Late General, Welcome to the Late Debase.

It's great to have your company on the Late Debate.

I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and Freile each coming up tonight.

We're told there's a climate crisis.

So why a Department of Environment staff spending huge amounts of taxpayer money traveling business class?

Plus parents?

I rate that a school uniform policy and a school that doesn't have a uniform unfairly discriminates against their daughters.

And you won't believe why the latest production of Jesus Christ Superstar comes with trigger warnings.

All of that shortly, but first, a funny thing happened at the Queensland State Labor Conference on the weekend.

Luke Richmond officially took the reins as the Assistant State Secretary.

Now, by all reports, he's the best man for the job.

Ironically, that's also the problem.

He's a man.

You see, the State Secretary is also a man, and according to labour rule, one of the secretary or assistant secretary must be a woman.

So what do you think the Labor members did?

Well?

They voted to create a brand new position assistant to the Assistant Secretary, which would be reserved.

For a woman.

So next time labor supporters boast about.

How they're empowering women, well, it's hardly empowerment, Frayer, when you're literally making up positions so you can say that women have positions.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

They are literally creating an entirely new job just so they can have female representation staff female representation.

It should be the best person for the job, regardless of their gender.

And imagine how that.

Woman is going to feel when she's brought in as assistant to the assistant.

Secretary, elevated to.

A senior position within the Queensland Labor Party because she happens to be a woman.

And if she was that good, why wasn't she given the assistant secretary role.

Clearly she's not actually the best person for the job.

She is literally only there because of her luck to be born a woman at birth.

This is the whole problem and the absurdity of gender quotas.

I'm so glad that they have done this because by virtue of doing it, we can talk about it, and it just makes a mockery of the whole thing, right you know, I mean, obviously it would never have seen the light of day.

Wouldn't have been an issue if they'd actually chosen a woman, as per the party rules, as either assistant or State secretary.

But it would seem that two men were the best for the job.

I mean, presumably these are the people that those who are able to vote for the State executive voted for.

So I'm not sure what that says about the rampant sexism and misogyny in the Labor Party that, having looked at some female candidates, they decided that two men were the only people up to the job, and then you go, well, we'd better shoehorn a woman in there.

Anyway, I've never seen anything that just quite so succinctly demonstrates just how ridiculous this is, and so for that, thank you to the Labor Party, because it is brilliant.

I love the way this was reported in the Career Mail, where the journalist said that the Queensland Labor Party is not only ticking boxes, they're literally making boxes up so they can tick them.

And look, you know what, it keeps someone in a job, doesn't it.

Well, certainly plenty of people would like that.

So, speaking of people who spend too much time ticking boxes.

Presumably they're ticking the box that says I'll date the business class flight instead of the economy class flight.

Are the people working over at the Federal Environment Department.

Now, I would have thought if there was any government department where they would think twice about taking flights and certainly whether or not they took business instead of a it would be the Environment Department.

I mean, these are the people, of course, who are charged with looking after the environment and looking at things like renewable energy projects and all this sort of stuff.

They're meant to be the greenies of the government.

This mob, Well, it turns out that in just three months between July and September, one point two million dollars was spent on business class flights alone.

Now they're spending plenty of other money on travel.

I mean, the total was two point four million on international travel.

They've spent a total of four point four million on domestic travel.

That is, again in three months between July and September, but one point two million dollars on business class flights.

Now, we know that business class takes up more space than economy class, which means per head of population you get on that plane every business class passes is in effect contributing more emissions to the world, because if they choehorned more economy cattle class seats in there, you'd have more people on board, and you'd get more bang for your emission back.

But it's not good enough for the people over at the Environment Department don't know stuff the environment.

They must have their personal environment being nice and comfortable.

And in fact, the department says, well, there's not a lot we can do about it, because it's the conditions under their enterprise agreements that say if they go overseas they have to fly business class.

Well, I'm sorry.

If you care about the environment, you should be doing something about your enterprise agreement, shouldn't you.

That was the part of this story I liked the most.

I want to work in the Department of Environments.

I can help to save the environment, but I do demand that I fly business class, thereby helping to destroy the environment.

If you believe the climate catastrophes.

The average price of these business class tickets will work it out.

Eighty one officials traveling on ninety one trips for one point two million dollars, It's about thirteen thousand, one hundred dollars per flight.

So it's not just the hypocrisy when it comes to the environment, Freyer, But there's that little thing called the cost of living crisis as well, where most of us are trying to scrounge together a little bit of money to take flights.

These guys sitting up the front end of the plane on a thirteen thousand dollars on average ticket stuff the cost of living crisis, stuff the environment.

