Lateens General. Welcome to the Late Blade. Well, good evening and thanks for joining us.
I'm James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond.
Coming up tonight.
Bizarre scenes at a wedding in Kenya as a man grabs onto a helicopter taking off with the bride and the groom.
We'll show you that a little later.
Plus when we look at the papers, householders set for another power price rise, and new research suggests air quality may affect women's chances of getting pregnant via iv Airfall of that a little later. We want to start the show tonight with fascinating new research that shows young men in this country are becoming more traditional, particularly as it
pertains to gender roles. Research has found Australian males aged fifteen to twenty four hold more traditional beliefs about gender roles than any other age group apart from men over the age of sixty five. The research shows that while the popular generally is becoming more progressive, young men think women make the best primary caregivers for children and men should take responsibility as the primary breadwinners in the home now.
The researchers have postulated the number of reasons why fifteen to twenty four year old males may be becoming more traditional in their outlooks. Some have said social media, it's the influence of Andrew Tait.
Others have suggested it.
Don't make us love Andrew Tay, a backlash against feminism, or maybe it's just economic realities.
I've got some thoughts. But Lizen Caleb, how about it? What do you think?
I love this. I love this. There is vote for the future, ladies and gentlemen.
If men is young are waking up to the fact that this is the kind of life they foresee for themselves and they want, then there.
Is vope for the future.
Of course, Now what you have to do, young men, is ensure that you don't faf your youth away because if you want to stay at home wife, and I know men any women who would love to live that life, If you want that, you've got to be.
Able to afford it.
Because it boggles my mind the amount of men these days, and I know we've normalized this.
The question is is it a good thing?
The amount of men these days who whife or woman only to send her off to work for another man while a stranger another woman who is a stranger raises their children. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But of course there are many households who simply can't afford
to be single income households. But if you want to be countercultural in today's society, you marry relatively young, like our parents did mom, where my mom and dad were twenty and twenty one when they got married, started having kids straight away.
That's why there's seven of us.
My mom decided it was the best thing since LIC's bread. And I genuinely believe, despite all the feminism trash that women are fed these days. If from a young age they get married because a man comes along and says, hey, I want to be a protective provider in your life, that will all go out the window. Homegirl returns to factory settings when the right man comes along, let me tell you she is more than happy to play that role.
And then yeah, he's got to be able to afford that, he's got to be able to afford the children, etcetera, and so on. Currently in today's society, we're just not
seeing that. Back in the fifties and so on, it was perfectly normal for a single income obviously the man's income to be able to pay for a very comfortable house in the suburbs, kids go to school, wife stays at home, raises the children, cooks, et cetera, et cetera, and so on, and the vast majority of people were very happy with that status quo before pile of feminists burnt their bras and decided it was oppression.
I'll come back to the economics of it in a minute, because I do think that's very interesting point, and it counts for women as well as men when you look at this data. But I think as to why it is specifically boys between the age of fifteen and twenty four who seem to be having the upticker, I think we've reached that pressure point now where boys have been demonized and men have been demonized so much that you've finally got a group turning around and saying, actually, I
just don't want to cop this anymore. They feel left out to see as though they don't really have a
role in the world anymore. That masculinity, as we all know, masculinity has been demonized, and so they're not really sure where they fit in the world, and they're looking at a time when men didn't know where they fit in the world and had a place to contribute to the world, and they're saying, well, I want to be able to contribute to the world, and so it's only natural that they would say, well, yeah, I mean, the world looked like a much better place when we had traditional gender roles.
And the economics of it, because if you look at the data, and if you bring up the graphic for what women believe, because I think this is quite interesting, you'll see an uptick there as well in women aged fifteen to twenty four. It's not as stark as the uptick in boys, but there is still an uptick the only age group of women who have had an uptick
in the belief in traditional gender roles. And I think the economics of this is that young people in particular are starving to realize that they have been sold a coon, both boys and girls are realizing the idea that women can have it all just isn't true. You look at the first generation that probably will never own a home unless their parents give them a leg up, or their
parents die and they inherit the house. So the circumstances in which they would traditionally create a family are fast disappearing from them, and so they're looking at all of this and going, well, the world that I thought i'd be able to have, the one that my parents had, just doesn't exist. So what can we do to try and get back to it. I mean, you talk about
having a one income household in Sydney today. If you want to be able to live, you need an income, a household income for a two person, you know, mum and dad and two kids of three hundred grand just to live, to service an average mortgage and all your other experience three hundred grand. That's why you don't have just dad going to work and mum at home anymore,
because no one can bloody afford it. And I think young women and young men are looking at this and saying this is not the world I want to live.
