Late General, Welcome to the Late Debate.

Thanks for joining us on the Late Debate.

I'm James Macpherson with Caleb Bond and freyer Leitch.

Coming up tonight.

The South Australian Liberal Party in absolute confusion over the state's voice to Parliament.

Will take a look at what they've said this week and you can see if you can make any sense of it.

We sure can't.

Plus, A mum says she'll sue the Education Department after her fourteen year old was subjected to a sexually explicit school presentation and a banking executive is sacked for a Christmas party prank?

Was it really that bad?

We'll get into it shortly and you can make your decision.

But first, if you've ever had the misfortune of being hospitalized, you'll know that hospital food isn't exactly great.

You can usually rate hospital food somewhere between school camp slop and an airline meal that's completely given up on life.

Unless you're an Indigenous patient at Royal Melbourne Hospital.

The Royal Melbourne Hospit has just launched a menu especially for Aboriginals.

They've been boasting on social media this week that and I quote our first nation's Health Unit and Dietetics department have teamed up to create a Victorian First, a menu designed to help improve the hospital experience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.

It goes on to say that the menu for Aboriginal patients offers lemon, myrtle, roast, chicken, baked barrel, mundy, kangaroo sausages, and curried sausages, which, if nothing else, proves hospitals can cook.

Apparently they've just been choosing not to.

A spokesperson for the hospital said the mob menu, that's what they're calling it, was a small gesture to improve the hospital experience of indigenous patients.

Caleb, what about the hospital experience of Chinese patients, or African patients, zor Alaskan patients?

That's right?

As a child, Well, I'm not a Chinese patient, but where I one, I would be demanding that I have my peaking duck pancakes delivered to my bed please.

How can you justify having a separate menu for a different racial group.

And look, I mean you saw the images there.

I mean it looks okay, but it doesn't look outstanding, which is kind of what you expect.

Of hospital food.

But I mean roast chicken with potato and vegetables.

It was a staple for me as a kid.

I mean curried sausages wasn't a staple for me as a kid, but I know is a staple and has been a staple for a very long time.

In many Australian houses.

Barrow Munday, that's a staple in my house these days.

Kangaroo sausages, I hope mine kangaroo.

I quite enjoy kangaroo actually actually, and I enjoy sausages as well.

So it sounds like all of this is a menu that I would like to eat and I would like to have served to me if I go to hospital.

But I suppose, because as.

Far as I know, I don't have any Indigenous blood, I'm not entitled to it.

Surely, again, like we often say with many of these, that's just pure racism.

I mean, what are you telling me that if you made a bulk roast chicken that an Aboriginal patient wouldn't eat it unless you put a bit of lemon myrtle on.

The top of it.

Like, come up, that's the difference, you know, roast chicken with lemon myrtle, baked barramundi with lemon myrtle.

I don't get it.

I honestly don't get it.

It does seem just so strange.

And the reality is most Indigenous people today eats a very similar diet to what any other Australian is eating.

So the idea that you would have this separate menu just for Aboriginals, I mean, what is Aboriginal cuisine just adding kangaroo or lemon myrtle?

I think that seems a little bit patronizing actually, But apparently twenty percent of hospitals in Victoria have separate Aboriginal menus and they're calling them mob menu.

Why can't we all just be treated the same?

All this does is further so division between Indigenous and non Indigenous people.

We should all be treated the same.

This food actually looks really nice, but it shouldn't be given out just on the basis of someone's skin color or their ancestry.

The decision to go with this was prompted by a survey the Royal Melbourne Hospital did of other hospitals that found seventy two percent of hospitals offered halal food, fifty two percent offered kosher food, but very few offered an indigenous menu and they were shocked to discover it is completely different.

Seventy two percent of hospitals said they hadn't even considered an indigenous menu, which is hardly surprised.

That's shocking news.

I maybe never even thought about it.

I don't think there's anything anywhere that sees Indigenous people are duty bound who only eat things with lemon myrtal on, you know, like unlike halal and kosher, which is a religious.