It reminds me of George Orwell's famous quote all animals are equal, but those in the Department of Environment are a little more equal than others.

Yeah, and look, it's pretty easy to actually fund business class flights in a cost of living crisis.

Just get taxpayers to pay for it.

I'd be flying business class all the time if I were them.

But the Rony here as well, with their enterprise bargaining agreement.

Mandating that they fly business class.

These are probably the same highly unionized employees that also demand and working.

From home rights.

And so if working from home is that great, is labor seems.

To think it is, why not get these guys to work from home?

And some of these trips that they're taking internationally are just ridiculous.

They're off to Paris for the World Heritage Committee meeting, and then they went off to Japan for the Australia Japan Workshop.

On Antarctic Science.

All sounds very important to our national priorities.

And then they went to the Clean Energy Ministerial Initiative in Switzerland.

I want to see what is actually being produced from all of these trips.

Can someone point to the tangible outcomes that they are producing?

Because I understand you do need to travel.

I don't want to say blanket ban.

No one in the Australian government can ever go overseas, but we as taxpayers funding this need to know what we're actually getting from all of these trips.

And one of the spokespeople the department said, oh, well, there's enormous international exposure in the Department of Energy, so you know they need to be all over the world.

How about you fix our own energy system in Australia before you go overseas to lecture other countries about their energy grid.

Well, I can tell you exactly tangibly what we got out of these trips.

One is what came out the back of the plane caused by the jet fuel, and the other is the carbon dioxide that came out of the mouths of the bureaucrats we sent overseas.

We got emissions.

That's what we got.

The other thing we should point out Caleb mentioned that in total they've spent about seven million dollars on trips in the last three months.

That three month period is before COP thirty in Brazil, So if you were to add that and call it over a four month period, it would be an even larger sum of money spent on travel by people who tell us travelers destroying the world.

Yeah.

Well, the green hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

Of course.

These renewable energy zones are being rolled out across New South Wales, and even though they claim to be saving the planet by bringing on more renewable energy, the true cost to the environment and the ecosystem is now being laid there.

In the Central West Rana renewable Energy Zone, they are putting up two hundred and forty kilometers of transmission lines covering around four thousand hectares, and in order to do this they have to clear native bushland and natural habitats of animals.

Now what's happened is a lot of baby birds have been found and have been orphaned and have now ended up in a veterinary hospital in regional New South Wales where many of them have now died.

Here are some of.

The birds that were the victims of our renewable zelotry.

Now I understand when you're building anything you have to clear land, but at least be honest about.

The environmental impact of it.

Don't just hold renewables up to be the savior of the world while ignoring the clear cost.

It has an impact it has on native wildlife.

Here was the Deputy mayor of Doubot speaking earlier.

We have a look at it disgusting.

I'm hoping that these people in Sydney that are never having this rubbish bestodon realize this is the destruction of the bush.

To have this never ending pursuit of net zero and one hundred percent renewable energy.

Well, this is the dark side of it.

This is fact, this is what's happening.

And he's not wrong.

Four thousand hectares is going to be built on to produce this renewable energy zone.

What about the birds?

What about the wildlife?

What about the destruction of one hundred year old ecosystems?

No regard for that side of the environment.

The New South Wales government put out a press release just a couple of months ago saying, and I quote, the Men's government is showing that renewable energy and nature conservation can go hand in hand.

So you've got to work out whether you believe the press release or the images you saw on your screen.

If you did that as a farmer, there would be hell to pay.

If you did just a smidgeon of that because you wanted to see the ocean view in front of your house it was blocked out by a tree, you would be prosecuted by your local council.

But if you're doing it in the name of solar panels and wind turbines, well that's just fine.

My question though, is where's gored at Tunberg?

Where the greens shouldn't they be there protesting these animals, these endangered life forms that have been all but wiped out and are now being nursed back to health, some of them the lucky ones at the local veterinary surgery.

I thought there'd be a massive protest of all of these greenies who so loved nature and animals.

Blood did suggest last week that she could come and put that green dye in Sydney Harbor and the Risbane River and the arrow and stuff.

So maybe she would like to come and tagle.

I mean, it kind of reminds me of many many, many, many many years ago.

Sir Joe Bilki Peterson, before he was sir and before he was the Premier of Coeensland, advised this method by which you'd put a chain between two tractors and then you'd drive it through the middle of dense scrubland and you would just raise all the trees in one shot.

And you can imagine back in the day, of course, the farmers loved that and the greenies hated it, whereas today the farmers are upset that the trees are being cut down and the greenies a loving that the trees are being cut down.

Isn't it a topsy turvy world?

And I think it exposes the truth behind all of this.

