooing it. But now, and I think we should thank Donald Trump for this. Yes. Now everyone can see. The mask has been ripped off. Everyone can see the nature, true nature of the United States, um, unless they're, you know, blinded and, and funded by the United States in some way to help. Further, further, they

can Cameron, but they're not, they're not, it's been obvious for, for quite a while now. And they're not, they're not backing off. And even something, this is where I find Gaza just so depressing, like a modern day genocide. It's clear to everybody that children, women, obvious civilians are just being slaughtered and mass and also being picked off by snipers and w we know it's happening and yet our own government is complicit in it. And I just, that such an event could take place and. And is being allowed to happen just depresses me that yes, it's obvious, but still nothing's happened. How, how long will it take? I worry. So,

yeah,

I

know. It's, um, yeah, I agree. I, I mean, I, sometimes I wake up and I don't recognize, you know, we, we, you know, how do we get to this point as a country where, you know, everything I believed as I was growing up as a young, young Australian, and when I joined the military, I thought we were the good guys and stuff like that. Um, you know, where, you know, it might be a bit controversial, but the evidence, um, of, you know, Nazis and neo-Nazis and far right extremists running the show in Ukraine, we support that. We're supporting genocide in Gaza. It's like, where did we go wrong as a country? Like I, I, I really struggle to understand, um, you.

I put a lot of the blame on Murdoch. Have you got a Murdoch policy in amongst all this stuff? I couldn't see one in my brief link.

Yes. Um, I don't think we've got a specific one, but, um, yeah, that, I mean, you's you need one.

Russell won up at some stage because I blame him for a lot of, uh, what's happening here with his ability to manipulate. Even in this day where not many people buy his papers, uh, he still has an influence on the system that's, uh, way out of kilter. So, uh, okay. One of the other reasons for you doing the Senate run was orcas. Yep. And, uh, what's the policy on orcas for Australia's voice?

So the policy is to, um, you know, basically scrap orcas. Um, so I mean it's, you know, we haven't got much meat on the, we're a new party, so we're still developing

Yeah.

Um, policies, but that, that's the heart of it. Um, and from, I mean, there's a couple of different parts to orcas. The shiny part which grabs everyone's attention is the, um, the submarines. And then the other part is the increased access to US military forces so they can project force to argue it to China. So I sort of covered that before when we were talking about the, um, you know, us, um, B two bombers and, and stuff like that. But I, I, I forget all the, the logic, strategic logic or illogic, you know, reasons why we have orus. Just from a risk business project management perspective. It's a dud. Yeah. We know that the, uh, UK and the United States does not have the industrial capacity to, um. Build these submarines, um, yet we're, you know, $800 million down payment just a few months ago, um, that we've made, you know, in what, in what environment would you continue on a project or a program like that when you know that the people you've contracted to deliver it can't deliver it. So, because that, and I can't see how that's gonna change. Like, you know, you know, you need, it's gonna take years, if not decades to build the capacity because it's a workforce. Like increase your number of engineers and sinus and technicians and all that to actually build these, that that's not gonna happen next year or two years time. That's 5, 10, 15 year project to do that. So nothing's gonna change in that regard. Um, so I think it's gonna all fall apart and, um, and collapse, um, sooner or later.

Mm-hmm. We've reached the point where even the hawks, the people in the military and government who want large shiny military objects and weapons recognize they're not gonna get them with this. So guys like Greg Sheridan and commentators like that have now turned around and have questioned orca because, um, they want weapons and they can just see that they're, they're just not gonna arrive through the system.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