Code about what you can and cannot eat.

I just want to know Hospital barrel MUNDI do we reckon Hospital barre Mundy is going to be any good or not?

Like it sounds like that could be a one way ticket to food boy.

I just love that they boasted this is a Victorian first.

Will all of these things happen first in Victoria?

Where elsewhere else?

While we're doing about indigenous issues Over in my native South Australia, the Liberal Party seems to be having some difficulty working out what its thoughts are on the Voice de Parliament.

Our South Australia has a Voice de Parliament.

The Melanawskis government introduced that a couple of years ago, and depending who you listened to well.

They all say in the Liberal Party that it's not quite up to scratch, but they have very different ideas about what needs to be done with it.

Now, have a listen to.

The leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, the opposition leader, Vincent Tarsia.

He was on the ABC this morning and he was asked what he thought of the Voice to Parliament.

Vincent Tarzik, can we move to the state based voice?

What is your position?

Will you repeal the voice or reform it?

I think it's been over bureaucratic and I can't see a situation where long term the voice continues.

With respect, lady, you're not answering the question.

It's a very straightforward question.

Will you reform the voice or will you repeal it?

Well, as I said, this body has been set up, right, it's been set up.

I've never liked it, and be very clear about that.

They have set out some things that they say that it would do.

I don't think they're being met and if that continues, I can't see a situation where it continues.

Okay, you can't see a situation, but will you get rid of it if you had the power to do so?

Well, if I had the power to do so, it's absolutely something that I would contemplate.

But there is a review and I think that's the time you would do.

So.

There you are the state or position leader in South Australia this morning on the ABC saying that he would consider getting rid of the Voice to Parliament if he had that power available to him.

Meanwhile, roughly the same time on the opposition station, the commercial talk backstation in Adelaide Double A, they were talking to the deputy opposition leader in South Australia, Josh Tigue, and he had a rather different view of things.

And keep your eye here on the faces of the host, David Pempathy and Will Goodings, because they cannot believe, as you will see what mister Tigue is telling them.

Be fair to say a vote for Vincentarzi will see a strengthening of the voice here in South Australia, of the Voice to Parliament.

I'd say that that will certainly occur.

And what will occur is that is that what will happen is you'll have a body that will be able to inspire confidence not only among broaders South Australians, but among Ooriginal people themselves.

It's a defective model.

It should surprise nobody that it hasn't actually proved.

To be justh Can I just ask exactly the same question again, because you just said again that the voice is defective.

Will there still be a voice under Atarzi a liberal government?

Yes, there will.

But the magic is not in the name, David.

The magic is in the work that it does.

I mean, they can't believe it.

Penbo God bless him goes back.

And asks the question again, just just to be sure there will be a voice if there is a TARGI, yes, he says, I guarantee it, absolutely, there will be I.

Meanwhile, Tarzi's over on the AVC saying that he would consider getting rid of it if he had the power available to him.

I'm not sure what the truth actually is here.

I suspect you probably take the leader's word over the deputy leader's word.

But how bad is it when you have the leader on one radio station saying, yep, I don't like it, I'd consider getting rid of it.

And meanwhile, you've got your deputy on another station saying, actually, we would strengthen the voice, and there will absolutely be a voice under the liberal goal.

Well, they're saying the Voice doesn't inspire much confidence.

The South Australian Liberals are inspiring even less with that response.

How can you have two ministers on air at the same time giving two completely contradictory responses to one of these central issues in Australian politics.

Right now, sixty four percent of South Australia voted no, the highest no vote just behind Queensland.

Every single electorate in South Australia voted no, including inner city electorates.

If they were smart, they would actually have a firm, clear position on this.

Sounds like that's where TAZI is trying to go, but just completely muddled and confused.

But this would be a vote winner for them, And it honestly seems like Indigenous people in South Australia don't really care about this voice either.

Turnout at the first elections for the Voice in twenty twenty four was less than ten percent.

Two and a half thousand people in the entire state voted for the Voice, So no one wants this.

The people don't want this.