I think in addition to that, they're not just looking at the economics, they're looking at their own experience. These are young people aged fifteen to twenty four. Seven of the questions that were asked out Of those seven, four of them were quite specific. Do they believe that it's better for a woman to take care of the children rather than the man? Do children do just as well if cared for by dad? As by mum. Should mums who don't need to work still go and work anyway,
or should they be at home with the kids? And can a working mum have a relationship with kids just as good.
As a mum who's at home.
And clearly these younger people have answered in favor of mums being at home because that would be their experience. They haven't had a mum at home a lot of them. And clearly those boys are saying we want that or would have preferred it. And interestingly, girls, increasingly, younger girls are saying we would actually like to be stay at home mums, which is a.
Rejection of the idea you can go out work have it all.
They've experienced a lack of mum at home and they don't want that for their kids.
Yeah, indeed, and also many women discover very soon after entering the workforce, I don't want to do this till the day I die. I am utterly exhausted. And this all stems back to our avid denial these days of the differences between men and women. We are not built the same externally or internally, and we just don't want the same things.
We see this particularly.
In Sweden, where they've been over backwards to get equity in the workforce. And guess what, women still made your traditional women choices and the men still made traditional male choices. To the UK now where you heard last night the UK Supreme Court has ruled that only biological women are women before the law. This was a huge victory for common sense in that part of the world.
And JK.
Rowling, who we know was a avid defender of women's rights and has been written off by her enemies as a trans exclusionary radical feminist. She took to Twitter to celebrate this win. She said, it took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court, and in winning they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. For Women's Scotland, she said, I'm so proud to know you.
One of for Women's Scotland co director, her name is Susan Smith.
Here she was celebrating outside court yesterday.
We were in a really difficult place in Scotland. Then we thought we were going to see rights for women rolled back, and today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case that women are protected by their biological sex, that sex is real, and that women can now feel faith.
Who would have thought we'd live to see the day we'd be cheering so loudly for such a statement of abject truth from a Supreme court. But here we are, ladies and gentlemen, And you'd think, given the strong stance their President Trump's administration has taken since making it to the White House on all these DEI issues, and women being women, and trans people no longer being fit for military service in their humble estimation, so on and so forth, you'd hope that we'd start to see a bit of
that from our political leaders here in Australia. But this is what Peter Dutton had to say today when he was asked about yesterday's win in the UK.
The British Upraine Court yesterday has ruled that a woman is defined as a biological female and not someone who identifies as a woman.
Do you think that's the right call? And in light of this ruling, one is your definition of the woman?
Well, that's a matter.
Obviously it's been before the British courts. I haven't seen the detail of the case and it's not something that's I think in front of minds at this election. I think this election in Australia is about who do you trust to manage the economy and to keep inflation down?
Dodge, weave and deflect.
What a pathetic illustration of cowardice that was from Peter Dutton today.
I got to say, I am so disappointed.
It should be the easiest question to answer, ar I mean, for goodness sake, it was answered in the movie Kindergarten Kop Boys have a penist, girls half of that China. Thanks for the tip biological facts from a four year old. And don't forget that the Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi once sat in front of Peters Morgan and was asked the question what is a woman? And he managed to say an adult human female. So even Anthony Albanesi can define a woman in front of the cameras and Peter Dutton
refuses to do so. I think this business about Dutton being scared of being linked to Donald Trump, because we know that the alp in certain sections of the media have been trying to pin that on him. I think his fear of that now has gone way too far. We've seen a number of examples of that this week. One was on the lead debate the other night last night, where he was asked whether he trusts Donald Trump and he said, well, I've never met the guy, and then
refused to answer the question. Meanwhile, Albow says, course I trust him. I mean, for goodness sake, it should be the easiest question to answer. And again easy question to answer. What is a woman a biological woman? I mean, how
hard is it to answer that? But he's so afraid of that little sound being picked up by someone and taken off somewhere else, And he's afraid of the moderates in his own party turning around and saying, well, it's your fault that we lost the election because you stood up on the fifteenth of April or whatever it is today, sixteenth of April and said that, you know, women are
biological females. I mean, for goodness sake, just nail your colors to the mast, be honest, because even if people don't always agree with you, people like and trust politicians that they feel like a being upfront with death. No one likes politicians that dark and weave and refuse to be on If Peter Dutton says this is what I think, even those who don't agree will begrudgingly say well, at least the blokes telling us what he thinks.