That's right. So, you know, but we just need to, I mean, I think it's, it's pretty fragile. We just, it's gotta be some pressure point we can push, which the whole thing will imply. So I guess that's, you know, hopefully what we can do is help, you know, apply that pressure and the whole thing will, will implode. Um, and the other thing that worries me too is, is like, you know, in my profession as a soil scientist, we've had a period where, you know, state governments in particular used to in employ soil, sinus, and they've sort of. You know, in most states and territories, you know, pulled back significantly. So we're at this point now in my soil sinus, where our workforce is getting smaller and smaller, and a large proportion of the workforce is sort of getting close to retirement age. So to rebuild, that's gonna take 10 or 20 years. And I, you know, being in the army and seeing how workforce development, how difficult it's to, you know, maintain trades and that, that's a big project. But with orus, and this is just one, one sort of, you know, specialization, one field, but you think with Orcus to actually get the workforce, all those engineers, science technicians, maintenance logistics, people that we could actually, you know, maintain this capacity. It's gonna suck so much out of other areas of the economy, um, that, you know, you wanna get a plumber or an electrician, oh, good luck. They're all getting twice as much working for the bloody, you know, submarine. Mm-hmm. Um, program. Um. You know, so it is gonna have massive opportunity costs and flow on second, third order costs on the entire economy, um, in our, you know, bells and shiny whistles. We gotta, we, we can, you know, pat ourselves and we've got some nuclear submarines in 30 years time or something like that. It's just

our Navy cannot operate and man the measly few ships it's got at the moment.

Yeah, I think, I think we've got one operational Collins class at the moment.

Yeah. And a, a friend of family, friend of mine's been in the Navy for outta school. I think he's been in it three years or something now. And the only time he's really been on a ship was, um, was one of the old sailing vessels, like a replica of the endeavor type thing on some sort of promotional crews up and down the coast. But, um, yeah, and the just finding crew to operate these submarines would be enormously difficult because who wants to do that? Not an easy job to fill. That's,

I mean, they get way well paid submariners. Um, you know, they get their base wage plus a, I can't remember. Um, but yeah, it's a fairly significant, um, bonus. And I think then when they go to sea, they get even paid even more so sea going allowance. So, um, we can't do that now. Um, and I don't, I think, you know, you know, I think we're, people aren't really that keen to sign up to sort of. Go and fight wars, which, yeah. Yeah. So I think recruitment's gonna be a massive issue for, um, for the Australian Defense Force, not just through the Navy, but, but going forward. And I think that a lot of it comes back to, you know, you know, we've, we've lost the pot a bit, is to, what's the purpose of the defense force? Like to me, I think the actual having it, I think we need a defense force in a lot of ways. I think it's a noble profession when you are there defending your country, but when we do what we do, which is not defend our country, but, you know, paying a down payment on an alliance just in case they might come and help us one day if we need it, um, but are unlikely to do so. Like, it's not, not a particularly attractive deal. Um, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Also in your Twitter, as you number three and four, we've kind of covered these really, uh, middle East policies and um, and then the American Imperial Systems imploding and our leaders are failing to deal with this new reality. So, um. Was your sort of reasons for getting involved? Were there any specific, um, policy, well, policies of Australia, voice towards the Middle East and I guess as the recognition of Palestine would be one.

Yeah, that's right. Um, yeah, and we're unequivocal it's genocide and, um, and, um, fed, uh, Senator Payment and Senator Thorpe have got, um, I can't remember the exact title of the bill, but there's a three part bill there, which is, you know, reducing the risk of Australia being complicit in, in genocide. So that's directly related to, uh, well in, um, um, to what's happening in the, in the Middle East. Um, yeah, and I guess the major, you know, obviously cost of living is a, um, is a, uh. Theme in the election, and, you know, we hear it all the time in the, in the media and, and stuff like that. Um, so we have, I guess one of the key policies is lifting the minimum, uh, threshold, tax threshold, uh, up to the minimum wage based on the sort of premise that, um, the minimum wage is what you need to survive. So we shouldn't be taxing you, um, on that amount because obviously that puts you on the back foot and I think the costings come out at, at less than what the cost of ORCA is. So, um, you know, we can, we can keep people outta poverty or we can buy submarines,

cancel the submarines, and we can lift the threshold. Yeah, yeah,

yeah. And, and the other also relates that is for, um, uh, uh. Housing small businesses to always lift the threshold as well, so that businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, small businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million don't pay tax. And also try to pay, um, get the, uh, the corporates, the big corporates who send to make a monster in Australia don't pay a lot of tax. Yep. Get them to start paying their way.

