Lately welcome the Late Debates.
Well, it's great to have your company on the Late Debate James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. We've got a lot to get through tonight, including comedian Dave Hughes is applauded for throwing people out of his most recent show. We'll let you see exactly what happened a little later. Plus, when we look at tomorrow's papers, police say the caravan filled with explosives in Durall was not
a terror plot, it was a hoax. And news from Canberra that our government has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars by continually amending contracts after they've signed them. We'll get to all of that soon, But just imagine for a moment, if you will, that you're a new South Wales judge and you're dealing with, I don't know, a fifteen year old boy who's facing a string of car theft and break in charges, including holding residents at knife point, and he's asking for you to release him on bail. What
would you do. Well, you'd probably ask to see his history, his track records, see whether he's trustworthy to release on bail. What if you learned that that fifteen year old boy had already been released on bail four times and on every single occasion wound up back in police custody. Would you still grant him bail? This is the exact situation
that faced a New South Wales judge last week. She was confronted by a fifteen year old boy facing car theft and break in charges, and she learned that he would been on parole in April last year when he broke into four homes allegedly stealing cars and assaulting residents.
He was granted bail again, and during that period of bail he broke into more homes, was arrested again, granted bail, and while on bail four a third and fourth time, broke into more houses, stole more cars, threatened people with knives, and here he is before justice. Julia lonegan asking for bail a fifth time, and the judge found and I quote a high degree of confidence that he would not
offend again. And you know why she was so confident he would not offend again because the boy, through his solicitor, said he wanted to be a good role model for his younger siblings, and he promised he would stay at home when not at school. You have to wonder whether the judge would have a high degree of confidence if
this fifteen year old boy lived in her suburb. Calebin Lizza reminds me of another case in Melbourne, also last week, where a fifteen year old boy, already out on bail, broke into a home, stole Mercedes Benz, led police on a car chase reaching speeds of two hundred and forty kilometers an hour. The magistrate slammed the kid said, you could have killed somebody if I took a poll out on the street. Everybody would say you should be denied bail,
And then the magistrate promptly gave him bail. The magistrate actually said that I quote, proms to commit no further acts of offending. The young man said, what do you reckon?
He said, Caleb, I reckon? He said, yes, I do.
He said, I.
Promise I won't do it again. And the judge said, all right, I'm going to hold you to that and granted the kid bail. We can have politicians change the laws all they like. We can have police do the best police work you can imagine. But if magistrates and judges keep looking at a track record that clearly says this kid cannot be trusted and ignore it because for whatever reason they take pity, or they think the rules are too harsh, or it's just a kid, or they
believe a sop story. We are never going to see the youth crime crisis resolve.
I mean, how can you possibly say that you could have a high degree of confidence that someone who has been bailed four times will not then reoffend, you know, allegedly after all this reoffending that they have been doing. And Justice Lonigan and a number of other judges in New South Wales have been openly critical of the reforms that the state government the Men's government have made to
youth bail laws. Because the government changed the laws to say that if you're going to give bail to someone on multiple occasions, you must have a high level of confidence that they won't reoffend, and according to Justice Lonigan, that imposes an additional obstruction to their release to their family and community. Despite that child being entitled to the presumption of innocence. All everyone before a court is entitled
to the presumption of innocence. It doesn't mean they're entitled to be walking around in the community if there is evidence that they may well reoffend many many times, or we think they are a potential danger to the community. And of course it's not like bail is added on to any future sentence you may receive. You get compensation for time already spent in custody that is taken off of your sentence, and if for whatever reason, you're found not guilty at a trial, you receive some form of
compensation monetarily for the time you spend in custody. So there is literally no argument you can make that just because they're a child, they should be at home with their parents. I mean, heck, if they're at home with their parents, and how allegedly committing crimes, do you really want them going back to that home climing It is something wrong in that home. It is a joke, a mockery of the system. And until someone actually applies it as it ought to be applied, this will not change.
But applies what therein lies the question.
Because all bail applications come down to what's called judicial discretion. So every time you want to rail against a bail yes or no from a magistrate, know that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to bail, there's no check list.
I learned this at a little school, but I'm not an authority.
I never graduated, but loved, loved learning about bail laws and why they are a dog's breakfast in every single state. You can't find a state or territory in Australia that's like, actually, our bail laws are working beauty so bad the New South Wales's bail laws that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime, Statistics and Research did a paper just in October of last year because they wanted to figure out
what is going on. The police refused bail and then over fifty percent of the time the accused comes to the bail hearing and gets granted bail. In twenty twenty three it was over fifty percent. It was fifty three point five percent that everyone who came before a magistrate or judge and the police were like, no, don't let these guys out on bail. The magistrate is far more often likely to be like, yeah, okay, they're out on bail. And it all boiled down to this judicial discretion hinging
on one particular thing. Because both parties care about community safety, but a magistrate is far more likely to be convinced by a good defense lawyer, which is why the accused gets a defense lawyer.