And the only good thing about that is he at least didn't reprise his line from the debate last night and say well, I'm not a scientist or a biologist when asked for Duntan to say, well, it's a matter for the British courts. I mean you've got Kirily Smith, who was facing court this week, I believe because she dared to point out that a biological man was playing soccer against girls. She's in court. So it's not just
a matter for British courts. You've got people in this country who are facing courts and tribunals over this issue of what is a woman? For him to say well, I haven't seen the details, I mean, as you pointed out Caleb with Kindergarten cop, the details are pretty clear. You don't need to read the British judgment to be able to say what is a woman. But he missed an incredible opportunity here. I mean, you've got transgendered ideology ruining people's lives, making a mockery of women's rights.
Our country look ridiculous.
And if Peter Dutton could have just answered simply, a woman as a woman, a man is a man. Sex is binary, it's a fixed biological thing. And then he could have added, why would you ever trust the Labor Party who have instituted right around the country self identification laws. Why would you trust the Greens when they lie to you about what a woman is? Why would you believe any promises they make?
Now, this is the.
Problem with Dutton. If he doesn't have the courage to say what a woman is, why would conservatives who are very worried about the future direction of our country believe he's got the courage to make the big calls that need to be made in.
Order to get our country.
And i'll quote Peter Dutton back on track exactly.
I just how can you not just answer the question unless you're afraid? Why would you not answer the question? And I come back to the point. Every time this is brought up, people say, oh, well, you know he's not going to win the election on it anyway, And that may well be true, But is it not just a matter of fear aness to say in these matters?
And we're a country that believes in the fair go that increasingly women's sport is gaining profile and young girls across the country are playing sport in greater numbers than they've ever played it, and that's a great thing. It's good to see them out playing sport and participating. We dream of a time when one day they will be on the same pedestal and the same grounds as the men, etc. And in order to do that, they should be protected
from having biological males on the football. And how hard is it to make that argument.
Gwyn Hanson is doing so well and why her numbers are rising. It's rubbish like that from the leader of the coalition that's driving people towards Pauline Hanson.
Indeed, and the bottom line is this is not the behavior of a leader. You're asked, oh do you trust Donald Trumba or I've never met him? Asked about climate change last night during the leaders of well, I'm not a scientist. We know you're not a scientist. We asked
you for where you stand on this particular topic. Nobody wants to vote for a fence sitter because either you don't have an opinion on what is a very important whether it's Trump, whether it's climate change, whether it's what is a woman.
Nobody wants to vote for a fence sitter. Either you don't have.
An opinion, which would be very alarming indeed, or you do and you're being like you said, Caleb, you're being dishonest.
Yeah, well, you know, you sit on the fence, you get splinters in your bum and you know what else comes out your bum? Gas? And that may well be exactly where this policy came. What I know, it's one of my best. Look, it's a Thursday night before Easter. I figure I've got to run some good lines on you at home. I know. I mean, I've only got coke in this cup here. I wish there's some bourbon or something to go in it. But I'm sure you're sitting back with a nice sniffer of brandy or a
glass of red or something. And you chuckled away at that. But their gas plan, which Dutton unveiled in his budget in reply speech to make sure that we have gas available locally in Australia, which is a good aim. I'm
totally on board with what he wants to do. But what he said was they would put a levy on liquid natural gas exports overseas over and above the contracts that already exist, and the idea is that that would then force them to flood the local market on the East Coast with gas instead of selling it overseas, because there would be a financial impost if they decided to
do so. There's only one problem though, and Toomey, who is one of the most prominent constitutional experts in the country, has pointed out this law if the Coalition becomes government may well never come into being, and if it does, we'll get tied up with gas companies in the High Court because it's probably unconstitutional, she says in the City Morning Herald. In the age today, it looks and smells and sounds like a tax because it is Section fifty one.
This is the age now of Australia's constitution, they say forbids commonwealth taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states. The inherent problem with the Coalition's proposal, to me, said, was that it applied solely to the Eastern Australian gas market and would not be imposed on the liquid natural gas industry in Western Australia, where the state government already has a fifteen percent gas reservation rule in place. She
said quote. If it's a tax, then it's a tax that doesn't apply across the whole of Australia, which would make it unconstitutional and if they tried to do it would no doubt end up in the court and quite possibly be thrown out. I mean, in almost just rieks of policy on the run, I love the objective. I totally agree that we should be keeping our gas in this country for ourselves, and Western Australia is smart enough to do that and they have done for some time.
They guarantee that they have local supply of gas in their state because of course the state can levy its own taxes and doesn't have to worry about the rest of the country. But as it stands, the Constitution of Australia, the Federal Constitution, says that you can't have different taxes applied by the federal government in different states. It would seem like a pretty open and hutcase to me.