The Indigenous community is completely disengaged in this process.

The whole thing is very bureaqual.

They have six local First Nation voices, two raps from each of those go into the state one.

I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous.

Got more voices than acquire.

Well, but the Liberals if they can't actually have a clear message on this, well the voice is confusing, but the Liberals message is even more confusing.

So you've perfectly outlined why this should be a no brainer for the South Australian Liberal Party, and yet they're vacillating over what to do.

The Australian reported that this has not even being debated within the party room with an election just four months away in Tasmania.

So the problem is when you don't have Canania, sorry in South Australia, when you don't have convictions, and clearly there's no convictions here because there's no definitive stance, then it's impossible to have leadership.

And clearly there's no leadership, you've got the leader and the deputy saying opposing things.

And where there's no leadership, you end up with just a mess and chaos and confusion.

And that's the state of the Liberals.

Sadly not just in South Australia, but we're seeing it all over the country.

Zero conviction, which leads to zero leadership, which leads to mass confusion and they wonder why they can't be elected at a state level.

But what is going through the head of Josh t to go on to talk back radio and say, under a Liberal government we would strengthen the voice and there would absolutely be a voice like.

I cannot understand.

The political acumen that goes into saying that.

As a Liberal Party deputy leader.

Do you remember when Bill Shorten was famously asked what he thought of one of Julia Gillard's policies, He told the interviewer, whatever she said, I agree with it.

And they said, well what did she say?

And he said, well, whatever it was, I agree with it.

If only he had done that, mister T would have.

Been that is the correct response.

And the reality is in the last three is the only issue the Coalition has actually won on has been the voice to Parliament.

I wouldn't go backflipping on that now.

It is not a recipe for success.

But speaking of South Australia, some wacky stuff is going on in the schools down there.

A mum is taking.

Legal action against the South Australian state government after her fourteen year old daughter was exposed to some obscene things in a course supposedly about respectful relationships.

The Respectful Relationship's course was about promoting LGBTQIA plus inclusivity and acceptance.

But boy, did it go well beyond that.

There were references in the presentation delivered to fourteen year olds.

There were references to best reality, to incest, to sibling relations disgusting, disgusting stuff, and naturally this has left students very confused.

Mum said a daughter came home and felt uncomfortable expressing affection to her brother because now she was confused.

But you can have a listen to it in her own words.

Here she is.

Courtney just said, I didn't want to be their mom, but I didn't know what to do.

And my daughter comes home and feels uncomfortable hugging her brother because she's confused about whether that's because it's her brother.

There was zero protection from my daughter that day, zero nothing.

She had no one she could go to.

Absolutely horrific.

Students will also shonn a photo of a woman who'd undergone a double misectomy.

It just like you just wonder one who wrote this course?

Two?

How were there no teachers in the room supervising and shutting it down when it clearly went so beyond just you know, acceptance and inclusivity.

And if this is going on in one school in South Australia, thankfully we know about it because the brave students spoke up and her mother's now taking action.

But where else is this happening in?

How many other schools are students being exposed to this stuff?

We should point out that the mother has repeatedly requested from the Relationships Advising Group.

She's repeatedly requested the material that was taught to her daughter and has repeatedly been denied access to it.

If they won't even show mum what they taught the kids, you can only imagine what it was that they taught the kids.

I'm thrilled she's taking legal action against the Department of Education, who surely have a duty of care.

As Freyer said, the teacher wasn't even in the room.

They've invited a third party in left students with a third party that the school clearly have not vetted properly.

I hope she wins her case and I hope this hits them where it hurts and becomes a severe warning to schools right around the country.

When we send our kids to sit in your classrooms, we are trusting you to do what you say you will do, which is to teach them the essentials of education, not indoctrinate them with radical gender theory.

And god knows what else they want to teach kids with these days.

As a parent, nothing matters more than your kids.

And when you entrust them to somebody else, you expect that trust to be you know, upheld.

And clearly they've not done that, and I hope they pay.