They're far more likely to be convinced by.
That lawyer that the risks to the community can be mitigated by certain bail conditions, and so by perhaps it was then.
The rules of this guy's bail.
If he's like, I just go to school and I come straight home and that is literally my only outing, then a magistrate is going to go, Well, that mitigates the risks of him reoffending, doesn't it If he's only ever at school or at home at supervision of his parents, etc.
And so on.
It's these softy magistrates basically would be.
Very native maistrate who believes that.
Yes, and you've got to then go.
If it was your friends or relatives who had gotten mugged by this kid, threatened by this kid, assaulted by this kid, or had their property damaged by this kid, would you, as the magistrate, really be that forgiving. Unlikely, But that is what it comes down to, and you can't really make laws to them, be like, well, the magistrates don't have judicial discretion anymore. It's supposed to guarantee an individualize, proportionate, case by case basis decision making process.
But again that relies heavily on the judge, and then you get other judges who are way too heavy ended and lo everyone up.
But this is the thing, right, It's like, why can't they just see what the rest of us can see? That there is generally a strong community reaction because people feel like they're not safe, and it's like, how are these people so far removed from the rest of us that they can't understand there are simple things that can
be done to make us feel safer. It should be noted, of course, that many people who are magistrates and judges are former criminal defense lawyers themselves, and so it may well be possible that coming from that world, they have a different perspective on the way the criminal law should be applied to say, a prosecutor who spent their career, of course, trying to have people convicted in courts.
I mean, I've sat in.
Many court rooms and it's very clear that different magistrates and judges have very different ways of doing things and very different bents against certain prosecutors and lawyers, etc.
Because they are vested with that power.
Because we say they should be trusted with that power, but so often what they exercise just seems to be so far removed from the rest of us.
I was at a cafe in Brisbane a few weeks ago and waiting for my coffee and ended up hearing a conversation behind me which involved a magistrate talking to a couple of friends, I suppose about how he had denied the media some sort of request that the media were making in court, and he was puffing out his chest and quite proud of himself that he had sat that little television journalist down back in her seat and
denied her requests. I'm listening to it thinking, if only you knew how ticked off the majority of people are with decisions that happened now Magistrate's Court, particularly relating to youth crime. I don't think you'd be quite so. When we get to the papers. There's a story on the front page of tomorrow's Herald's Son where our former police Commissioner, Shane Patten in Victoria had a potential solution to this issue, and we'll get to that later when we look at the papers.
Indeed, I particularly love it when the people who administer our justice system get in the way with us knowing what's going on in the justice system. It's great though unfortunately one of my favorite magistrates in South Australia when I was a court reporter there was then sent.
Off to jail himself for alleged corruption.
But anyway, at least you did a good thing by us trying to know what was going on, including what was.
Happening with himself.
Speaking of what's going on, let's talk about the UK where if you want to get paid more money in the public broadcast, we've worked out how to do it now. I haven't checked whether this is the case at the ABC here, but maybe we can deploy some people to see whether it works. But it turns out at the BBC, if you want to get paid more, it's very simple. You've just got to be a woman, disabled, gay or black.
It is your free pass to getting paid more than the people you work with, specifically if you are a senior manager. Now, the BBC a few years ago made a commitment that they would have quotas for people from these particular groups. It was a fifty to twenty twelve target, which meant it had to be fifty percent women at least twenty percent Black, Asian or minority ethnic and at
least twelve percent disabled employees. So they've been hurtling fast towards that number, and we see in their latest annual report that if you're in one of those categories and you're a senior manager at the BBC, you are getting paid more than men, or non disabled people, or straight people or white people at the BBC, because we know that discrimination is good as long.
As it goes to minorities.
Women are paid five point seven percent more if they're a senior manager at the BBC. Then men are disabled, senior managers are paid eight point four percent more than non disabled people, Black Asian and other ethnic minorities twelveero point six percent more, and if you happen to be LGBT GOOPLUS you get a whopping fifteen point six percent more than you do if you are a straight person, which are tasso Is, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK said, top tip if you want to earn more at the BBC,
don't be a straight white male. People should be appointed and paid based on merit, not on their ethnicity or sexual preference. Now I've told you all of these numbers and they may well be staggering, but there is one number I want to see in the next annual report from the BBC. What do you get paid if you are a disabled female who is black and LGBTQ. Surely that gets your fifty percent more than anyone else in the building.