Peter Dutton starting to make Anthony Albanezy look like a man who's across the detail. This is just sloppy from the Coalition to have such an important policy, and the idea is right, but the fact that they hadn't figured out. Hang on a second, This is not constitutional. Is just sloppy and a little bit symptomatic of what we've seen over the last number of weeks. We've talked about the
debate ad nauseum. They should have anticipated the Trump question, they should have anticipated the climate change question, and surely when they woke up this morning they should have anticipated the what is a woman question? On top of that, they rolled out Harry Dutton, who did pretty well.
But why rolled him out so late?
If you're trying to soften Dutton's image, get the family out there at the start. The indexation idea of regarding the tax system. Put that out as a big vision at the beginning of the campaign, because one of the criticisms has been that Dutton is just more of late there's no big thinking. Well, the indexation of tax was a great idea.
Put it out at the front.
He can't do it immediately, but that enables him to attack the Labor Party for having gotten the budget into such a bad position. All of those things could have been done, but this is just another example where they feel a little underprepared for an election we all knew was coming and.
This would have been so easy to sell in Australia. We export eighty percent of our gas. That's a hell of a lot of gas.
And our gas.
Companies have been taking the mick for a very long time. According to the Australian Institute, they literally made zero royalties on over half of that gas, fifty six percent to be precise. So this is just great times for them. The government makes no revenue off it. So he's done and saying okay, let's make assistance whereby we keep more gas in the country and we make more money off our own resources. What a revolutionary idea. But it turns out the law you want to make isn't even lawful.
How embarrassing.
If you've done it right, this is the easiest thing to sell to the Australian people now.
At the moment, gas.
Export volumes are expected to be maintained at eighty million tons per year.
Till twenty thirty.
It's expected to sell for three hundred and three billion dollars up to twenty thirty. Now at the moment, fifty six percent being one hundred and seventy billion.
Dollars is basically for free.
The gas companies get to laugh all the way to the bank. It's unlikely to pay any petroleum tax. Even so this would end to an extent the gas industry's free ride by putting these levies and saying no, no, you have to pay these, and we're keeping more in the country, thanks very much.
When you look at the.
Fact that Katar who has free education, free medical everything if you need, it's basically medicare, but not even an upfront fee. They've got heavily subsidized housing. There's no income tax, there's no property tax, there's no inheritance tax.
And you look.
At a country like that and say, how earth are you guys able to afford this? Well, they're a massive gas exporter and they afford this because they charge the gas companies. So while the Australian government pockets just two point six billion in revenue, they pocket seventy six billion in revenue and we overtook them in twenty twenty as the biggest gas exporters.
In the world. So here we are.
We could have our streets paved with goal if only we managed our resources properly. The government has obviously rubber stamped this like I say, it's in place till twenty thirty.
DUTs has come.
Up with a great eye, dear, but absolutely turned it into a burning dumpster fire overnight with such a crappy way of selling it, which isn't even constitutional.
Well, you mentioned Katara, and some people might like to get out of Australia and go to a better country. I was overseas last week, but I'll tell you what. The rigmarole of getting through an airport these days is enough to give you conniptions. You've got to find your boarding passes, then you've got to and check in. You've got to get through immigration, through customs, present your passport if you can find your passport, if you're in the
right passport line, and on and on it goes. But the United Nations are now saying that within the next three to five years all of that could be gone because of facial recognition.
Here's what they're planning.
International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations body that oversees aviation policy, is overhaulingdak it's old check and procedures and introducing a digital travel credential. According to the UK Times, biometric data will power what is being called a journey pass, which is issued digitally when a flight is booked. The pass will contain passport details and automatically update if any
booking changes are made. Upon arriving to the airport, a passenger space will be scanned, allowing them to move through security without needing to show a passport or phone.
So essentially, you get out of your car at the curb in the airport and you walk straight to the gate and onto the plane without any paperwork at all. It's brilliant, it's convenient, it's efficient, and I am guaranteeing that both Liz and Caleb are going to be against this.
Pa. You hate it already.
I hate it. Oh, the United Nations is behind it.
Mac, well, certainly nothing the fairy it's going on here?
Liz?
Oh yeah, sign me obviously, United Nations idea.
Love it, love it, do me a favor.
People don't understand how valuable whre biometrics.
Is, so we just go, oh, convenience.
How many times do you give up your privacy for convenience?
We all carry it around.
With our pockets with us twenty four to seven.
They are loving this.
We give them so much data as it is, but your biometrics are a different kettle of fish entirely, and the fact that you're trying to tell me, Oh, it's so inconvenient to have a passport, isn't it inconvenient? No, it's worked for decades. I just got back from London less than a month ago. It was not inconvenient at all to present my passport at the relevant desk.