You know, to paraphrase Johnny Mitchell, paved paradise and put up a wind farm.

But the problem is that all of this is predicated on the fact that we as humans and that you listen to extinction rebellion, right, It's all about we as humans must exist on this planet.

Forevermore.

They're just obsessed with themselves existing on this planet, the human rate existing on this planet.

And so what we are saying is, in the name of helping the environment, we will destroy parts of the environment and kill animals along the way so that we, as humans at the top of the animal tree, get to feel good about the way we are living while we are on this planet.

Well, if that involves killing animals and you call yourself an environmentalist, and it involves cutting down trees, and you call yourself an environmentalist, trees, by the way, which suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, great things for the world.

If that's your idea of being green and doing the right thing by the planet, maybe you should go extinct.

You know that they cannot have it both ways.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And that's the problem when any movement claims that they exist to save the planet.

If you're saving the planet, you can pretty much justify anything, including hypocrisy.

So you know, you can't fly, But we have to fly and business class because we're very important to the future of the planet.

You're not so much.

And we can destroy the countryside because it's in the name of saving the planet.

But you can't destroy the country side because it's just to enjoy your view, et cetera, et cetera.

And so we see this.

Time and time again, people claiming special privilege because they are saving the planet and therefore get away with whatever they want.

And also the costs are unevenly distributed.

These green activists, chances are they've probably never been to the regions.

They've certainly never bothered to speak to any farmers, they would not even care to.

They probably have never seen what one of these renewable energy projects actually does to the natural habitat because that doesn't fit their narrative.

So people also, these activists tend to have tunnel vision, where they will only look at fats, at data that suits their narrative.

Anything else that challenges what they think is true, which is that we need infinite renewables to save the world, they just simply won't even acknowledge.

And they're not the ones that have to live next to these transmission lines.

They're not the ones that have to drive down that road and see the destruction of bushland.

So it is just hypocrisy to the max.

And the people most forgotten in all of this renewable transition.

Typically are the farmers who don't forget provide our food.

So the kind of important classic example of how our farming communities are being forgotten is found in the way the Bureau of Meteorology is behaving.

You'll remember in the news last week it was revealed the bomb had spent ninety six million dollars on a facelift for their website.

Ironically, the ninety six million dollar facelift made the website even more difficult to use than before they'd spent all of that money.

But here's the real kicker.

Having spent ninety six million dollars on a website, the Bureau of Meteorology now claims they don't have any money to supply radars for farmers in the Air Peninsula, South Australia.

Now, to give you a perspective on how important this little section of agricultural land is, the Air Peninsula produced and this is in twenty twenty one, so a few years ago, but they were responsible for eight hundred and one million dollars worth of agricultural output, most of that exports.

Forty percent of South Australia's wheat twenty four percent of South Australia's barley, twenty two percent of South Australia's oats, as well as.

Lamb pork beef.

It's a very rich, a very highly productive piece of agricultural real estate.

But they can't get radar coverage.

They're relying on the radar in Adelaide to warden them about store elms, hail, even just what the rainfall is going to be, which means they get practically no rainfall at all.

We've got a map here that Caleb found earlier that shows you where radars are located around the country, the coverage they provide, and if you have a look down at the bottom of the screen there you'll see that little tip about the middle of the continent, which is where the Air Peninsula is, and you can see no radar coverage there at all.

Now, Brad Perry from the Grain Producer's South Australia Industry Body, it's told the local newspapers growers on the Air Peninsula are being told to rely on data from Adelaide and Sojuna radars which are hundreds of kilometers away.

That's not good enough for safety, it's not good enough for precision farming and it's certainly not good enough for a region that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy.

It's like our Bureau of Meteorology and our Department of Environment and the Government themselves become so obsessed with climate change they've forgotten their primary role and responsibility, which is to look after the ordinary needs of Australians, particularly our farmers, one of which would be give them fair warning when a storm is coming, or let them know rainfall patterns so they know when to plant, when to harvest.

And I mean, if we can get that map back up where all the radars are, I mean, how would you like to be a farmer on the Air Peninsula, which, as you said, James, is one of the most fertile grounds for agriculture in South Australia, all up and down the East Coast, or almost the entirety of Victoria, most of New South Wales, most of Coins and you can get radar and if you just happen to be in that little bit of South Australia there you are absolutely stuffed.

The rest of the state that's not covered has very few people in it, but it's agricultural and of course they need radar, and then they've been told where they ask for it by the Bureau of Meteorology that they don't have any money because they just spent that ninety six and a half million dollars website, I assume, but I tried to find out they want to Doppler radar, which is, you know, the top of the tree stuff, and they, from what I can work out, cost about eight million dollars each to buy and install.