Are you become the chairperson of the bb sir? If you fit that criteria? Imagine the BBC literally paying you to be gay. You ask if this happens at the ABC. A friend of mine, this is some years ago, but he worked at the ABC and he was applying for a promotion and he was filling out the forms and he told, you know, I have no reason to doubt him.
He's not with the ABC anymore. That there was a section of the form he had to fill out, an internal form that asked what diversity characteristics would you bring? And he was sitting there with one of his colleagues trying to work out, what's my diversity characteristic? He wasn't gay, he wasn't female, he wasn't trans, he wasn't disabled. And then finally he realized his parents spoke a second language,
and so he put that down. That was the one two about half an hour to remember, Oh, I could use that, but literally he wasn't filling out his resume in terms if he had this experience, he had these abilities and talents. It was trying to work out what is it about me that would tick that box? And
could you imagine any other industry. I mean, would you fly on an aircraft where they said specifically we need twelve percent to be disabled, or you know, twenty percent to be Asian, Or would you go for surgery where they had quotas for surgeons to meet certain diversity characteristics. And yet this is all through the UK. Just this weekend the Krufts International Dog Show, which I've not heard about before, Caleb, but apparently it's a big deal.
Sounded like you're seen because a dog show in the world.
They get nine million viewers, who's been running since eighteen ninety one and Channel four. They chose Ellie Simons, who's probably a lovely young lady. She's a paralympian and she was selected to host the coverage of this massive dog show. And when the interview is done, as you know, she's been promoted as the new host. She says, I actually don't know anything about dogs at all, but I'm really
looking forward to learning about them. She was clearly appointed because she's a former para olympian, nothing to do at all with having any expertise to lead the coverage of dog shows.
And what a shame for all the people out there who would have been qualified up the wazoo for that.
Exactly for that very job.
Love dogs have religiously watched this competition every single year since they were a kid. You see how DEI breeds resentment, especially when it comes to light they're getting paid more, not because they're more skilled, not because they topped the pops.
In the meritocracy.
No because they're either disabled, a different color to you, or a different gender to you.
It's simply unfair.
Which is why DEI shoots itself in the face with an elephant dit. No one is feeling warm and fuzzy about diversity, equity and inclusion when you're the ones missing out on that job promotion that you do deserve above
everybody else. You've been with the company longest. I cannot tell you how many male mates of mine in their respective sectors have suffered through this very process, seeing people who haven't earned it, don't deserve it, are even relatively new to the company have at no point during their
short tenure showcased skills being superior to theirs. I suddenly shot up the food chain, and these white, straight blokes are thinking, for heaven's sake, this is simply unfair, and you want to force me to celebrate this.
It's not going to happen.
Because I couldn't.
I couldn't think logically why any of these people would be paid more than they're non disabled, or straight, or male colleagues, etcetera. The only thing I can think of is that as part of this drive to meet the quota, that they are giving attractive contracts to people to get them to come to the BBC.
Because why, I mean, you wouldn't just.
Walk into any organization, would not you'd presume pay anyone more than they could get away with paying them if possible. I mean, look, if I can walk into a room and say hey, because I'm a woman, I deserve a bit more.
And like, ah, yeah, sure, I haven't.
I mean, I don't think that's going on in any boardroom anywhere. Surely it's because they were so desperate to meet this quota that they were like, I'll just put any number on the piece of paper if it means I can meet my KPIs, which means I can stay on the board and then I'm safe.
And of course I'd be fascinated to know if the BBC can define what a woman is. I mean, this stuff is everywhere? Is us reading into the UK Telegraph today an article was the front page of the main part of their website was talking about how they have decided the next James Bond will be a man, be a man, and the headline.
And British and come from a CommonWell a female.
I I know it, guy, this was this was the thing as Amazon's got the contract.
Okay, you're going to be blad James and not the male bit down. What are they going to do?
Who?
That's good enough?
Oh my goodness.
To Syria now where finally, finally we are getting some attention on the fact that two minority religious groups in Syria, the fall of the Assad regime was.
Not a good thing.
Oh my goodness, who knew?
This has been going on for a long time now, but finally it's getting some attention from the media because since Thursday of last week, they're saying over a thousand people have been killed, namely mainly Ala white Muslims and Christians in Syria now, sources on the ground say it's more like thousands. They're seeing bodies pile up in the streets. A lot of the footage that I've seen made available on x by people there in the country is simply far too disturbing to allow.
Who would have thought that if you.
Have a failed state pretty much run by al Qaida, that's what we're looking at now. They are going to turn on religious minorities.
And massacre them.
Trump's administration has rightly condemned this. Secretary of State.
Marco Rubio on over the.