Yeah, And I mean the parents were not told what would be taught beforehand, nor were the students.

They just walked in.

And I mean.

It's seriously, is a huge leap to go from like LGBTQ issues through having sex with your sister, Like.

Where does that come from?

It's just a frankly bizarre thing to end up and beast reality, how does that end up in a school.

Sex ed program?

It makes absolutely no sense.

And you might remember about a decade ago, remember Safe Schools which was being rolled out across schools in New South Wales, and there were similar concern about how sexually explicit that program was, and there was a hullabaloo about it and eventually something was done about it.

And I hope that's what this achieves, because if you've got that being taught in classrooms, I mean, in any other situation, if a parent had a concern about their kid and how they're going at school and what's happening in the classroom, you call up the school, you organize a meeting with the teacher, Go and sit down with the teacher.

The teacher can tell you what's going on.

They can tell you what the kids being taught, and how the kids behaving, and how they're going on this, and how they're going on that.

They didn't have that option in this case because it wasn't taught by the teachers.

How a school or a department or any other mob can just farm it out and then say, oh, well, you know, what can we do about it now?

It is awful, absolutely awful, and it should never happen again.

You ask how we got here, and I want to be kis in the way I say this, But I mean, if you think about it.

Once a society decides that you can be born in the wrong body, that male and female are really essentially meaningless terms, do you really expect that same culture is then going to put sensible boundaries on anything, or does it become a free for all.

And it seems that's what was promoted in the classroom.

This is not just a problem in Australia, of course, this is happening all around the Western world.

I want to show you a teacher in Seattle who is helping to teach kindergarten kids about radical gender theory by reading them a story about a Teddy bear who is a boy but wants to become a girl.

Have a listen now.

Before we began, I would like to cover some important words that all really really help us understand this story better.

Gender means a person's feeling about being either a boy or a girl, neither both, or somewhere in tween.

Gender raw means cultural ways about how men and women are supposed to act.

Thomas the Teddy took a deep breath.

I need to be myself Errol in my heart.

I've always known that I'm a girl Teddy, not a boy Teddy.

I wish man name was Tilly, not Thomas.

I'm old enough to remember when we stopped selling candy cigarettes to kids because kids were impressionable.

Have we forgotten how impressionable kids are.

It's just ridiculous.

But they never got rid of the candy cigarette.

They just changed the name from fags to fags or whatever.

The point was the recognized kids' minds are malleable.

They will believe whatever they're told by a position person of authority.

That was the rationale for those you know, you're missing my point about that.

The point is, what the heck are they doing with that sort of stuff to kids in KINDI I put that much work in the teaching kids' maths or history or English, the world will be a much better place.

It's impossible to understand that as anything other than state sponsored manipulation of children's minds.

One hundred percent.

And they've been teaching this stuff apparently since twenty seventeen.

Another book they also recommend students read is called Princess Boy.

Now you can.

Imagine how that goes.

But all of this stuff just confuses children.

And if you are a child who already feels confused, insecure, unsure of who you are, you get these messages from the school system or books you've been told to read, and you can internalize that and very quickly kids can start to go, oh yeah, I do feel a little bit uncomfortable in my body.

Oh well, I remember Teddy who wanted to be called Tilly and they felt uncomfortable in their body.

Oh maybe I was born in the wrong gender.

No, this is so oh so wrong.

And you're right, James, this is mass brainwashing and manipulation of our children.

And when you, I mean the whole wave that video was framed, it almost feels really sinister, like you can feel the propaganda being pushed.

I'm sorry I went down memory laying there for a second, James.

I was trying to remember those the candy cigarettes, Remember those, not the cigarettes that the big cigar ones.

Remember those ones?

I remember fags?

Yes, were as a kid at school they were available.

I know, and then by the time I was a kid, they changed them to fags, but you still pretended to smoke them like they were a cigarette.

But it goes back.

To the point that, as you're saying, kids that young, like kindergarten a year five, which is what this this is, never into their head like it doesn't exist.

There may be a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of kids where there is an obvious issue with gender, but for the rest of them, it's never even into their head.