Yep. How, anyway,

how well, um, yeah, that, that's the, the policy position. I'm not an economics expert, so I don't think I'll, I'll delve into how I do that, but I guess, um, one, one thing a differed between the greens and the, um, Australia's first is that, um, uh, from, you know, my understanding the Greens like to sort of do things on their own and sort of take credit things, whereas we're more than willing to be collaborate with other, any other political party who, you know, support policies that we support, um, to help further those things along. And I guess, um, you know. Uh, Plato, I think get a quote, something about the, the oldest and most fatal ailment for any republic or democracy in our case is inequality. Mm. Um, and we are becoming more and more unequal as a society. Um, so, you know, and that concentration of wealth is part of the pro reason why we're heading the sort of way we're heading. Um, obviously we're talking serious, um, disruption to the, the current power structure. But if we don't fix that, you know, we're, we're heading down this, you know, sort of path where the United States is heading, we have a extremely small percentage of population, extremely wealthy, and a large percentage to, you know, I think in the us you know, the average sort of median wage really hasn't improved for decades. Like, that's where we'll end up heading. Mm. Um, and that's not good for Australians. It's not good for our democracy. Um. And so we need to fix that. So, you know, hopefully we, Australia's voice can play a role in sort of addressing those sort of fairly fundamental, um, issues that we face.

Yep. I'm just looking at, uh, the website now and I'm just gonna rattle through some of the policies and, um, uh, to give people an idea, stop me if you want to talk about any in particular, but, um, so housing, um, what they're saying is that, um, limit negative gearing and reduce the CGT discount from 50% to 25%, lowering it by 5% each year, so a phased reduction in the capital gains tax discount. So that's one of the policies. Um, yeah, bank, bank reform, four banks have been gouging customers. We will push for a public bank of Australia. So,

yeah, I think that's, um. Uh, I think that's critical, but you know, I think working in with the, um, with the, the post office as well, keep making, uh, viable for regional post post office, lot of who struggling, seeing many regional areas, losing banks, um, around the country. Yeah. Um. And, you know, access to banking services, obviously a prerequisite for people's daily lives, for small business, et cetera. So I think the, I mean, we saw, you know, was it in the, uh, the Great Depression where after the Great Depression, they had the divestiture of investment banking and um, and everyday banking. Yes. What was the class? Was it class to, was that the Yes. Yeah, yeah. Um, you know, and they did that for a reason, I guess that's sort of part of this. If we could have a bank, a public bank, which was focused on providing, you know, everyday banking services for average people, small businesses, and that, that were forced more competition on the banks, um, whilst also ensuring that Australians had access to the banking services that, you know, we all need.

Yeah. Yep. That's a good one. Um, supermarket divestiture, Coles and Woolworths, um, break up the duopoly. So, yeah, I think

there, there's a bit of nuance to that. Uh, I can't talk to it in any detail, but it's, um, you know. Uh, and I think I, sorry, was it one of the institutes did a study in like in their, um, in the specials and like, like, you know, you line them up and the one week that Coles has a special Yes. Wool and then vice versa. Yeah. So I think it's more about, um, you know, if those practices don't stop, if they don't do the right thing, then take that sort of action. So, you know, obviously, you know, cost of living food is, um, is the core of being able to, um Yep. You know, look after people. So that's what that's about.

Yep. Uh, a republic, um, in favor of that. Uh, me too in the gen Me, sorry. Me too. Yep. Uh, in the general side, of course we've talked about, uh, yeah. And the resource ripoff, um, I gather that is to get more resource revenue and not give away gas and other things.

Correct? Yes.

Yep.

Yeah. We have, when you look at other countries such as Norway and that who manage to, you know, use their resources to look after their society. Whereas we, we do it to look after our corporates who, you know, feed the political system. So, you know, there's no reason why Australia should be poor in any way, shape or form because we are just so well endowed with natural resources. Um, other than the way we manage how we, how we, you know, look after and sell those.