And then you still sail on to the plane.
No harm, no foul, don't take my biometrics, thank you very much, which actually happened in Heathrow because they're using it already. And there I was like a stunned mullet, being.
Like, I know what this is. I need to give into England. I can't do much about it now.
Well you have seened around and gone to Australia in protest, utterly.
Ropeable because who voted for this? Did we ask? The citizens of the world? By the way, because you know, we keep data so secure these days, do you mind if we take your biometrics on mass and make it impossible for you to travel anywhere without us doing so. We won't tell you what we're going to do with it, or where we store it or any of those details. But hey, now you don't have to carry around your passport. Wasn't that so onerous. No, it wasn't ownerous at all.
You won't have to do anything soon because you know, I and facial recognition all generaly.
I mean, we can pontificate all we want, but it's going to happen.
This is not going on.
So let's just lay down and pay che mass.
Well, they're just doing it to us.
They're just doing it much want people, if they were asked, would be like, no, thanks very much. I have the documents that verify my identity. They've done perfectly well, unless you have some sort of suspicion that I'm a criminal or something, in which case you lose rights when you're a crim or if you've got a criminal past.
Biometrics as much.
As you like those guys, but the rest of us leave us the heck alone. We owe you nothing, and certainly not our biometrics.
Oh it's for safety.
Oh it's a safety. Where have we heard that before?
Every time they want to for is something on you that trashes your rights to privacy to the extent of your own biometric data, they don't care.
And already in the tube in London where they were trialing facial recognition, they were using it to detect people's emotions the point.
Okay, but let me take that up right. So that was wrong. But isn't the point that they were.
They won't use this in an afarious way.
They were using it in an nefarious way.
The point is they were picked up on it, they were told to correct it, and they did so. Rather than just get all upset that this is the way the world is going will go anyway, wouldn't we be better to put our energy into demanding more stringent controls, more stringent security, recognizing you're not going to stop the technology.
Like this.
Regardless.
Just make the road to hell a little safer, That's what I'm.
You could make the road to hell a little safer by dropping all the speed livers to zero as well. But you know, I mean, is it really that onerous to deal with a piece of paper?
I just don't kept losing the building pass, Well, that's your problem.
It's just tie.
So we have to give it up for your convenience appreciation.
Slowly, you slowly hand over your liberties in the name of safety, until you wake up one day and you have no liberties at all. We do it because we think we're doing the right thing for the world. Until we discover that we haven't speaking of trying to do the right thing for the world, or at least that's what this bloke has in his head to justify all of this business. You might have heard of this boat before. Jordan Vandon Lamb. He goes online by the name of
per Pingers. He's running for the Victorian Socialists in the Senate of course, down in the Socialist Republic of Victoria in the federal election. He started this thing and we talked about it when he started doing it last year, where he was getting his followers on social media to send in addresses of homes properties that they believed to be vacant, and he was then publishing those addresses online and essentially telling people to go and scot in them.
He was saying, look, there is some free property he got nowhere to live, Just go and bung yourself in there because no one else is using it. Well, we've now seen the consequences of all of this, and yes it is only one case, but you only really need one case to prove how just dead in the head, this Jordan Feller is one poor woman. And this was originally reported by the ABC earlier in the week her father died and the property that he lived in he left to her. Now her mother had been living in
there for a while. She eventually got too sick to be able to live on her own anymore, so she moved elsewhere. And this woman doesn't have a great deal of money, so her ultimate aim was to be able to move into the house that her father had left her. But it wasn't in great condition, so over quite some time she had been saving up money to do work on it. She'd go back around every few weeks or so to spend the night there and to check on it and to make sure it was okay. She owns
this property, it's not abandoned. Her objective was to move into it, and she was slowly gathering the money to do the repairs that needed to be done so she could live it well. In the meantime, this address of this property was posted online by mister Vanden Lamb and someone rocked up to the property, changed the locks, put a heater on the side of the house, and most shockingly, removed all of her father's belongings from the home. She explained this to the project.
Last night, I tried my key and it didn't open, and then I realized there was a blind in one room that I never put down.
And that there was a security camera over the.
Garage, not mine.
My heart was in my throat and I was panicking.
Her home had been broken into, the locks changed, Carol's belongings cleared out by strangers.
Now sadly, in the end, her insurance company refused to pay her out, so she's effectively lost seventy thousand dollars in this. Her dead father's home was broken into and taken over by thugs who thought they could either squat or steal the property, and mister Vanden Lamb told the ABC that he would consider giving her apology. I mean, that is pathetic. He was also on the project last night.
