Late welcome the Late pay.
Well, it's great to have your company on the Late Debate. I'm James Macpherson with Liz Staurer and Caleb Bond coming up tonight. Anthony Albanese's gaff when asked about power sharing with the Greens or was it a gaff? We'll look at that a little later. Plus when we look at the papers, the Canberra Times is all upset over Peter Dutton saying he would prefer, if elected Prime ministers to live in Sydney rather than Canberra. Another reason to vote
for Peter Dutton. Clearly he's got common sense. Plus The Australian talking about Peter Dutton's latest policy idea to ease bank lending requirements in a bid to help ease the housing crisis. All of that when we get to the papers. But first, imagine you wanted to do something to help one of Australia's poor at nations, say Papua New Guinea becomes stronger and more prosperous.
Well, here's an idea with merit.
What if Australian taxpayers paid for p andng's youngest and brightest students to come here and study at our universities. Then they could go back home and implement what they'd learned to make their own country stronger, more secure, and more prosperous.
It's a good.
Idea, right, and it's been happening under the Foreign Affairs Department. Every year Papua New Guinea's brightest students are invited to apply for scholarships where taxpayers here in Australia would pay for their flights here, pay for their tuition, their living expenses, and even their health care. And it's pretty obvious the sorts of things we would train these young people from p and G in We'd train them in agriculture, in education, and in medicine, or at least you would.
Think that's what we would do.
The Albanize government, however, in their infinite wisdom, are now strongly urging these young people from p ANDNG to take up these scholarships not to study education nor medicine, but to study gender disabilities and climate. It's almost like the Albanese government leave P ANDNG needs less doctors, less farmers, less teachers, and a lot more unemployed activists. And I suppose if the goal is to help P and G people discover what it's like to be a modern Western nation that would.
Fit the bill.
I always thought foreign aid was about helping your friends, not destroying them. Now, Penny Wong's department, when asked about all of this, said no, No, they're still free to study education and medicine. It's just that we're broadening the opportunities for them live and they are and that says it in the handbook. They're strongly encouraging these young people to do gender studies, climate studies. How does that help Papua New Guinea progress as a nation?
It's destroying Western nations. Why would P and G students want to study that.
They've got to trust that any students who are hoping, obviously this is a massive opportunity for them to further indeed selves, they'll be smart enough to say no. But the fact that the government's trying this on is utterly disgusting.
When we talk about P and G, we're talking about a country in which over forty percent of the population live beneath the internationally recognized poverty line of two dollars and fifteen cents a day, A whopping sixty seven point seven percent live below what's recognized as I couldn't believe this this is the middle class poverty line of three
dollars and sixty five cents a day. And this is how our government is encouraging their young people to dig their country out of this massive generational poverty that's been the state of P and G for countless generations.
It makes perfect sense, actually, I think, because of course, the issue is that we are worried as Australia that you know, China might start closing up to P and G, one of our closest neighbors, and so we must do something about it. And we've been providing them with aid and the scholarships, et cetera to bring students to Australia. So if you give them scholarships and things that are utterly useless, they won't be able to go back to their nation and improve their nation, which means they'll be
joined at the hit to us. And if China ever decides to go down there and think about taking the place, they'll realize in five minutes flat that there's nothing worth taking there and they'll go straight back to China. That's the only thing I can think of as to why you would possibly be doing this, because surely it is
in the interests of Australia. If we're talking about a close neighbor, to potentially create a great trading partner, to create a country next to us that is stronger and with us, not a country that's full of students who came to Australia and study gender studies and disability, et cetera. I can't possibly see what it gives to us, let alone to them. And isn't that the whole point of making the investment.
It's just another reason why we need a Doge style implementation here in Australia to go through all of our government spending, because I mean, this is just one example.
I'm sure if you went through all of.
Our aid programs, well, the Treasure Trove dozens and dozens of programs that taxpayers paying for that are not helping at all, not benefiting, but ideological fantasies enacted by public servants in camera.
Indeed, and as we've talked about ad nauseum, China always has deeper pockets. So when it comes to us trying to cozy up by our friends, our neighbors, it doesn't work anyway, because China will always have far more money than us and get way further using the exact same mechanism that we're trying to use, which is basically buy loyalty, which is impossible. That will always go to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder will always be China.