Weekend, released a statement saying the United States condemns the radical Islamis terrorists, including foreigny Hardy's, that murdered people in western Syria in recent days.
As the United States.
Stands with Syria's religious and ethnic minorities, including its Christian, Jews, Allyorite Kurdish communities, and offers its condolences to the victims and their families. Syria's interim authorities must hold the perpetrators of these massacres against Syria's minority communities accountable.
Thanks for the word salad.
You ticked the box.
What are you going to do about it. Head of National.
Intelligence, newly appointed Tulsey Gabbard, also had similar to say in a Senate hearing.
I shed no tears for the fall of the Asad regime. But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria, as I said, who danced on the streets to celebrate the nine to eleven attack, who ruled over it, live with an Islamist extremist governance, and who has already begun to persecute and kill and arrest religious minorities like Christians in Syria. I understand why that should be acceptable to anyone is beyond me. True certainly, of.
Course they're in government now.
So what they're not going to talk about was that during Barack Obama's reign.
This was a CIA op.
The US port a billion dollars, specifically into a project called Project Timber Sycamore that funded terrorists, armed and trained them to topple the Assad regime. Now, when Trump's first administration came in, they.
Trashed that project.
But these terror roups groups sat there like sleeper cells, waiting for the green flagged by their Neocon overlords in the CIA. And when they got that green flag they acted. What we saw last December was a coup. You've got all these competing agendas in Syria. The US wanted Zad gone, Israel wanted Assad gone, Russia wanted Asad to stay, and Iran, of course wanted Assad to stay.
And let's not mention.
Turkey, who also has its own agenda sharing a border with Syria. So what we saw in December was a coup. We're supposed to believe that fifteen hundred rebels literally overpowered the Syrian military, which is over three hundred thousand strong.
Not likely. I'm not buying that.
But the ugly truth is what we're seeing here, and the reason why we have not seen any media coverage of the carnage that is currently happening in Syria is because the US and Israel have outwardly taken credit for the fall of the.
Syrian regime, and this being a.
Very unfortunate byproduct of the fall of said regime, nobody wants to take credit for that.
I think what it proves is when you start interfering in other countries' business, you want to be damn sure you're going to do the job properly. Are the wise you end up with serious trouble. I mean, look at Afghanistan, for Heaven's sake, which is now back in the hands of the Taliban. Of course, when Biden pulled out of there, he left all the gear behind. They came in and
took it. And look what's happened there. I mean, Basha al Assad was an evil man, was a dictator, you know, had a reign of terror across his own country, rampant people being locked up because they were against it, like you know, all the stuff that dictators do. So you take that away and you say, okay, we got rid of that bad guy. And then who replaces him other
bad guys. And of course, if you look at the ethnic and religious makeup of Syria, ala whites, of which Assad was one sort of had a great rise under Assad, or when he replaced his father, that is, and so that created tension, but he generally had a secular government. What you've had since the civil war that started in twenty eleven is an increasingly sectarian war that has been four along religious lines, and of course in Islam it's
the Shias versus the Sunnis and on. It has gone to a point where you now have islamus running the show, and of course they're going to slaughter Christians. What do you think is going to happen? The more we interfere overseas, the more trouble we cause, and then we have more trouble.
But what do we think happens?
And it should not be a surprise to anybody. Mohammed el Jilani, who toppled Ass'ad, worked with al Qaeda and with ISIS. His stated goal has long been to impose Sharia law on Syria. He says as a seventeen year old he became radicalized by reading the sayings of Mohammed in the Hadith and the Qur'an. He spent time in jail, whereupon he wrote a manual for jihad, which then became a document used by ISIS. So what did anybody think was going to happen when he became the leader of Syria.
It's funny watching some of the media reports from the time when Asad was toppled, because Mohammed el Julani promised, we're going to have a nation of tolerance and we're going to a diverse word and we're just seeing played out now what we've seen, you know, since five seventy AD. Interestingly, though, imagine if Israel had not taken out all of those
weapons supplies that the Asad regime left in Israel. Were criticized for that at the time, but thank god they did, because the last thing you'd want is effectively an al Qaeda Isis supporter with his hands on all of those. And the other interesting thing is that you've got now ethnic communities in southern Syria asking for Israel to take on governance of their areas and come under the protect So you've got Arabs wanting the Israelis to protect them.