They don't think about it.

They just go to kinder your school and hang out with their friends and want to be with mum and dad.

That's it, basically.

And so you introduce the idea to their heads and all of a sudden it's something to think about.

And if it doesn't lead to them questioning their own gender, because of course that's not going to happen in every.

Case, it confuses them.

It's just a concept that a kid doesn't have to deal with, and shouldn't have to deal with.

A kid should just be allowed to be a kid, for heaven's sake.

Leave them alone.

And by the way, I didn't think.

That teddy bears had the various bits and bobs that allowed them to have genders.

I remember Humphrey be Bear when I was a kid who was on the telly without any pants on, and allegedly he was boy because his name was Humphrey, but you couldn't tell by looking at him.

I was about to say that unit called something.

I'm not entirely sure.

Bring back Humphrey Bee Bear.

I reckon and fat Cat.

They need fat Cat tell the kids to go to bed.

He can come on and tell the kids to put their phones away when we bring in the social media band in a few days.

But let's move on.

To some slightly nicer news, shall we in the US?

Will stick over there at the White House, they put up their Christmas decorations.

It looks a little different to what it used to look like.

Remember when Joe Biden was president and they had their Christmas display and they turned it.

Into well circus basically.

Look, I don't mind to show tune, but I challenge you to make any sense of that.

But they've done a slightly better job of it at the White House this year.

Here is the first lady running you through.

Now.

Look, our producer thinks the Bardon one was more fun, But I think that is just nice and tasteful and respectful.

Look.

I know you can have fun at Christmas stuff, but it irks me when they have the carols shows and you get about three carols and then the rest of it is some garbage made up Christmas music that some person who was on nex Factor or something seven years ago has written a new song, and they.

Let I want Christmas Carols's Christmas time to even sake.

But in this display they put up ten thousand blue butterflies, twenty five thousand feet of ribbons.

Don't ask me to put that into new money.

Two thousand strands of light, eight hundred gold stars, seven hundred feet of garland, one hundred and twenty pounds of gingerbread.

My god, Donald Trump will be rolling out of the joint by the time he's done with that.

Fifty one Christmas trees and seventy five classic Christmas reeds.

I think it looks good, maself.

As one commentator said, the White House has gone from crass under Biden to class under Trump, and it's pretty hard to argue with that watching those images.

Yeah, the White House's Exican, as you can see there.

Said themselves.

Under Biden it was a circus literally, and under Trump it is all about elegance.

And it really is similar symbolic of the shift in the administration and just the whole culture really in Americas.

Le One person caption the video of Milania putting up the decorations, saying America is normal again.

That's what it feels.

The one thing I wonder imagine if they had have put a Nativity scene in the White House.

Imagine how the left would have lost their minds.

If Trump had dared to mention Jesus at Christian Ah, well they should.

They've got to pick up the phone to Nicholas Reese because did you see this story the other day that the Melbourne City Council is bringing back the Nativity scene in feed Square after seven years.

I mean, just get Nick Reese to go and do it.

You yes, so good?

Well let's keep on that theme of Christmas.

It is Christmas party season and many corporates and people are putting on their end of year bashes.

But a Christmas party at the NAB Bank went horribly wrong and ended with a senior executive getting fired for pulling what I think is maybe.

Distasteful but just a joke.

Basically, what happened was he posed as a terrorist.

He poses being held hostage, kneeling down with his hands behind his back, and then a junior stood over here with his hands in the symbol of a gun and a towel wrapped around his head, pretending to be a terrorist.

Now the bank initially stood him down and then now he's been sacked.

But I mean, seriously, it was a Christmas party.

It wasn't during work hours.

People were just having fun.

I know, it's not very professional, and he probably should have known better.

But are we now getting to a point in the corporate world where you can't even laugh?

You can't even have a joke anymore because HR will haul you in and fire you.

I mean, come on, this.

What makes no sense to me at all?

And as you said, the colleague standing over, the person pretending to be a hostage was holding a finger gun.