Do you then check up to see what's happened to that house?
Generally, so the addresses that I post are different to the ones that I pass on privately. Yeah, the addresses that I post are generally the ones that I personally think no one would live in because I probably wouldn't live there.
And then more to kind of draw attention.
To the fact that hey, these places exist, they're near you, they're your neighbors. Your neighbors are leaving houses empty.
Ah, good on you, mate. You are an unmitigated scum bag who was not fit for public office. You are encouraging people to break into other people's homes. And he have a poor woman who hasn't doesn't have a great deal of money, who's had her father's belongings and personal things that I'm sure she wanted to hang on to, including a beautiful radio by the way, and some of you at home will know how much I love my
old radios. But lovely furniture that has sentimental meaning was stolen by someone because he put the address online and said he is a property to go and live in, disgraceful.
He's a vigilante encouraging people to break the law. And the way he gets around it is he says, well, technically, you're only trespassing if you're caught out and then don't leave. So he's clearly encouraging people to do the wrong thing. And his argument that well the house was empty, that may be true, but there's a greater truth, and that is that the house belongs to somebody.
Else, not you.
For him to run for the Socialist Party in Victoria, his policies because he said, well, if you're elected on the project. They said, if you're elected, surely you won't continue encouraging this kind of behavior.
You could change policies.
And his policies were the government becomes a builder and builds a million homes in ten years.
You can imagine if they were successful, what that would look like.
I've been to Eastern Europe when it was under communists control. He said that we should have the government controlling rents. That'd be a great idea. And then he's also suggesting an audit of every empty home in the country, and then the government would have the power to redistribute any homes that.
Were empty to those who were in need.
Good luck getting people's vote, buddy, Why doesn't he just.
Vote for the Greens, I mean run for the Greens.
It seems like, just as good AF.
Fairs, they're not pure enough. They're not pure enough least, I.
Mean, he's more ex dream no the socialist socialists or bust. Well, the University of Technology in Queensland is blowing the whistle on phantom foreign students. These guys get a student visa with working privileges and then either don't show up to UNI or drop out. Just a few weeks in we read in The Australian Today phantom students have been exposed by the Queensland University of Technology, which revealed nearly half its foreign students had dropped out of their first year of study.
Quote.
The retention rate for international students dropped to an unusual and historic low of fifty three point six percent because of an unusually high number of students who did not meaningfully engage from the outset its states in its twenty twenty four annual report. Of course, this is a hot topic coming up to the election, with the Libs promising they're going to back down and introduce international student caps and all the rest of it, while Labor seems to
think that there's nothing to see here whatsoever. But here we have foreign students, quite a large number of them. If you can believe that figure of fifty three point six percent at this one university, it makes you wonder how high it is at other universities across Australia. These students who obviously are just doing it for the visa, and once they get the visa, AH never intended to go to UNI anyway.
Mid you're not that surprised about fifty percent of foreign students dropping out of QUT. I mean that is very woke university. I reckon i'd drop out as well.
But that's why.
If that's the dropout.
Rate at QUT, imagine what private colleges, those smaller institutions.
What their dropout rate would be.
If you come to Australia to study and you fail to show up to classes and you decide you want to change courses or whatever, there should be no riggle room. You go back to where you came from. You here to study the course you enrolled in. You either do
that or you get home. And by the way, your ability to speak English and to read English should be a lot higher than it currently is by reports from those who have to share lecture rooms with foreign students where the course is dumb down because unis are trying to cash in on foreigners.
Indeed, and if that doesn't work, just very quickly before we get to the break, just be a criminal, because over in the UK that seems to give you a free pass. Another one. We've told you so many of these cases, but another one that just come out in the last couple of days. A Somali criminal who tried to go to the UK and claim asylum is not an asylum seeker, but now he has avoided deportation because
the poor blowke has mental health issues. It says in the reports in The Telegraph that the court found that the unnamed asylum seeker who's been dependent on alcohol since two thousand and six, so poor blokes and alcoholic, would suffer stress if deported to his homeland, which would worsen his mental health. Judges in the Upper Immigration Tribunal ruled that this would amount to a breach of Article three of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against
persecution and in humane treatment. The if being a forest student doesn't do it, just be a crim and then you'll be prettick.
Tell you if deporting him stresses him, not deporting him stresses out the millions of Brits who've.
Got to put up with him. We're going to go to a break.
When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow, including power prices set to rise again and air quality to blame for women not getting pregnant while they're undergoing IVF all of that in just a moment.
Welcome back to the program.
Let's look at what's making news in tomorrow's papers. Liz, We're starting in Tasmania.
Yes we are.