And Third, all those people on university campuses, you know, campaigning against genocide and ethnic cleansing and all that sort of thing, are strangely silent at what is happening in Syria where people are being targeted not because they're holding hostages, but because they are Christians, or because they're the wrong brand of Islam, or because there's some sort of other mystical religion. They're being argeted for those reasons and not a peep on our university campuses, which just shows the
utter hypocrisy of the left. Let's go to Victoria, where utter hypocrisy rains continually as well, not to mention incompetence. If you've been to Victoria recently and traveled on public transport, it's a nightmare, unlike Sydney, where you just tap on
and tap off using your credit card. They want that system in Victorians, but in fact they spent one point seven billion dollars contracting someone to create it, which I must point out was always a folly since that system existed in New South Wales, for instance, But rather than adopt an existing system, the Victorian government decided to build
it from scratch. It's still not working, and now those responsible for implementing the contactless ticketing system have been paid several million dollars not to do it so somebody else
can be brought in to do it instead. This is typical Victoria lives where the government paid what was it a billion dollars not to build the East West Freeway link, where they paid four hundred million dollars not to run the Commonwealth Games, and now they're paying several million dollars not to have this company fix the my key system.
Do you think this is one of the contracts included in the story that we'll get to in the papers. Wait, till you find out how much tax payer dollars are being spent on these contract amendments. Does that include cancelations which is outright cancelation?
Why not?
Let's check it all in. How hard can it be that? This is what I don't get. We've wont it in New South Wales, they've got it down in South Australia.
In London for years.
Yeah. I don't know what the.
Situation's like in Brisbane, whether they can use credit cards. But how hard can it be to take a piece of machinery that allows you to tap on a card and then also allow it to tap on a credit card. I mean, if they can't do that, if they can't update the market system, why don't they go to a bank and say, look, can we just have a bunch of FPOs terminals please, and we'll just fit them in the trains and the buses.
They don't cost any money.
The banks hand them out for free because they want the business, they.
Want the money going through their banks.
And then you just tap your credit card like you do when you go to the shop and it charges.
You the fair How hard can it be in to do this stuff?
The technology exists, I mean when it happened in South Australia, and I go down there frequently being an Adelaide boy, I didn't know it was coming because it didn't have a lot of wide reporting, presumably because it wasn't an extraordinary thing that the South Australian government worked out how to make their systems work with credit cards. I just rocked up one day and you could use your credit card and they did a trial and it was great.
Now it's on every bus, simple as that. Why can't Victoria do this stuff?
Like how hard is it when you have a ticketing system to just make it do what everyone else's.
Hand all done out the Allen government. You're asking for too much.
I know. And we're talking about the government of course, where the Premier says there should be a rev you into Bayol laws, and then the Police Minister doesn't think they should be review into Baio laws, and then the Attorney General doesn't know that there's going to be review into Bayol.
Laws and they did amend their bail laws just last year. It's unbelievable, Victorians, Why are there any of you left?
Just high tail it out of there?
A great story out of America tonight Missouri has decided to take China to court and sue them for the whole You know, that COVID thing, that massive pandemic, that people lost, bajillions of money, Countries were on their knees, entire economies ruined.
People were traumatized.
In their personal and professional lives for years on. And well, Missouri's decided they're going to get justice. Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General, is quoted as saying, China refused to show up to court while we were suing them here in Missouri, but that doesn't mean they get away with causing untold suffering and economic devastation. We intend to collect every penny by seizing Chinese owned assets, including Missouri farmland. So they've
taken China to court. China, of course, didn't show up. They found in favor of Missouri and have successfully sued China for twenty eight billion dollars. And they say, oh, look, it's fine, they're not going to show up and pay us the cash.
We're just gonna keep seizing assets.
Of course, China addressed this and just waved it off like it was utter nonsense. The Chinese Embassy in Washington's spokesperson said, the so called lawsuit has no basis in fact, law or international precedents. China does not and will not accept it. If China's interests are harmed, we will firmly take reciprocal countermeasures according to international law. Now Eric Schmidt,
now Missouri Senator, was the former Missouri AG. I got the ball rolling, and my predecessor, my successor, rather has kept it going.
Go us, He says.
When I was AG in Missouri, I sued China for unleashing COVID on the world. My successor and friend Andrew Bailey continued the work, and today the court awarded Missouri twenty four billion in damages. I said twenty eight earlier. Oh okay, we'll round it down to twenty four. Missouri can now seize assets. Just call us the show me the money state. My question is, if Missouri can do this and now just start ripping back Chinese own assets in their state.
What's to stop the rest of us from taking note?
So specifically, they found that China had covered up the pandemic, especially at the start, and that China had hoarded protective gear and equipment, and then that of course affected people in Missouri. But you're right, and not just individual states. Why haven't international institutions and bodies pursued this? Why is at some court in Missouri that none of us have ever heard, that have had the balls to take on China. Scott Morrison, for all of his failings, at least tried
to get the world to hold China accountable. How come it's a court in Missouri that's doing this and not all these international bodies that keep going on about how they're here to guard our rights and to ensure justice, and they just wave this one.