That's based on numbers.

They put three new ones in in New South Wales five years ago and that was about twenty four and a half million dollars for those three, So so roughly eight million dollars each.

So you divide ninety six and a half by eight, I mean we could have put in nearly a dozen of these bloody things and covered much more of the country, and instead we got some lousy website.

Well done, Bureau of Meteorology.

What is your actual job if it's not to provide weather coverage to people who need it?

Well, the bomb can't tell you the weather, but they can tell you the indigenous names of the places where they can't provide the weather details.

I wouldn't have an issue if the website was actually good, but it's so bad.

Initially I thought, oh, well, the previous website was really bad.

It clearly hadn't been updated in like twenty years.

But the more I go on to use the bomb website, the more annoying it gets.

You can't find anything, it's impossible to navigate.

We just need to move back to the original website.

And also this is just a triumph of optics over actually looking after people.

But something else that is challenging the optics of a key institution.

Is Mossman High School.

It is under fire.

It is a school that hasn't had a uniform since the nineteen eighties, but now the school has released new guidelines on the dress code.

They have banned bike shorts and leggings and also shirts that don't cover the neckline.

Girls and their families and now complaining that the rules are being unevenly applied.

And some are saying it's because well, girls wear more of these kinds of clothes, which is fair.

And also their body types often display more than prep bestn't boys in high school, which I totally understand.

But for me, I don't know about you, guys.

I do understand this when you have a uniform guideline that is unfairly applied, and girls are cracked down on harder than boys, even though they can show up wearing the same thing active where the girls will get in trouble, the boys won't.

Having said that, I think this is a great.

Argument for why we should just have uniforms across the board.

If you just had uniforms, you wouldn't have to run into these issues because everyone could wear the same thing.

Well, I mean, I thought it was kind of obvious that boys bodies and girls' bodies are different.

Therefore clothing is different.

Therefore clothing standards as applied by a school which want a decorum of modesty.

I think this is what it's about, the principle of Mossmann heigh.

So they were trying to balance comfort with and I quote learning as a focus, which means perhaps some of what the girls were wearing was distracting from learning as a focus.

Hence the rules have been brought in.

I wouldn't complain, indeed, for parents to have made a big deal of this.

I mean, at what point do your kids learn you don't always get what you want and there will be people in your world who have the right to tell you no, and instead of complaining or rushing off to sue somebody or protesting or boycotting, just suck it up and do what you're told.

I think these parents in.

Trying to stand up for their kids and doing their kids a great disservice.

You're not being discriminated against.

That's your school, that's the rules.

If you don't like it, you can homeschool.

But mom and dad don't want to homeschool them.

They send them to school, so obey the rules.

May I first se thank god men's and women's bodies are different, because the male physic doesn't do a great deal for me.

But the problem is that Mossman High has since the nineteen eighties been a uniform free school, and then they decide eventually, for whatever reason, that they're going to start enforcing STEFF.

So parents for whatever, and you know, I mean, you send your kid to a uniform free school, that's your business.

But they've sent their kids to a uniform free school, and then the school has turned around and said, well, actually we've got some rules now.

So I can half understand why people are blowing up about it because they have changed the rules.

It goes back to the original point I think Freyer was making that.

You know, you can say, oh, well, the parents are not doing the kids any favors, and they need to be taught that you've got to learn responsibility and that people can boss you around every now and again.

But when the school has set the standard that you don't get bossed around because there is no uniform and you can wear what you want to school, it's a little hard to then turn around and say, well, actually I am now the boss, because you've sent the standard that you are not the boss.

There should just be a uniform that everyone is forced to wear.

It works well in ninety nine percent of schools across the country.

It's not a problem.

Why would you have a uniform free school in the first place.

I agree with what you say, but obviously if you say to kids you can wear whatever you want blind Freddy Nodes, at some point you have to say except that, and maybe not that, and maybe adjust that.

Because you can't just have kids wearing whatever they want.

You're going to end up having to apply some rules.

I can't believe parents think this is unreasonable.

I mean, I think the school is doing these girls a favor to be perfectly honest.

Some of the stuff I wore when I was in high school.

I am very glad my school had a uniform and the amount of people that had to see me wearing that stuff was contained to a small group of friends.

Because the things you wear as a.

Teenage girl you often look back on and deeply regret.

So I think it's great.

I'm pro uniform all the way.

I'll just give you a small tip on active wear male or female.

Please don't wear it on planes.

I know we talked about this last week, but you know, just wear some reasonable clothes.

Please not your active wear, especially perhaps if you're non binary, because then you'd have to decide to wear the female.

Do I wear the male?