I'll tell you something that we spend money on the textpayer in Australia, but China does not spend money on. That's consultants. Because of course, if u jijinping, you don't need consultants. You just need people who say yes, comrade, if you're a consultant, I think you get bumped off essentially. If you dare to tell Gi that he is wrong about something, he doesn't need advice. He is the oracle
of all wisdom. But we do it here in Australia because governments aren't confident that they can make decisions for themselves, or that the bureaucrats that they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to every year can't actually do the jobs for which they've been employed, so they keep going off to the private sector and paying people in companies like PwC and KPMG, et cetera to tell governments what
should be done about various issues. Now, in New South Wales, the previous coalition state government paid more than a billion dollars for consultants over their terms. So the men's government said, we've got to do something about this, we need to rain this in. So today rightfully they announced what they call the Expert Advisory Network, which is a crazy idea where they're going to get bureaucrats who have expertise in things and get them together and essentially used them as
in house consultants. Who would have ever thought that the people that you've got on the books, that you were paying with our money should be the ones looking into how things should be done in government or revolutionary But you know what else they've been doing. They thought, gee, we need to do an investigation into exactly what we're spending across the public service, what we're spending it on, who we're spending it on, and how we can reduce
our alliance on consultants. So who do you think they got to do the job? Consultants? I'm not kidding. KPMG has been paid one hundred and seventy six grand by the new South Wales state government to put together a report on, amongst other things, how to cut consultants. This
is from the Daily Telegraph today. They say that the New South walesh Treasury refused to say what KPMG was going to do to earn it one hundred and seventy six K, but said that the operational review would assess the current operating environment for New South Wales government procurement to ensure that it continues to support delivery of outcomes for the people of New South Wales. Whatever the hell
that means. Well, I can't these people. You know, I've been a journalist my whole career and I read these things. I've dealt with these responses that my entire career. Can you just speak in a language that we can all understand? I mean, essentially, what they're saying is we paid consultants to tell us how to pay them less in future. It's like asking Johnny down at the tech shop what you can do to get people to buy fewer sausage rolls. He doesn't want you to buy a fewer sausage rolls,
does he? He wants you to buy more of them. How stupid can we be? Mark Speakman, the opposition leader in New South Wales, said that labor spending one hundred and seventy six grand on consultants for report on consultants is like a scene out of Utopia. Yet sadly this farce is real life at the expense of taxpayers, not fiction.
And it's interesting that he mentions that it's like a scene out of Utopia, because now I'm meeting this evening before we put this program to air, I said there must be a scene somewhere in yes, Minister, and Liz said, or there'd be one in Utopia that is exactly this when they have paid consultants to do a report into how to have fewer consultants and I went looking for it and I couldn't find one. So the New South Wales government has managed to beat even the best in
the business at Lampooning. Government's unbelievable.
I mean, KPMG, I've got a massive conflict of interest here right, because over the past five years they've gotten more than seventy million dollars from the New South Wales state government in consultancy fees. And so now they're going to advise how the government can use less consultants. I'm
not sure how committed they'd be to that job. But this all arises out of an Order to General's report in twenty twenty three because of concerns about a billion dollars in consultancy fees over just five years in New South Wales. And what the Order to General found was that twenty percent of that billion dollars was spent on consultants who had no specialist skills.
They were just being used because.
Well, most government employee exactly anyone could have done it. And so they found there was no strategic approach to engaging consultants. Not only that, but when consultants were engaged, there was no management, there was no evaluation of the results, and oftentimes, can you believe this, there were conflicts between consultants, so two government departments would engage the same consultant to try and rule on a dispute. So the whole thing
was a complete mess. So as crazy as this sounds, Caleb, it does seem like our public servants do need some instruction on how to engage consultants, when to engage consultants, and when not.
To and that is what this is for. It's been such a mess.
It's hardly reassuring when you've got a government who doesn't know how to save, Like, how can you not know how to save money, any flog off the street can be like, I've got some ideas about how you can cut spending and stop outsourcing the vast majority of the work that we pay you guys to do.
But this is.
Extraordinary timing for the Men's government because it was less than a month ago, on the second of February, they put out this massive announcement saying we have delivered on four hundred and fifty million dollars worth in savings on external consultants, on farming out our jobs to other people. And here we are less than a month later, and we find out that they're already chipping away at those savings, spending even more on consultants to be like, so, how
do we cut down on these costs? I mean, was that just obviously it was just a headline like we had slash four hundred and fifty million dollars on external consultants and individual contractors in our first year of government. This is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen. And then we find out that they're actually hiring more consultants to find out how to do the very thing that they've actually said they've already done.