Away because I'm not sure how you actually enforce it. It's a thing in the US where you can actually sue foreign countries through their courts, and that's obviously what has happened here. It was originally knocked back, then it was appealed, that went to the district court, which is where this.
Judgment came down.
But I don't know, once you've sued a foreign country in your own country and then say that a foreign country owes you a lot of money, how do you go and actually collect that debt in a legitimate way, Like I know they're saying. I know they're saying they're going to seize the assets. But once they've seized the assets. What do you do then, how do you actually legitimately seize the assets?
Are like a murky situation. I love it. I mean, I hope they can pull it's the money from.
Well the state because the states the state.
Can just respend it, or that the state can.
Do it at once with it.
It's the state that's won the case, so that the state would be the beneficiary of the damages. So they say they're going to seize assets, but they're saying, okay, we'll seize Chinese owned assets, but they've.
Sued the CCP, et cetera.
If you're some bloke in China who owns a bit of land in Missouri and then all of a sudden your land is being taken away because the CCP did something, you're probably going to be pretty upset. I don't think this is going to be the end of this discussion, but I like where they're going with it.
You know, if we could do it, if we could.
Pull it off, I'd be all on board with it, and I just think it would be a little bit dodging.
But of course, you see, the thing is they say.
We'll retaliate, and the only way they can retaliate is in trade means, which is of course where the United States actually does have a little bit of an upper hand here in any other country that wanted to try it on would have an upper hand because theydn't retaliate by saying, well, we're going to stop the Aussies and the US from owning land in China because that's already illegal, and maybe we should take note of that.
Maybe we should think for ourselves.
We're saying now that we're going to reclaim land that's owned by Chinese people in Missouri in the United States, why are they allowed to own it in the first place. Just aarsts China, they'll tell you why they don't want people having land in their country.
Let's go just a little bit further over the border.
Up to Canada now, where they have a new prime Minister, Mark Karney. He's the new leader of the Liberal Party, who of course replaces the train.
Wreck that was justin Trudeau.
He worked out, of course that there is no way he's going to win the election that is set to be held in October this year. It'll probably be earlyer now that they've had a change of hands with the leadership here is justin Trudeau saying thank you so much.
On a personal level, I've made sure that every single day in this office, I put Canadians first, have people's backs, and that's why I'm here to tell you all we got you. Even in the very last days of this government. We will not let Canadians down today and long into the future.
Oh it's all very sweet, isn't it.
So? Of course, sniffing the wind and realizing what's happened south of the border in Canada, in the United States where Trump has just swept to power, because of course people are sick of left wing politics, and we're left wing people doing what left wing people have been doing, which is basically not listening to what's going on in their own countries. The Liberal Party has said, yes, let's bring on someone who wants to do everything we've been doing for years and years under Trudeau.
Here is Mark Carney.
Donald Trump, as we know, has put as the Prime minister, just said unjustified terriffs on what we build, on what we sell, on how we make a living. He's attacking Canadian families, workers and businesses, and we cannot let him succeed.
Yes, we're going to stop that evil Trump. Good luck with that, because you're not going to win the election. If there's one thing we should be grateful for, it's the Christia Friedland, who was also in the running for prime minister after this speech, just somehow didn't make it.
A few weeks ago in Saskatoon, I met a four year old girl named Ari. She asked me, can you stop Trump from invading Canada. Ari is a smart girl and she's asking the right question. I'm running to be leader of the Liberal Party and the next Prime Minister of Canada.
So I guess Canada is at risk of being invaded now because she didn't get the prime ministership.
It's bad, but it could have been worse.
She went further than that, She's actually asking for the UK and France to enter into a pact with Canada to provide a nuclear deterr It's to Donald Trump from ever invading Canada, which just shows you where the Canadian Liberal Party is. That they have nothing at all to run on other than turning Donald Trump into the ultimate bogey man who's going to invade Canada. And if anyone thinks Trump and America are going to invade Canada, they deserve to have who is that Mark Carney as their
prime minister. The other interesting thing is about the Canadian Liberals is less than half of those eligible to vote for the next leader of the party to replace Trudeau. Less than half of those eligible bothered to vote, and when they did, they vote for guys not even in parliament. Mark Carney's not even in the parliament.
This is true.
This was replacing like king of the globalist picks with another king of the globalist picks.
Like read Carney's resume. It's like, oh, Jermia favor.
And this is going to be a marvelous showdown.
Canada is due to go to the polls in October, but everyone suspects they'll go earlier.
This will trigger so sort of a snap election.
It'll end up being earlier because they're ready for a showdown now.