James Statues stolen. The headline reads. The removal and destruction of two bronze statues depicting the plight of orphaned convict children in colonial Tasmania, which were unveiled in Newtown just three years ago, has devastated members of the local history group that commissioned the project, created by renowned Irish sculptor Rowan Gillespie and unveiled in twenty twenty two at a ceremony.
The statues presented the six thousand children who were admitted to orphan schools in the state between eighteen twenty eight and eighteen seventy nine. Tasmania Police confirmed they had recovered parts of one stolen statue and charged a forty seven
year old Clarendon veil Man with stealing. Well, it ain't Captain Cook or Lachlan mcquarie, but this guy seems to be and he certainly doesn't sound like the usual suspect when it comes to getting rid of statues, graffitiing statues, beheading statues that relate to.
Our colonial buss Unfortunately, police haven't provided any reason or motivation as to why this man has alleged to have broken this statue. But I should point out some of those children were Indigenous children as well, so.
Well, and this is the thing is I mean, you can halfway understand, well, not really, And I'm not going to go down my usual path of explaining why Captain Cook had nothing to do with the food.
We've all heard the steal came.
Down that road. But you know, you can half understand why they go after figures of the colony who were leaders of the colony. Captain Cook was not one of them. He wasn't on the first fleet. But you know, you can can't understand why they do that. They shouldn't do it, but you can understand why. But now they're going after statues of people who were arguably victims of colonization, and I don't know, it is very very odd. I mean, if the motivation is that you don't like colonialism, you've
probably picked the wrong mob to go after. And if your argument is that you do really like colonialism and you don't think that orphans ought to be commemorated, that's even weird.
There's got to be something else going on strange going on here.
Let's go to the front of the Tizer tomorrow and I hope you, if you were in South Australia, you will open the pages of the Advertiser at page thirteen and read my excellent column. I know self praise is not all that great, but I'm telling you to read it anyway, which will be about technical colleges and why we need a lot more of them. But another story interesting on the front of the Tarzan tomorrow. Anti nukelib
is not a lib at all. Strange, isn't it. The director of a group running television ads attacking Peter Dutton's power policy while claiming to be anti nuclear liberals is.
Ready for it.
A retiree who's never been a member of the party. So he says that Paul Lads Jesus app is the director of Liberals against Nuclear but he's never been a member of the Liberal Party. And he's also expressed his support in the past for the Alberneasy government's interventions in the energy sector, childcare subsidies and the scrapping of Stage three tax cuts, and of course they've been putting ads
on TV. I mean, how can you say your Liberals against nuclear if the bloke who's running the show has never been a liberal.
It's hard to answer that question, Caleb.
I've got to admit it's difficult to come up with an answer.
It took you a moment.
I got a complete blank as to how he could be the director of such an organization that makes no sense at or Liz, do you have any insight into this?
Well, it would be very artful.
Instead of just being like, oh, labor against nuclear we already know that, yes, thank you very much, they're like, no, no division within the ranks. We are liberals against nuclear. So it makes sense for him to have chosen this angle, I think. So if that's the game, well on their website.
So you've got the director, that's this guy.
You've also got the official spokesperson who has held a position in the Liberal Party to legitimize it, to legitimize it maybe, But.
What it sounds like is a guy who is not a liberal said Okay, well we need to set up, you know, make it look like the liberals that are against nuclear exactly who's gone and found them? Like, I have no doubt that there are people in the Liberal Party who are against nuclear power. And he's mobilized them and they're now part of this mob. But you can't get around the fact that the bloke who's directing it
is not a liberal himself. Now, don't we have laws about honesty in political Actually, we don't have laws about honesty in political lad Clearly that was that was one of the carve outs in that missing disinfo stuff they were going to do so seemingly, I'm just going to start coming on air every night and saying I'm a Greens Greens person and look, you know, I just hate all the Greens policies.
I mean for good Greens against Green's policy exactly.
That's me.
If we had laws about honesty in political campaigns, we would literally have to start this campaign all over again. Let's go to the front page of the Herald's Sun in Melbourne. The headline reads power pain looms Surprise, surprise, the end of Labours one hundred and fifty dollars energy rebate in December. We'll send the average power bill up
by about fifteen percent. As pressure mounts on Anthony Albansi to extend the temporary relief, Now, the Prime Minister has rapeatedly dodged questions on when power prices will come down after the government's seventy five dollars a quarter subsidy expires. Liz, you pointed out I think I overheard you actually off
air that that's actually not true. Is it his dodge questions about when power prices will come down after the government seventy five dollar or caught a subsody expires, that they go up despite the subs doesn't bring.
Them down a bit exactly.