Yes. Yep. Um, there's a bunch of other ones there. Um, fixed student hex debt, national poverty, measure raise, job seeker, raise the remote area allowance, real climate action, bunch of others. I'll let people sort of, um, go through those at their leisure if they want to, unless there are any others that you wanted to highlight in particular that you're keen on.

Um, no. Well, I, and I guess just, uh, as an example of like, this is a new party and we're still developing policies and I mean this, we we're running the Senate, so the Senate's primarily about holding the government to account. Um, and you know, that's what I like to do is hold the government to account. 'cause obviously we won't be in power, but, um, you know, hopefully we'll get a couple of candidates in and, uh, come senators and, and ask the hard questions and expose the, you know, the untoward things that, that we're doing. Um, and now I've lost my train of thought. Where was I heading with that? Um, what was I, I dunno

whether there any other policies or was what my started off with that you wanted to particularly

highlight any other policies? Um. And, you know, I guess when it comes to cost of living, and one of the things I think we, we need to, it's not in the national conversation, but I think needs to be, is I believe that the cost of living isn't a crisis. It's a chronic condition. Mm-hmm. And the reason I believe it's a chronic condition, and I mean, there's lots of things we can do, and part of that is like raising the tax threshold and making sure that corpus are paying the tax that they should be paying, et cetera. So there's lots of things that we can do to assist, but fundamentally we're not gonna solve it unless we understand that. Um, there's a, there's a, uh, a professor in the UK to follow who, um, has this, um, uh, energy, cost of energy, um, program where he looks at over time. The how much energy we're getting out of our energy sources is actually useful to the economy is declining. Mm-hmm. So for example, if you look at Saudi Arabia, uh, or even you know, Texas or that back in the 1850s they, or whenever it was, um, they dug a hole and oil comes spurting out of the ground. It takes no energy to actually, you know, extract that energy, virtually no energy, extract that energy, and then put it to good use. Whereas now you look at the size of the infrastructure that we need to be able to extract energy, whether it's, you know, coal, natural gas, or oil, um, um, you know, it's massive investment, massive in infrastructure. So we're actually getting less energy out of, and, and it's the same for renewables. They have relatively less energy than you get, um, compared to what we had in times past. So unless we come to terms with these sort of issues, we're always gonna have a. Cost of living is a chronic condition, but we don't even talk about this sort of stuff. Like these are core issues, is the future of, you know, our society and civilization. Yeah. But you, we, we, you know, fluff around, you know, liberal and Labor party talking about, you know, just having pot shots at each other, but quite happy to keep the existing system as is. 'cause that's where they get their power from and they're happy with the status quo. Mm-hmm.

But

these things, you know, we can't avoid them. So it's better to understand them and then work out how do we actually address them. And I think that's what the minor parties can do, is sort of raise these questions, raise these issues, um, and sort of, you know, influence, um, policy and decisions. Um, and I, I believe that can happen. You know, you hear regularly of little, um. Things where minor parties have been able to get the major parties to do something or make change decisions. So, um,

mm-hmm. Was that Steve Kein? Was that the Eco economist, you think? Steve? No, not Steve Keen. Um, someone else,

um, surplus, sorry. It's called surplus, um, energy Economics. And it's Dr. Tim Morgan is the, is the guy. But I mean, there's, there's been a lot of literature on, you know, energy return on investment and similar, similar topics. I mean, it's, it comes down to physics. It's not about whether you're left or right, pol politically, it comes back to physics. Um, and I'm pretty sure that politics has no influence on physics. Um, so we have to deal with that reality.

Yeah. Do you know, it's really hard to, to explain economics, finance sort of issues to people. So even something like, um, you know, the cost of nuclear energy. Like you could walk into any pub in Australia, and if you wanted to start talking about that half the bloody pub, well, depending on the demographic, it's probably old guys in a pub. The majority have got no idea of the, of the high cost of generating, uh, nuclear power in Australia compared to renewables. It's, it's just bleedingly obvious and well documented. Um, but you can't even get that concept across to people. So when you're trying to explain anything with a bit of nuance to it, um, like, uh, Woodside and other groups are totally ripping us off in terms of the, the royalties and revenue that we are collecting compared to say what Norway's been able to achieve. It's really difficult to, to convince people of some of the most simple concepts. When you've got, when you've got someone like the Murdoch Empire actively working against you at every stage, uh, it's just a blight. It's just a blight on our system that we can't have proper discussions about policy, where we talk about the nuance and, and the conflicting ideas and concepts and wrap it all up. It's, it's, you can't do it in our current environment. Right. Um,