But it's this.
Carneie fellow versus the Canadian Trump in Pierre Polivier or however you want to.
Pronounce his last name.
I've heard so many different versions even I'm confused now, but this guy has been heralded as the Canadian Trump, and I think these guys are about to find out just how much Canadians actually don't mind themselves a little bit of trump.
Well, you know, in Australia you'd never let a carne run the country, would you. But apparently in Canada that's okay.
No, But they have now got a former banker leading their country, and didn't Australia have a former banker our country. We'll talk about him in the papers. But coming up after the break, including in the papers, police find that caravan filled with explosives was not a terror plot. Apparently it was just a hoax. All of that and a bit more, and we look at the papers in just a moment, welcome back. Let's look at what's making news tomorrow.
The Daily Telegraph Lives have got a big story about that caravan filled with explosive.
Big story and a great story. I mean, this is good news.
Crook stage act of anti Semitic terror.
It was all a vile hoax. We've been had.
But have you ever been gladder to be to have been had?
A caravan filled with explosives found in Sydney's northwest was part of a fabricated terrorist plot, masterminded by crime figures who held vain hopes of using it to cut a deal with authorities to seek a reduce sentence for other matters, police said yesterday. It comes as the Daily Telegraph can reveal the Australian Federal Police knew the explosive laden caravan existed before it was found at Dural. Here's the AFP
Deputy Commissioner addressing this today. Today I can reveal that the caravan was never going to cause an casualty event, but instead was concocted by criminals who wanted to cause fear for personal benefit.
Vile criminals.
But what are relief to know that this was staged by some whack jobs with an entirely different agender. I think for that reason, it's a very good story and jokes on Australia because we introduce those hate speech laws, those new hate speech laws, which I was very vehement against and still am, due to this very thing that now has been confirmed by.
Police to be a complete hoax.
It was a fake terror.
I'm not sure I'd be that excited about the news just yet, because I reckon police have gone early. They've said in this article they're not sure if it was used as leverage to try and get a reduced sentence by criminals, ie they plant this caravan. Then they tell police about it, and police, oh, thank you, because you've
done that, will reduce your sentence. In other cases, they're not if it's that, or if it was done to cause fear but was never going to be a threat, but done to cause fear, And if you've got organized crime now doing things to cause fear amongst the Jewish community, I'm not sure that's something to be all that relieved or excited.
I'm just saying it's a marvelous thing that we now know that nobody was intending to actually blow up another synagogue or harm people physically.
Well the hell of a lot better than the alternative, right, But I suppose a terror terror a terror act is that terror is the operative word. I mean, terror is necessarily a physical act. It's a feeling that you experienced, and of course this would have created terror for whatever
means was supposedly what these organized crime crims wanted. But what we know is that, you know, there are people on the periphery who've been arrested on this matter, who presumably have been contracted to get involved in these things, but we haven't been told who's actually pulling the selling.
Weird thing about this just gets weirder. And it was weird to begin with, and it just gets weirder and weirder and weirder from the point that it took so long for police, of course to tell the public about it, that the Prime Minister seemingly hadn't been told about it, even though other people had been briefed and knew about it. Now we're told that it's organized crime, but we don't know who in organized crime it was.
The whole thing is weird.
So you can bet you take it to the bank that they know a lot more than they're saying they always do.
But we had Chris Min's, the New South Wales Premier, saying that this was a terror threat. Well, the AFP apparently was sitting there knowing the entire time. No, no, it's nothing of the sort, and yet they allowed this thing to None of this makes sense.
So you're saying now that the government was complicit in spreading terror when it knew there was no no.
No, because the AFP.
The AFP didn't tell the New South Wales Police about their thoughts and investigation. So of course the New South Wales Police talked about what they thought they knew, but the AFP had withheld information.
Does this potentially plane why Albo didn't reveal what he knew when he knew it, because remember that was a massive talking point for a very long time. It's like, you knew about this van, you didn't say anything. Why didn't you say anything about the van? Maybe he had been made aware of something along these lines.
That doesn't make sense because then he allowed Chris Mins to look like an idiot without I know, Chris Mins makes sense. We're never going to solve that one tonight. Let's move on to The Herald's Son. We were talking about bail laws earlier. This is a great story in The Herald's Son, Bail betrayal bombshell, great use of the
literation by the sub editors at The Herald's Son. Former Victoria Police Chief Shane Patten lobbied the Allen government to adopt a seven point plan to fix the state's failed bail system about two weeks before he was axed. The Herald's Son can reveal the plan's keyplank was to limit accused offenders to a maximum of three sets of bail before they were remanded in custody. Now, whistleblowers say a senior official told mister Patten the government did not have
enough care or prison beds to implement the proposal. It comes as repeat offenders have been released into the community up to fifty five times and pressure grows for a
bail law's overhaul. That's an astonishing admission if it's true that the government simply said, look, we just don't have enough prison beds or money to implement tough bail laws, especially when you consider that just Center Allen has initiated a review into bail laws, which she initiated right before a couple of very important by elections, and here we have the former police commissioner giving her some pretty good advice. I would have thought he's a solution. You get three cracks.