What are we.

Offended by finger guns?

Now?

No one was hurt, no one was ever in danger.

I wonder if the issue was that the person pretending to be the kidnapper posed with a towel on their heads.

He's the junior in as far as we know, he's not been.

Sacked, right, but perhaps didn't instigate the photo.

I don't know.

It's a mystery as to why that person.

That's the only thing I can think of, though, is that they were upset that some might be offended if it were known that they were pointing to a certain kind of person who might commit a terrorist act.

That's the only thing that occurs to me that could be offensive about.

Honestly, just get over it.

I mean, this is the look you know there are I hope they don't go and cancel the nab Christmas party now, because you know, this is the world we live in now, where one person stuffs up and then companies go, well, geez, we've got risk here.

We can't carry the risk.

Anymore because you know, we get sued or this happens or that happens, and so we all miss out on fut But honestly, we shouldn't have to live in a world where we are that sensitive.

They made sure an insensitive joke, but it was a joke for a photo.

It was nothing more.

When you say it was insensitive, who was it insensitive too?

Look, look it doesn't ter us.

Yeah, it doesn't offend me.

But I mean, you know, you could draw a long bow and say the families who've got Israeli hostage just in the last year.

It wouldn't like it, right, you know, it is a long boat.

It doesn't offend me.

I think we should all just be able to say, Haha, it was a joke.

Whether you like it or not, it's not that offensive.

Get over it.

Should a guy have to lose his career over this because you know, you make one silly joke at a Christmas party and then you lose your job.

At U Bank, which is part of the NAB and presumably it makes it difficult for you to go and look for another job, Like, is.

This really the thing we want to be crucifying?

Sorry Pet with triggert warning we talked about.

That Jesus Christ superstils Is that really the sort of thing we need to be throwing people's careers away for?

I wouldn't have thought so.

I did a quick check before we came on air of news stories involving people sacked after Christmas party pranks, and they all involved sort of sexual activities.

Or all the live in discretion.

Well yeah, fair enough, but nothing as remotely as inane as the issue for which this guy has been sacked.

We spoke the other night about a renewable energy project which has resulted in the destruction of agricultural land.

No one seems to complain about it when it's done in the name of renewable energy.

Well, the Daily Telegraph has pointed to another renewable energy project, this time in the Hunter region of New South Wales, which is destroying habitat used by native plants and animals already at risk of extinction.

Dozens of threatened species in the firing line at the site where they're building the Hunter Transmission project.

Thirty eight threatened plant species and twenty eight threatened animals, including the critically endangered regent honey eater, the critically endangered swift parrot, and the endangered large eared pied bat.

Now, what is heartening about this story is that some greenee groups have actually spoken up against this renewable energy project, saying it should go ahead, but somewhere else because maybe in saving the environment we should take into account the environment, so credit where credit's due.

The Australian Conservation Fund and the Nature Conservation Council have both lobbied the New South Wales government to have this project moved.

But the Energy Co which is responsible for it, they've said, we're reducing, we're committed to reducing the impacts of these things.

That doesn't mean it's going to be moved.

And the acting Energy Minister, Paul Scully said, well, you know, if we're going to roll out renewable projects, we have quote unquote no choice.

So in other words, it will continue.

Here's what irritates me.

You can stop a gold mine because of a rainbow serpent, but you can't stop a renewable energy project because of endangered animals which may not exist if this thing goes ahead, which explain that to.

Me sounds like they just need to find some local elders to say the birds are sacred, and then maybe they could actually have a chance at stopping this thing.

But that's right, there's a complete double standard here where the actual environment and protecting its biodiversity and critically engaged species is second to our noble pursuit of green energy.

But what I want to see is for these greeny organizations, it's the conservation foundation people like that.

They're saying, well, we need we need renewables, but we also need to protect the ecosystem.

But they've got to realize there's a trade off there.

Any renewables will involve damage to the ecosystem.

And this is actually a transmission line project.