And that's the lie, isn't it that labor have been telling well, you know, we've made it cheaper. No, energy prices have kept going up. It's just they're subsidizing the price exactly.
They're all prices will go up. No, they were always that high.
Sorry to say to the front.
Just quickly, Caleb has something to say, ladies and jolemn.
Yeah, you know every now and again, Liz, you can just let me talk. Don't pay. But the problem, of course is that once you give someone something, a government gives someone a subsidy, or you get a tax break here or whatever, is it's so hard to take it back, which is part of the reason we've ended up in
this massive budget black hole we have. Because it's all good and well, when you've got cash to splash around, to say, we're going to splash some cash around, but then when things go the other way, I mean, it's so hard to turn around and tell people, actually, we've got to tighten our belts now. Assumingly no one has
an appetite to tighten their belts anymore. I mean, remember the last time Abbott and Hockey tried it on, and everyone jumped up and down and couldn't believe all it's terrible, all this stuff you're going to take away from us. It seems like we've landed in a place now where we just say gimme, gimmy, gimmy, gimmy, gimmy, and we don't look any further than what we can get for ours.
And Albany's is wanting another three years, but his plan for electricity prices is six.
Months and after that we don't know what's going to happen.
Pretty crazy, Well, that's all I need is he just wants to win the election.
And then worried about about all that stuff.
Later to the front page of the Telegraph now and a curious story underneath the headline that reads air of concern over IVF almost fifty locations across Australia recorded air quality levels last year that were potentially harmful to IVF success, with guidelines on the impact of pollution on fertility treatment
to eventually be considered by the sector's advisory bodies. Exclusive analysis of air quality in Australian towns, cities and suburbs shows that air pollution in forty eight locations last year reached levels on one hundred and fifty seven occasions that could have affected IVF. Such a curious story. This is not something that we think of when we think of ivf's success rates, the.
Very air that you're breathing, and the amount of money that couple spend on IVF and what they go through in a bid to become pregnant.
Indeed, I reckon there's a lot of people who.
Will be reading that story in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow figure out where are these places and considering that as they pursue IVF.
And there are quite a number of them across the country, so you can check out the map online. But I suppose what it's saying is that fertility when it comes to IVF is very different to fertility if you're trying to have a baby naturally because it's all very finicky, but it's you know, if you're breathing in dust, dirt, mold, spores and this kind of thing. Within three months of trying to have an extraction, that's the window. Three months is the window in which they're saying that these things
can affect you. I mean, you know, again, natural birth is different, but it does make you wonder how much his fertility affected for everyone else about his environmental factors as well.
Fair question.
We're going to go to a break when we come back. Bizarre scenes at a wedding in Kenya when a man grabs hold of the helicopter with the bride and groom in it as it goes up into the air will show you that in just a moment, well, just when you thought this election campaign could not possibly be any more depressing, it got more depressing.
Curb.
We have found lyrical poetry geniuses in the Labor Party. Mean you think of Robert Frost and Walt Whitman, these great writers. We have now the ALP because of course we saw was it earlier in the week the Liberal Party came out with a disk track, a rap song about why the ALP shouldn't be re elected. Well, the ALP has returned, so it has such great lyrics in it as its election time now and you're still full of sahi t no plan, no clues, more of the same.
Cost of living is tough people need to hand. You're too busy playing tough guy for the cameras man. He's a bit of it. No man, no clue, Just more of the same living tough people need a hand.
You're too busy playing tough guy for the cameras man.
Left every policy they gave off his relief fromvow to cement. He gave nothing but brief. Oh my god, I mean that is just so not bad. What are you talking about it? What he just.
Rhymed words with words that I would never have thought of. I mean, he's really sewn together the Labor Party platform that was so reaching.
That was so weak. I just if that's where we've devolved to in Australian politics.
Ygun may have a future in politicy.
Done an interpretive dance to that that would have been even more impact.
Very quickly, before we go, you've got to take a look at scenes from a wedding in Kenyon. Now, it was apparently a famous musical duo who got married, and as they were set to leave the wedding in a helicopter, a man approached them wanting some money.
I guess they're rich.
When they didn't give money, he decided he'd just go with them.
Now that is a wedding video.
The helicopter pilot realized that he had a stowaway and managed to safely deposit him on the ground, where he was arrested by police.
We're very helpfully told in the stories about it that he's a bicycle repairment. So I'm glad to know that. But you know, I knew Tom Cruise did all of his own stunts, but this has taken it to the next level.
Can you imagine as it took off, He's like, I guess I've committed. I'm even higher now, Like there's no there's no pulling.
Out of that. That's it from us. Good night, h