Do I wear something in the middle, I don't know.

I'll tell you what you can do if you're non binary, though, get your hands on cheap insurance.

Yes.

A caller to ben Fordham Onto GB uncovered this little hack because he was filling out the forms online through a guitar insurance or something, and he thought, I wonder, because they offer you can say you're non binary now, so I wonder if I say I'm non binary, what sort of quote I will get?

Well, let him tell you.

So you've ended all of the same details, but when you click the non binary box, you get a cheaper policy.

Absolutely, yes, yeah, no.

So I'm twenty two myself.

So I'm the bread and butter for insurance company, a twenty two year old male.

And yeah, I was just going through doing some quotes the other night.

I'm looking in the process of purchasing a new car, and yeah, I've found the box on there, and I thought, I'm just gonna give it a kick and see what comes out with it.

Might be a bit of a joke, and yeah, well joke is right.

I was absolutely stunned at what I found.

All of the other details were listed exactly the same.

Yeah, well I.

Rip angel pronouns?

Are they then?

And suddenly you get cheaper insurance.

I wish i'd thought of this one earlier.

Some of the insurers' insurers, sorry, include Alliance and the NRMA.

Did you try clicking female?

I did try clicking female, and I was surprised.

So NRMA came back at about twenty three hundred dollars for the car under a female, and so, yeah, it was still more expensive than what it was under the non binary right.

So under NRMA, males pay the most, females in second place, and the best deal goes to the non binary driver.

Yeah.

Now, look, we know all of this stuff.

It's assessed that male drivers do worse stuff on the road, probably true.

Younger male drivers do worse stuff on the road, probably true.

So they get the highest insurance premiums.

Women get lower insurance premiums despite the fact they're worst drivers than men in many cases.

Into your complaints courtesy of Caleb Bond.

Objectively, Well that whatsoever, young man are three times more likely to get.

In I didn't specify young men were better drivers specifically anyway.

That's just the casual sexism to get you riled up at home.

That's what I'm here for, of course.

But they don't have data, well, I mean put it and have data on non binary people because so few non binary people have dipped on binary box and take for the last five minutes, so they don't have any data, so they don't really have anything to assess them on as to whether they are more or less dangerous drivers, And so you get a rip a deal now.

Ali Hansen and Rama both said this afternoon that they were investigating this.

So perhaps the loophole will disappear very soon, probably by removing the non binary option, I suppose, because I'm not sure what else you can do, but it's a ripper if you want to give it a go tonight.

I'd get on it quickly.

If I was going to say, look back on this date about six months from now, and you'll see at least that's so spike in young men suddenly suffering from gender dysphoria as they look for a cheaper deal on their car insurance.

Where does this end?

Do you end up getting a special quote for a two spirited pan sexual vegan because they have different driving capabilities?

You didn't mention Double Ami.

I'm insured with Double Ami, And if you go into their website, which I did this afternoon, they only have male and female, so it's not very inclusive at all.

But the website does say if you don't identify as male or female, select the gender you are most comfortable with.

So there you go.

You can just choose your own adventure at double Ami and your insurance quote will match whatever you fancy yourself as extraorting.

People from just saying well, I'm more comfortable paying for cheaper insurance and therefore, I'm more comfortable identifying as a female.

Is there any tests?

Do they require your certificates?

Well, you're probably not at the time you take out the policy, but if you made a magic claim, they'd probably says fraudulent if you were a male claiming to be a woman.

But how do you do that with non binary?

It's not fraudulent.

If having identified as a woman, you drive like a woman, then it'sit.

But how do you do it with non binary?

So you take out the much cheaper non binary policy and then you write off your car and you do forty k or whatever it is.

How do they disprove that you are non binary?

I don't think they can, because on any day you could be more male, more like, that's the whole thing, your non binary.

You are no gender.

I don't think there would be any way for them to disprove your non binary.

I did note because of course this chap called up.

We don't know which policy he took out, but the good people at news dot com dot are you in the story they wrote, were very careful in the copy to leave open the possibility that he is non binary, so he doesn't get in trouble if he takes out the policy because the second paragraph said, a male driver called into Radio Twog You've be in Sydney on Monday to explain that they discovered a little bit of so they well done.

They've left the door open.

He can take out the non binary policy, and it's in writing that he is actually a thee.

While we're talking about gender confusion, I'm going to tell you about a university student in Oklahoma who failed her psych assignment, which asked her to pontificate only six hundred and fifty words.

This assignment Just as an aside, since when at university did you write assignment six hundred That's like one piece of paper.

I knocked that stuff out in half an hour.

What are you talk about?

There?

You go?

Anyway, the assignment was on how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender.