Condoms of slack if they saved four hundred and fifty million without consultants. Imagine how much they could save with we So we don't know.
That they did that without consultative year.
Maybe it wasn't KPMG.
You've got to trust that KPMG are doing this going Uh, these guys have been our cash cow to the tune of seventy million over.
The past five years.
I'm sure we're not amongst the consultants that they're looking at cutting.
I'm sure where safe.
Well.
Peter Dutton has vowed that should you elect a coalition government, we will not be hosting COP thirty one in twenty twenty six. Now this was an Albanese government promise long before.
They came to power.
They were going to be hosting this the typical thing every single year where all the countries converge in one place, tens of thousands of people in the host country facilitates the negotiations between more than two hundred countries figuring out how do we that and survive the imminent doom from climate change. Well, Labor had its heartset that that place would be Australia in twenty twenty six. Here's Dutton saying, made under a government I lead, it's not going to happen.
The government's planning to spend tens of billions of taxpayers dollars on hosting a cop process that's not going to bring down power prices, and is going to sign a labor government up to giving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars out to third party countries. I mean, it's just it's mad, So that's not something we're supporting.
So to be clear, hosting it wouldn't cost that much. In twenty twenty, Madrid spent just one hundred million dollars and in the following year Glasgow forked out two hundred and fifty million dollars to host it, but that was because of all the COVID stuff at the time, so it made it significantly more expensive for them. And many of these countries say that it's a net economic gain
when all these people pile into the country. So there's that green tick for us if it were to go ahead, which I think it will, because we'll still have an alb and eazy government. Of course, we won't find out until June of next year who's hosting it. The biggest steak is Turkey, who reckons it's going to have it
at all costs. But what Dutton's talking about there is collectively countries do get together and commit tens of billions of dollars to Pacific island nations and other poorer countries to combat climate change, to which I.
Say, Australia would be doing that anyway.
Every year we send our contingent and every year we promise billions of dollars to this and I genuinely don't believe that that would be any different under a coalition government. It hasn't been in the past and it won't be under a Dutton led government.
It seems to be the cost in hosting COP is not staging the event. That's just putting on an event. And sure you get there economic benefit of what thirty thousand people flying in in their jets using avgas and staying in all your best hotels and eating all your steak and so on. But the real cost is proving your climate credentials in order to be voted as the host. So Chris Bowen at the last COP conference committed two
hundred million dollars US from Australia for climate financing. There was fifty million dollars for Australia Pacific Partnership for Energy Transition, another fifty million dollars for responding to loss and damage through climate change, and all of this was done to demonstrate that we are serious about climate change and therefore worthy as hosts in twenty twenty six, which will be a wonderful opportunity for Anthony Albanesi and Chris Bowen to
grandstand on the world stage. But then the other cost is having been approved as a worthy host, then you've got to be a worthy example, right, So you can't really host KOP thirty one and not contribute above and beyond just the average amount of money. So the cost is not in staging the event, it's in winning approval to stage it and then providing an example as the host country that the government are going to blow huge amounts of money on this for a grand standing opportunity.
It's not going to help Australians, as Peter Dutton said, it won't make a scrap of difference to our lives, except there will be more money going out the door.
Well, just send him a copy of any Australian's power bill over the last couple of months. I think that or to show why we deserve to have it, or where we've done more for climate change than any other bugger on the face of the earth, haven't we. I think we should have it free of charge, given what we're paying through the nose to help climate change with
renewable energy. I mean, you know, agent, it's all good will to have a laugh about these people who care on about climate change and then fly in on their private jets and talk about the carbon emissions of cows and eat the steak and whatever. But you know what, I don't really care if it's a conference that brings some economic benefit into the town, like government's pump money into sports or whatever other events. I couldn't really give a toss what it is. And you don't really have
to prove how great your economic credential. You're non economic given some of the countries that have having it don't have to prove economic credentials, and nor does this government happening your environmental credentials because because you know, this year COP thirty is being held in Brazil and they're not entirely sure how to get all the attendees to the place where it's going to be held, So you know, what they're doing they're cutting down swathes of the Amazonian
rainforest to build a highway so they can transport them. So if you can do that in the name of helping the environment by hosting COP thirty, that I can't possibly see how we need to spend a cent or do anything in order to deserve to get it. I think we should be issuing and good Honest, I just.