What they're doing is building one hundred and ten kilometers worth of transmission lines to connect up the renewable energy zone to the grid, and to do that they have to clear twenty meters with worth of just empty clearing.

That's a huge amount of land that they're clearing.

And so what people need to realize is green energy is actually not that green when you think about the transmission lines and all the infrastructure that has to go.

Into it, of course, and they love putting up transmission lines because they're regulatory assets, which means those who pay to put them up are guarantee to get a return out of them.

It is just printed money, basically.

Remember when they were talking about I think was under the Gillard government, you know, gold plating the poles and wires, because it's just it's free money.

Essentially, you build them, you know you're going to get a return.

So the investors love building power lines and they'll do so at every opportunity, even if many people in the energy sector say that it is unnecessary to build ten thousand kilometers of power lines, as we keep being told we need to do in order to make the renewable grid work.

But have a look at some of those birds we were showing you before.

I mean, what would you rather ten thousand kilometers of power lines or some beautiful looking birds.

I can tell you what I would prefer.

And if we're talking about I mean, look at that magnificent I mean nature doesn't create power lines, it creates brilliance like that.

And when you're talking about critically endangered.

We're talking about the closest thing to extinction possible, and we're willing to say, yep, let's just get rid of that for some.

Power lines so we can have green energy, you.

Know, as well as those beautiful birds.

I'd really love affordable power, well, a liable power, it'd be great too.

Well, you know, maybe the bird could come and deliver that to or perhaps the chances of that happening are about as good as that bird surviving.

Unfortunately.

Let's talk about the ABC, shall we?

Bit of ABC bashing never goes astray, does it.

He's another opportunity because you'll remember Antoinette latoof the fill in radio host, who was contracted for one week five shifts.

I think you've got about two sifts in and then they pulled her off air because she'd been posting stuff on social media about the Israel Gaza conflict.

They said, no, no, no, we don't like what you have to say or support for Palestine, and she then said, well, Bridge contract sued them.

We know what went on there.

She offered to settle at one point for a little over eighty thousand dollars, but the ABC decided they fighted in thought, and we find out today courtesy of the financial Review, that the money the ABC has spent on it is far more than we previously believed it to be.

That the estimate before was about one and a half million.

Now the AFR says it is at least two point six million dollars they have spent on this case.

Look, maybe if they'd just done their due diligence before they hired miss Latouf, we would never have had this problem in the first place.

Because as much as I might disagree with certain things that Latouf has said, I have at various points felt a bit sorry for her because she was hired with all of her social media postings available for anyone to see, and the ABC then says, here's a job to do radio for a week.

And then the ABC turns around and said, oh, we don't like the social media posts anymore.

Well, why did you hire her in the first place?

And then why did you dig your heels in when she offered you the way out and you ended up spending two point six million dollars of our money on a mistake that you should never have made to begin.

And as you said, she worked two shifts, so those are two very expensive radio shifts that the ABC brass failed at every point.

It was a mistake to employ her in light of the social media posts which were known to management.

It was a mistake to having employed her to terminate her, especially when she only had three days to go.

It was a mistake to reject the settlement, and it was a mistake to defend it.

But guess who pays we do?

Don't you just love that?

You're welcome and Latoufa, that's two hundred and twenty grand you've received in your pocketing damage's courtesy of us.

But I will say in the ABC's defense on this one, apparently in the terms of the settlement that Antoinette Latufe was proposing with the eighty thousand dollars figure, one of the terms had to be that she would be reinstated as a fill in host.

The ABC claims that's against their policy.

They can't offer people jobs as part of a settlement.

They then went up to one hundred and fifty k.

That's what they offered her before proceeding to court, and she rejected that because she wanted to be reinstated as a fill in host.

So I don't know I think they could have just changed their policy if they knew it was going to cost them millions of dollars, which any lawyer would be able to tell you, just change the policy.

They could have just let her do five days on seven oh two.

No one was listening anyway, who.

Kids Exactly right.

We're going to go to a break when we come back, and we'll look at what's making news tomorrow, including the Albanzy government.