So anyway, Samantha Fulnecki is a Christian and she wrote six hundred and fifty words on how the Bible teachers there are only two genders, and it's ridiculous to think of gender as being on a spectrum.

It's certainly to think.

Of three or four or five genders.

There's only two.

The Bible says, so now the professor is trans gendered, which perhaps a student should have thought about before presenting that assignment and expecting to pass.

The transgendered professor failed the student, saying that the student should not have written what was personal ideology, but should have stuck with empirical evidence.

Now, I find it amusing that a professor who purports that there are innumerable genders would ask students to stick with empirical evidence.

That's hilarious.

But the transgendered professor said not only was there no empirical evidence, but that the essay was quite offensive.

I've got a couple of.

Thoughts on this, aside from criticizing the professor who believes in multiple genders beyond male and female demanding empirical evidence, that's nuts.

But with regards the student, it's great that a Christian student.

I'm a Christian, I believe in the Bible is a source of all authority.

But when you're writing an assignment for a professor so who doesn't believe the Bible is any more authoritative than an Agatha Christie novel, then maybe that's not the reference point to go to in your uni assignment frame.

But her point was that stereotypes aren't necessarily a bad thing, and she points to the Bible as the most prolific example, the most influential piece of literature in perhaps the entire world, that has clear roles for men and women, very clear in Genesis, and so she goes, well, look.

They're a male and female right there.

In the oldest source of Western literature that we have.

So I would say the Bible, if you're trying to write an essay about societal stereotypes of male and female, it's probably a pretty good place to look, given it's like the origin story of Western civilization.

I mean, there may be an argument that this carry on about whether there are multiple genders didn't specifically relate to the question at hand, which was about these societal expectations that are placed upon gene which most of us understand is that their expectations on boys and expectations on girls.

So it's probably a bit murky as to whether she did go off the guardrails a bit, but you know, you should, even even if you are a transgender lecturer, you are teaching students and then marking their work, and you should be able to do that in an objective manner as well, regardless of whether or not you are transgender or whatever else, it's simply your job.

Just get on with it.

Please.

Now, let's take off into the world of musicals, shall we, Jesus Christ Superstar.

Or not?

Sorry?

I thought we had a little musical sting there, but apparently we do not.

I'll have to talk to the god.

No, it's back, it's back here.

It is.

The Gremlins.

Finally a larned to give me that little sting.

But they do a new production of Jesus Christ Superstar over in the UK.

It was here in Australia I think earlier this year, but they're doing a new run in the UK, and well, would you believe it?

You got to have a trigger warning.

Yes, people might be offended if they go to Jesus Christ Superstar because it depicts the Crucifixion.

Yes, you can see it.

There's a content warning.

Contains flashing lights and visual effects, piwate techniques.

We know all that stuff, theatrical smoke and hayes, some violence, imitation, blood and an on stage to a picture of that quota pection.

Oh my god, how oh I can't believe it?

Can you go to Jesus Christ Superstar, which debuted in nineteen seventy two, and you were shocked that they have a depiction of the crucifixion.

Do we really need to be warned about this?

I think most people know that Jesus is crucified, but they could have encouraged people with the fact he does rise again.

So it might be a little upsetting, but only for three days.

After that it all gets good.

This is typical, though, of what's happening in the UK.

The University of Sheffield warned students that the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Bible contain graphic bodily injury and violence, and as well, the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible came with a trigger warning for students studying Western literature because of course Cain kills Abel, or is it Abel kills Cain?

Always forget who kills who?

But the Bible doesn't even specify how one brother killed the other.

It's just and one boy killed the other boy.

That's about as graphic as it gets.

But apparently students in twenty twenty five have to be warned that someone is going to be killed in the story less they are or upset when they read it.

This is just so ridiculous.

There have been three thousand performances of Jesus Christ Superstar since the nineteen seventies, for fifty years, and as we discussed earlier, the Bible is the source text for Western civilization.

If you don't realize go to a musical about Jesus that there will be a crucifixion, then there's something not quite right in your brain.

But I will say, James, the problem with this musical, and one of the major criticisms of it, is that it doesn't actually depict the resurrection, or doesn't that know, It leaves the resurrection out.

So the resurrection is kind of the point of the entire story.

It is the entire point of the Gospel, and so I do understand in that respect.

You know, you would leave feeling very sad because you haven't heard the good news the gospel, which is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead three days later.

So I don't know, this is just another example of people being way too cents.

There you go, We're going to go to a break.

When we come back, we'll look at what's making headlines tomorrow, including new data showing just how much power prices have increased under the Albanezy government.

That and more in just a moment.