Don't even know why we're even having these shindigs anymore. The Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Agreements. Okay, nothing we do can possibly compare to the might of the Americans when it comes to but in climate change, they're the biggest emitter. For crying out loud, that're right up there with China and India.
So when you've got America.
Saying we're pulling the plug, we're not doing any of this crap anymore. We are simply putting America first. We're doing whatever it takes drill, baby, drill. We're doing whatever it takes yay fossil fuels to get cheap energy, to get manufacturing off the ground. We are going to be We're going back to the roaring days of American manufacturing. Once you've had that happen, it's like the penny hasn't
dropped with anybody else. They are so committed to this ideology they can't even see that whatever you do from here on in is utterly useless.
You mentioned one of the other great hypocrisies of climate policy, and that is China, of course, who are regarded as a developing nation, despite the fact they've got nuclear weapons, they've got a space station for goodness sake, and they're bullying first world nations, including Australia, and yet somehow they're developing and they still get exemption from a lot of
the climate regulations that apply to US. China last month had three warships conducting live firing exercises off the coast of Sydney, and this month, in a story broken by our colleague Sharry Marxon on sky News dot com dot AU, the Chinese have got a research vessel off the coast
of South Australia doing reconnaissance. Now, this ninety four meter research vessel can map the ocean floor, which would be very handy in the event of conflict if you needed submarines to traverse through that area of the ocean, if you wanted to cut under sea cables.
Or even plant mines. But don't worry about it.
Anthony Albanesi, just as he was all over the low firing exercise, is all over this one as well.
Here he is speaking today.
What we have done is we continuing to monitor it. We won't, for obvious reasons, broadcast everything that we're doing, but we're keeping an eye on this as we do.
As we do well, what does monitoring actually mean?
What it means is that the Australian Defense Force are monitoring what is happening. It's going from New Zealand. We expect it to go around to China, around that way.
Australia.
Of course, what it's doing.
I would prefer that it wasn't there, But we live in circumstances where just as Australia has vessels in South China Sea and vessels in the Taiwan Straight and a round of a range of areas, this vessel is there.
I'll tell you what it's got to fit you with confidence? Doesn't it about our national security?
When asked what does monitoring mean, Anthony Albanesi replies, monitoring means monitoring, so that's encouraging.
Does that mean we've led the domestic Virgin Airline pilots for cheap and I.
No, no, we're doing better than Virgin Airline pips. We've got a piano.
Cruse okay, monitoring and keeping the ADF informed.
And then of course asked if he was concerned, he's I'd prefer it wasn't there.
And as for Australia having vessels in the South China Sea, yeah, but they're not spying on the Chinese.
And if they were, do you think.
That the the Jiji pig would say, well, I'd prefer the Australians weren't there, honestly, and these guys do not have a clue.
And do you think we're floating boats into China's Exclusive Economic zone because that is where this boat has gone. It's in Australia's waters, they're not in international waters.
It's worth the Australian reporting just in the last hour or so that they contacted Richard Marlessey's the Defense Minister wanting comment on this right, well, that would be reasonable fair and the Defense Office referred them to Tony Burke, he's responsible Home.
Affairs and Border Force.
Because it's in Australia's Exclusive Economic zone. So it's a border force issue, not a defense issue.
Can you believe.
I'll tell you one thing though, It proves once again that South Australia is the jewel in the crown of this country because that's the first place they've gone to go monitoring, because they know, if whatever comes to it, that's the territory they want to take.
We're going to go to a break.
When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow, including Peter Dutton under fire because he doesn't want to live in Cambre rather live in Sydney. Okay, let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. We'll start with the Adelaide Advertiser. As we were talking about before the break.
The story there is all about this Chinese research ship, which, according to the advertiser, is following communications lines the cable spy says the headline, a Chinese spy ship is following the path of a critical underwater internet and communication cable off the South Australian coast and threatens the nation's security, according to a senior national defense and analyst. Meanwhile, Anthony Albanizi says, yes, this ship can map the ocean floor.
It's an interesting time for this research vessel to be off the coast because, of course, if China want to help Anthony alban Esi when the election, which you imagine they probably would, Peter Dutton would be much harder, you would hope on foreign policy towards China. This comes at a really bad time for Albanesi because it brings to the for the coalition's strength, which is national security to some degree.