and I mean, I mean, I'm a, a market, this political game, you know, I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm just giving the best shot that I can, but like I. Every issue we face has been developed over years or decades to get to the point where it's an issue. Mm-hmm. We can't fix it with a 32nd, you know, spray on, on the media or, you know, a slogan or something like that. Um, and unless we're willing to, you know, be able to create that space where you can actually debate, think in depth, and, and, um, you know, we're in big trouble. Yeah. So I'm trying like, you know, I'm hopefully in, you know, how I'm approaching this. I'm trying to do that, you know, logical, methodical, unemotional, um, manner. But, you know, we've got real deep issues that require real deep thinking. Um, you know, some creative thinking, some hard work, and, you know, you know, three years, what problems can we actually fix? You know, are we gonna fix a housing issue in three years? Mm-hmm. No. You know, are we gonna. You know, obviously there, there'll be progress and things along the way, but you know, we, you know, all these problems. If they've taken 20 or 30 years to become an issue, well they're gonna take 10, 20, 30 years for us to resolve 'em. But our political system is just not well set up to, um,

and to

address that.

And our, our discussion systems are not set up. We don't, we don't have systems that allow in depth thought and context and nuance and the history of issues, the history of our property debacle. Going back to Howard with the capital gains tax exemption, you know, the history of, um, the Middle East sort of issues there, like, um, the Youngs are wanting to start a war with Iran and you really have to go back to the overthrow of Mossek and directly Yeah. Term at Roosevelt and the meddling that we've done in that country that's got us to this position and even. Something as basic as we had a deal, they had a deal with Iran about nuclear disarmament and, and Trump canned it. And now he is wanting to resurrect a deal. But do any of these reports ever say, oh, by the way, there used to be a deal and Trump canned it? They don't ever give

that

nuance.

But this is one thing that does give me a bit of hope is that the rest of the world, multipolar world,

yeah.

Based on old cultures, old civilizations, they're not like this.

Yes.

And I, I really think that they're, you know, the Russia, China, India, Brazil, um, you know, Indonesia, Vietnam, all, you know, very old cultures.

Mm.

And whether, you know Johnny come lately, the Westerners and you know, like a teenager, you know, buck full of, you know. You know, things, they're invincible. Um, I think they're managing, they're managing this. They're absorbing, like, you know, because if half the, um, provocations that the US is doing against, you know, were reversed, like the US would be dropping bombs, missiles left, right, and center. Mm-hmm. They're absorbing a lot. And I think, 'cause you know, they're old cultures. They've seen all this, you know, come and go. How many times has Chinese empire expanded, contracted, expanded, contracted? You know, they've got the maturity to understand how the world works. Mm-hmm. Um, and I think they're, they're managing, um, managing the client. I think by doing that, you know, sooner or later we, in the, you know, in those countries sort of western aligned and allied to the us we might just get the hint that we need to change our way. So I'm quietly confident that, um, you know, they're actually helping us. We just need to open our eyes and see that, you know, it is time to do things a little bit differently. I.

Cameron, that is a positive note to end on if you have an end on that one.

Yeah, that sounds good with me. Yeah.

Alright, well people can look up the website, see what Australia's voice is on about. Um, good luck with your vote and good luck with, uh, with everything. Cameron, you're welcome to come on board, uh, the podcast and talk about stuff and we can just agree with each other again, as we tend to do one day. We'll find something to disagree on. But, um, but in the meantime, uh, thanks for coming on. Good luck with what you're doing and having a go. So, um, yeah, good luck with how it all pans out.

No worries. Thanks very much Trevor. Thanks for the chat.

Okay. Alright, we'll be back next week with a panel discussion with Joe and myself and Scott. We'll talk to you then and bye for now.