Welcome back to the program.

During the break, juice to reliably informed me it was Cain who killed Abel.

So there you go.

He's fixed my bubble knowledge for me.

Let's get into tomorrow's headlines.

We'll start with the Daily Telegraph.

A couple of cracking stories on the front page.

Frame, Yes, big splash on the front page.

It costs you twelve hundred dollars revealed the true price of Labour's election lie on energy.

The full scale of Federal Labour's epic fail on power prices can be revealed for the first time, with the average households in vast parts of the state now paying twelve hundred dollars a year more than Anthony Albanezi and Chris Bowen promised.

In a further blow to the ALP's credibility, the Australian Energy Market Operator has worn New South Wales could face costly intervention to avoid blackouts if the state's largest coal five power station ering shuts too early.

I mean, every single week, it feels like we are just getting more and more data points that show one the huge lie that renewed are the cheapest form of energy because it just hasn't happened.

And two, how precarious our energy system really is.

Airing is scheduled to close in twenty twenty eight, but there is no suitable infrastructure or base load power to replace it.

What's that going to leave us with?

You come up with two points and three.

It shows just how blatantly our government lied to us and then dismissed the lie.

Last time I heard Anthony Alberanze talk about the promised two hundred and seventy five dollars power price reduction, he was asked by a reporter who laughed as he asked a question, and Anthony Albanezi laughed at the idea he would provide any promises or guarantees regarding prices in the future.

It's an absolute joke, and Susan Lee should be taking this front page everywhere she goes until the next election.

I mean, twelve hundred bucks, that's pretty significant for a lot of people.

There's, after taxing cup, twelve hundred bucks more than you were promised by this government.

And I didn't understand why the Libs did not hammer that during the federal election.

They should have every ad should have just been two hundred and seventy five dollars.

Two hundred and seventy five dollars two just absolutely hammer at home because the only thing anyone cares about is cost of living and this has been a major contributor to the cost of living going up.

The reality is there and you are literally paying for.

It, exactly right.

Also on the front page of the Daily Telegraph tomorrow, hospital parking a sick joke.

Families are paying through the nose.

To visit loved ones in hospital, With Western Sydney copying the brunt of an explosion in New South Wales Health parking fees, The Daily Telegraph can reveal New South Wales Health raised almost eighty seven million dollars from car parking fees last year, almost triple the amount raised in twenty twenty three.

The cash grab means that Health Minister Ryan Park has presided over a massive fifty six million increase in car parking revenue, despite calling when in opposition, for.

The fees to be scrapped.

Don't you just love that the opposition, Oh, it's unfair.

How dare you charge people to visit their relatives?

Once they get into government and realize you actually need money to run things up, well then they love it.

But that is remarkable.

An extra fifty million dollars that they're collecting car parking fees from a hospital.

That seems like daylight robbery.

It is so wrong.

And remember so many people, I mean everyone in hospital I suppose is vulnerable, but you get a lot of elderly people, and the government know full well that people are not going to stay home rather than visit loved ones in hospital because I don't want to pay the parking.

So it's guaranteed revenue from people who are at their lowest EBB, who are thinking about life and death issues many times.

And the government's just going to ching Chi Ching Chi ching without any concern for just trying to help people when they're at there most vulnerable.

I know, why do you have to park to get to a public hospital?

I understand that what I discourage people from using the carbugga shouldn't use a card pack, but just have a system whereby if you go in visiting ours to see a patient, the patient has a number of chips that they're allowed to give out to people, and you cash that in when you walk out and then you get your free parking extraordinary over to the front of The Australian tomorrow.

I wish they had something here about Oscar Piastre Jeez, didn't he get done over by McLaren last night?

The greatest scandal in Australian sport, I think at the moment, but on of some more serious stuff.

The dodger Wong evasive by any estimate in a ters exchange.

Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has refused to accept that accusations she made against former Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff Fiona Brown of a political cover up in the rape of Britney Higgins were unfounded.

Senator Woe repeatedly dodged questions during budget estimates on Monday about findings by two senior judges that neither woman had been party to a cover up, nor had they treated was Higgins poorly.

In the wake of the rape allegations, the government has been unable to shake off questions about its role in the scandal, despite Anthony Albaneze's attempt two weeks ago to sideline the issue by claiming he did not agree with the characterization of the case.

How can Wong suggest that she wasn't wrong and that the claims were not unfounded when it's been through court twice and we know what the answer is.

Clearly they're hoping to just bluff their way through this period and hoping it will go away.

There's an interesting story a couple of days ago in The Australian that Shadow Cabinet had decided not to pursue an inquiry into this affair because they didn't like the look of the rape allegations.