But something makes me think that maybe they're testing Albanesi a little bit just to see how much of a friend he actually is at this particular time and what he's willing to say or not say in the midst of an election campaign. And they know what they would get from Dutton, so it doesn't really matter what he says. I think they're trying to test him a little bit. And you've got to ask the question, for what purpose would China be doing this other than to gather intel
for potential conflict. There is no other reason that you would be following with a vessel that can map the seabed where there are communications cables, and this is of course how wars will be fought in future. If you want to bring down a country, you want to bring a country to its knees. You cut off its communications because then people can't spend money because everyone's got to credit cards, but not many people have cash. They can't use the internet. That is the thing that will prime
a country for invasion. That's why they want to know where these cables are. There's no other explanation for it.
But if Duds wants to show off his strong suit, he should come out and say what he'd do differently, because at the end of the day, every time we have one of these run ins with China doing stuff that it shouldn't be doing, I feel like our PM, no matter who they are, is just like pretty much helpless.
Even if the rhetoric is.
Different and more forward and will punch them in their face, they're not really going to do it.
What are you going to do? It's China, what are you going to do?
To be fair.
Exactly, and we saw what happened that. That's why they're scared, because China turned around and slap the tariff's on them.
That's what I mean.
So again, as if another PM is going to make that mistake, I don't think so. To the front page of the Canberra Times, now five fo worker reads the Splash. Peter Dutton wants public servants back in the office five days a week, but says he will live in Sydney and commute to Canberra if he becomes Prime minister. Obviously, the Canberra Times has taken great umbrage to this. Peter Dutton is quoted on the front pages saying, when you've got a choice, I think you'd take Sydney any day
over Canberra. As someone who lived in Canberra for two years, I say here here, buddy, I wouldn't recommend Canberra to a dog I didn't like. It is the armpit of Australia. The summers are sweltering, the winters.
You feel like you're in the Arctic.
Whether you're talking weather or demographics. It's just full of bureaucrats who are only there for a year or two.
So even the community wise is really weird.
It's flooded with people during sitting weeks, it's a ghost town during non sitting weeks. It is the worst place to live in Australia my humble opinion. And they wanted to take a digit in for stating the obvious.
Yes, Sydney over Camera any day.
To my good friend Sean and Linda Stanton, who live in the finest of camera and watch the show regularly. I does want you to know we still love you and all your other Cambrians.
I'll go out to you despite everything Liz has just said. They know that what I said is but they're allowed to say it. They live there. We don't.
You know, if Peter Dutton wants to be more cognizant of what the everyday man is thinking, it makes sense for the PM not to live in the bubble but to live outside.
Plus he's got a young family.
Unlike Anthony Albans, he wouldn't want your kids growing up in Canberra. If they could grow up in northern Sydney overlooking the harbor, why wouldn't you live in I.
Mean Canbra gets pretty bloody cold for an rpit, I have to say. And there's a distinct whiff of cologne and money in the air as opposed to bo when you go over there. But I love that they're trying to make this point about you know, he's so the public servants have to go back to the office. Bird here doesn't want to be in camera. You do realize he has an official the Prime Minister not Dutton because he ate PM yet has an official residence in Sydney.
It's not like he's just saying, well, I'm just going to live in the middle of Timbuktu somewhere. That doesn't make any sense. He has an official residence in Sydney, and you know what the PM will be doing whoever it is on sitting weeks when he is required to be in Canberra, he will be in Canberra. What a strange idea. And you know what, He's still got an electorate in Queensland, so you're tell him he's got to
be in Canberra all the time. But he's got an electric in Queensland that he has to look after, and an official residence in Sydney. But he's got to be in Candra because all you schmacks have to live there will if you don't like it, perhaps he shouldn't have taken a contract that required in a live in Canberra, should you. Let's go to the front of the odds tomorrow where lo and behold another problem with these n z YQ detail. This time Detaneese walked to freedom through
mandatory sentence loophole. Give me strength. Anthony Alberanese's mandatory minimum sentencing laws threatening twelve months jail for hundreds of dangerous n zed Yq non citizens who breach visa conditions have been bungled. How many times have we heard that word
with a loophole allowing offenders sorry to remain free. Department of Home Affairs officials have confirmed that laws passed in November twenty twenty three do not require judges to impose one year jail sentences and acknowledge the Parliament would need to amend laws to remove the judicial flexibility. I mean, is there anything in relation to this in zed Yq
case that the government got right? And who would have thought, after going through all of that pain that here, you know, thirty odd days out from an election, that it would be rearing its head again.