If you still offend after that, that's it, no more bail. But the government just said, haven't got the money, haven't got the prison beds, can't do it.
I mean, I don't carry a great deal of water for pattern after what happened during COVID. But it was said by many people who had knowledge within the force. When he was effectively sacked, well, he was told that his contract would be renewed. In any resigned there had been tensioned between him and the government going back to COVID, and obviously as recently as weeks before the government moved him on and they saw him, presumably as a difficult person, and so.
Off you go.
I mean, if you try to point out something that seems pretty straightforward that you know you shouldn't be able to break your bail conditions more than three times before you don't get bailing in and next thing you don't have your contract renewed, you can understand by Patton might have been a little bit peeved by that. Indeed, let's go to the front of the Odds tomorrow where it's
undaluted troon ball, torpedos, traffic talks. I mean, you thought the alliteration was good on the front of the Herald Son James who we got a set five times quickly belt.
Here on the front of the Odds.
Australia's hopes of securing an exemption from Donald Trump stealing aluminium tariffs this week have been dealt a blow after the US President lash Malcolm Turnbull, who won a carve out from mister Trump's first term tariffs, as a weak and ineffective leader. And of course this all followed Turnbull getting involved making comments to the media about the tariff situation. Turnbull said, where Trump is chaotic, g will be consistent. Where Trump is rude and abusive, he will be respectful.
Where Trump is erratic, he will be consistent.
Is that what Jijinging was being when he had those warships go by Sydney live firing with eligent flights?
So that was respectful?
Was it?
What an idiot?
I can't get over? Like, what the hell are you doing? Malcolm?
If you wanted to ensure that we got these tariffs, that's a pretty damn good way of doing it by enraging Gon Truple.
How dumb do you get?
Not much dumber? Is the answer to that is not much dumber. We're going to go to a break when we come back. And Dave Hughes, the Aussie comedian, is applauded for kicking people out of his most recent show, You will let me see what happened in just a moment Welcome back. Comedian Dave Hughes was performing in Adelaide at the weekend, but cadib it didn't quite go according to plan.
No it didn't. I can tell you.
Dave Hughes is a good bloke and he was just trying to predict his audience here. We've all been to a live show before, particularly comedy, and there's someone in the audience who just has to interject and interrupt and make a dick of themselves. It goes on all the time. It's so bloody annoying. Would you just shut up and let me enjoy the show?
Well, it happened to mister Hughes.
He wasn't having a Barret.
Dave Hughes was forced to stop his show at the Woodcroft Hotel on Friday nights because, he says one woman wouldn't stop talking. After several warnings, the woman and her two friends were escorted out by security, one even giving us the hug before being shown the door.
I suspect she's apologizing for the drunken behavior, presumably of the person she was with. But you know what, I had a moment like this myself on the weekend. I was on a train to Woole Gong. Two things happened. One bloke lit up a cigarette on the train. I mean, who does that?
Who likes up a cigarette on the train.
But the other was I was in a quiet carriage and these kids got on and started having a loud conversation.
It's written on the door, quiet carriage.
I went into the quiet carriage because I wanted to sit in silence, and these kids start carrying on.
I wanted to.
Turn around and go Dave fuse on them, but I thought, no, I don't want my face caved in. At least he's on stage and he can avoid that kind of thing. But do people not understand the contract of a civil society? Have some respect for the people around you, for Heaven's sake.
Well, in defense of those kids, I didn't know we had quiet carriages.
It's a Richtralian door European thing. I'm well aware of that. But here in Australia.
We're not a quiet cult.
Chest sack it up, butter caup before we leave each to night.
Check out this bulldog by the name of Chowder. He has wrapped up one point six million TikTok followers.
For his sweet skills.
He started skateboarding when he was just two years old.
He's now nine, and check.
This guy out.
He literally he steers the board, he rounds corners, he's leaning into it, so.
He makes it through smoothly. This is utterly incredible.
His owner, Jammy Delverdang, told the press that he literally behaves like a skater too. She says, if he has a bad run, he has a temperature for him and will flip the board over and be growling at it, just like skaters do.
I mean, how cute is that?
When I don't like it, he should be wearing a helmet. We've got coming up as the Reader Penny Show. Good Night,