Were the whole issue of rapes surfacing again and the Liberal Party looking like they were.

Trying to.

Not reprosecute, but it would raise the whole thing again and it would be ugly, and so they were prepared to just let it die.

So I think the government accounting on that well.

I get that concern, but this was insane.

This dominated the media for months.

This plagued Schomo with a legacy of being anti woman.

It's part of what gave rise to the Tills as this kind of pro woman movement.

This was huge in Australian politics.

There needs to be accountability.

They're also refusing to reveal how much money they're paying these silks who are going up against Miss Brown and Miss Reynolds in the latest iteration.

Of the court case.

So it's just they do not want any transparency on this issue.

Also on the front of the Olds tomorrow more bangs for bucks in alp sites will talk more about bang for back on the front of the next paper as well.

The alban Eazy government will strip defensive responsibility for purchasing billions of dollars of weapons and equipment each year, creating a new procurement agency under an independent capabilities are who will report directly to the minister to change who is being spooked.

As the biggest overhaul of defense in fifty years, merging three major branches with six five hundred personnel into a new defense delivery agency which will be responsible for about forty percent of defense spending.

What does Greg Sheridan have to say about that?

Well, he says Defense Minister Richard Marles has announced amand a bureaucratic defense reshuffle in the Vegas possible terms, which, if it has any consequence at all, will contribute to a new round of paralysis as Boffen's try to gain new structures while leaving all the real problems completely unaddressed.

In short, everyone who has overseen the defense culture of failure in the past will get to oversee it a new in the future, but with different titles on their office doors.

And so say all of us.

You've got to love Greg Sheridan's columns all right quickly the Mercury from Tasmania.

The front page reads our party a fizzer.

How meddling Mainlanders could snuff out Tazzy's beloved Krakennite.

Victorian government red tape could kill off a much loved Tasmanian fireworks tradition.

According to the Deputy Premiere, Victorian safe work bureaucrats have told Bright Star Tasmania is my main Cracker Knight supplier.

It can no longer ship fireworks through the Port of Melbourne because they are illegal under the Dangerous Goods Act.

There was a similar issue with Firework Night in the Northern Territory and New South Wales not processing, and that was worked out at the top level.

Hopefully this will be as well.

We're going to go to a break when we come back.

A football match abandoned after a fireworks display gets completely out of control.

We'll show you what happened in just a moment well before the break, we were talking about fireworks.

In Tasmania, there was fireworks at a football game.

Frag got a little bit out of control.

Indeed, just five minutes into this game between the Dutch team Aax and groaning in, the whole game had to be shut down because there was a pyrotechnique display that was let off, shutting the typing down.

Have a look.

Now, it was fans that set that off in honor of one of their friends who was I quote an Aax Ultra, a hooligan apparently, but who unfortunately passed away.

So wow, I mean that would be pretty scary if you were in the stadium.

That was like a wall of fireworks.

Yeah, I reckon.

That was probably a little more than they had planned on.

Speaking of fires, there's a massive fire on Saturday night in western Sydney when a chemical waste plant went up in flames of a look, oh.

Why thank you?

That's dang.

Incredible flames going about one hundred and fifty meters into the air.

Two hundred firefighters called from fifty different units to try to get under control.

One firefighter told local media it was a once in a career experience and I think we can also thank God for that.

People in a half kilometer radius told do not leave your house.

They endorse such with the fumes, Lady Yew, that.

Is a hell of a fire.

Thankfully, you know only a couple of firefighters, the hands injured or remarkable raining down with concrete.

And you know, it's hard to think of a more serious fire than that.

Now, you may remember, if you are a devote of cricket, forty three odd years ago, during the eighty two to eighty three season, while the poems were out here, couple of bloke snugger pig into the gabber and they managed to let the whole go on the field.

Now they finally come out and told their story.

You can see the pig there with both of them written on the side of it to Ian, both of them.

Of course, they've told their story forty three full years later.

This comes via Ian Crawford who's told his story to the Courier Mail, and he said they had to get hold of this pig.

So they found a farmer.

They had boys from outside of Lismore.

They found a farmer who would sell them a pig.

They chucked in five back seat.

They put the pig in a crate on the top of the car and drove it all the way to the gabba.

They get to the gabba and tried to pass it over a fence in a bag but got caught, so they got it into the gabba in a broccoli box under the nose of a police officer, and then of course let it go and the rest is history.

How's that for a bit of ossie ingenuity by some good old boys.

The real questions who won the game?

I remember the game Australia.

Then the pig totally put ian both of them off his game, Australia triumph.

That's it from us, stick around coming up in a moment.

It is the reader Pennety Show.

Good Night,