That The craziest part about this story is the revelation came at a Senate Estimates Committee hearing. Under questioning, a public servant just lets loose, Oh yeah, there's a bit of a loophole with the legislation. And then when James Patterson asked, well, could that loophole be changed by the Parliament, the public servant said, oh yeah, which makes a question, why does that loophole still exist. Why hasn't it been closed?
Why are we hearing about it in senate estimates when a public servant just happens to mention it as an offhanded comment.
Indeed, and this was like a casual So there was Stephanie Foster. The article says she revealed the government didn't anticipate the risks associated with the laws. Since the release of the three hundred detainees, including murderers, pedophiles and rapists,
more than a third have reoffended. But despite the fact that they knew that these guys were murderers, rapists and pedophiles, they they didn't see this being an issue that judges weren't even required to be like, oh, at least a year, but how.
Could you not foresee this?
Over a third of them have reoffended and they're just like, who could have seen this coming? These criminals are committing crimes.
Columny shop Dank have another story on the front of the Olds tomorrow. We're getting into the nitty gritty of the election campaign now. We're finally starting to see some policies drop from the coalition, one of which, it says, Dutton's bid to be the Home loan ranger fire off the William tell overture, Peter Dutton will direct the Financial Regulator to these onerous home lending rules that are considered to be locking Australians out of the market and creating
a class of mortgage prisoners. As the Liberal leader goes into bat for young bars who don't have access to the bank of Mum and Dad, declaring that the housing market has become biased in favor of inherited wealth, that he's not wrong in saying that. Opposition Housing spokesman Michael Suka has pledged to rewrite the rule book for borrowers to allow greater access to home ownership if the Coalition is elected on May three. And I see the merit
in what is being suggest here. But surely when you already have all these extra margrants who are swimming around looking for homes, who've come in a lot of them with a lot of money to begin with, if you say it's easier to get alone, it means there are even more people vying for homes and that increases the value of properties. I understand what they're trying to achieve, but I'm not sure that it actually in the long term helps that many people apart from those who already own the property.
Well, we'll see over the next five weeks whether Dutton starts to cut through with some of these policies. We're going to go to a break when we come back. Speaking of the election, Anthony Albanesi with an absolute clangt today when asked whether he would be interested in sharing power with the Greens, will show you that.
In just a moment. Welcome back.
Well, the election campaign is well and truly underway, and liz anthe Albaneze he didn't have a great moment today.
No, it's only day three and this guy has committed a most embarrassing gaff. Of course, everyone wants to know, in the case of a huh parliament, will you get into bed with the Greens?
This is his response today.
If you ask me, do you rule out governing and coalition with the Greens? He answered that is no, no, no, I don't negotiate with the Greens. I'm about my campaign team in Green Life is about campaigning against the Greens and I'm very confident that will be successful.
Well, was that a Freudian slip? Prime Minister?
We all know you do anything to hold on to powerk come on, it's somewhat reminiscent of one Stephen Marshall back in twenty fourteen he was a South Australian opposition leader.
On the eve of the election.
The following day, this is what he had to say to South Australians.
It's been grueling, there's no doubt about it. But we're only a few short hours now away from when the polls open, and I think if people in South Australia won't change they want a better future, grower economy, than they need to vote labor tomorrow.
And they did. They voted labor tomorrow and.
That guy didn't become premier until another four years later, and then, of.
Course he lasted one term. So they voted labor on many occasions under the tutelage of Stephen Marshall. But there you go. Let's take the Prime Minister at his word. Has he ruled out doing a deal with the Greens?
No?
I think that's probably the truth. Before we go tonight, how about this cat down in Melbourne. It got on a train at Saint Albans, went all the way into the Flint Street station. In the CPD you can see the cat jumping on board the doors open, he walked straight through. Didn't have a Mikey pass on him apparently, so he's a fair of vader. And what's about a twenty kilometer trip he's taken. You can see him there
looking cute as a button the Premier Center. Allen posted about it and said that he didn't have a Mikey to touch on her off, but some kind passengers took care of him. But you know, for all of his adventuring, and you can imagine Matthew Flinder's cat would be very proud of this young fella. He's now been taken into custody and they haven't just put him. I mean you'd think like a cat home or something. They put him
in the lost dogs home. I mean for being such an adventurous fella going where no cat has gone before. On the train to Flinders Street station from Saint Albans. He's been punished with custodies, been locked up. I think it's a disgrace.
That's because he didn't have a Micy. That's it from us. Stick Around.
Coming up is the readA Penney show Goodn't