Looks like they're going to of aneg on a promise to end jobs for mates.

That's coming up after this.

All right, welcome back to the program.

Let's take a look at tomorrow's headlines.

You'll hear them.

Hear first, Fray, what's making news in the Australian tomorrow.

Well.

In the Australian, the headline is Lib's clash on migration cuts ahead of big reveal.

Liberal moderate powerbroker Andrew Bragg has rejected calls inside the Coalition for savage cuts to net overseas migration, arguing that a severe clampdown on foreigners entering the country would not fix the housing crisis nor resolve crippling shortages of tradees.

Ahead of Susan Lee releasing the coalition's migration policy principles and directions before Christmas.

Senior Liberal MPs have reached out to supporters seeking views on what the Conservative Party should focus on.

In an email Centilberal members and business stakeholders on Tuesday nights, Senator Bragg invoked Australia's longest serving Prime Minister, Robert Menzies in defending the merits of migration while acknowledging pressures on the housing market.

This seems very strange given Andrew Bragg's main focus in Parliament is on housing affordability.

No one with halfur brain who's done a single subject in economics could deny that when you add a lot of demand into the system through high immigration, you're going to see prices for housing go up.

I mean, this is the number one thing you can do to ease housing shortages.

Cut immigration.

I'm a little confused by his comments because when you read the article in Tomorrow's Australian, Andrew Bragg says they should not cut immigration numbers, but they should reduce immigration numbers.

He also says that we need to reduce, not cut, reduce immigration numbers because under Labour, immigration numbers have surged so there's been a but not enough to cut it, only to reduce semantics.

I think they are so worried about being labeled racists or xenophobes that they're wetting the bed on this one.

Yeah, well, you know what, just start saying, yeah, actually I'm racist.

You know, if you start saying throw it at me, go on, do it and you can't be hurt by it, then you sort of go, oh well, I'll just weather the storm for a while, because we know from all the polling that the majority of Australians, many of whom are migrants by the way, think that we have too many people coming to this country.

It's pretty straight up and down.

It's an easy vote winner.

And as for the argument that it won't fix the house, of course it won't fix the housing crisis.

But you don't just say because it won't do all the work, we don't do anything about it, like it's a nonsensical argument anywhere on the front of the Canberra Times tomorrow.

And maybe all of these people who come over here could go and get a job with government and then they can be shoehorned off.

Into a board.

Because it says Gallagher.

Not fortuning Galaher not for turning the Albaneezy government has rejected a key reports recommendations to halt the revolving door that shuffles former MP's and staffers directly into plumb roles on public sector boards.

Finance Minister Katie Galaher yesterday defended the decision not to implement a six month ban on such appointments after leaving government eighteen months for former ministers and their staff, saying the Ministerial Code of Conduct was sufficient.

There are people who leave work.

In the Parliament who do have the right skills and would be an ascent on government boards and committee committees, she told a Senate Estimates hearing after releasing the long awaited report of the Review of Public Sector Board Appointments Processes.

Say you could barely think of a more boring title for a report.

It has to be said.

But you know the thing is, it's mutually assured distraction.

No one's ever going to change these rules because everyone does it.

It doesn't matter what side of politics you're from.

It's always jobs for the boys or the girls for that matter.

No one's ever going to change that.

There's two things about this story.

When Katie Gallagher announced in twenty twenty three that this report would be written.

She promised, this will signal the end of the jobs for mates culture.

Now that they've got the results, they've decided, actually, we're not going to do anything about it.

The other thing is they got this report eighteen months ago and they've sat on it a year and a half later.

They finally release it just a few weeks before Christmas.

Yeah.

No, it's so hypocritical and absurd.

And just because everyone does it doesn't mean they should.

The idea that you can sit there as a staffer lining up your next gig, that your boss, as the minister, can stitch up for you, I mean that is an insult to taxpayers.

All right, let's go to the front page of tomorrow's Herald's son A shocking story on the front page school terror.

Students hide under desks after alleged attack.

The headline.

I got to admit I was not expecting to read this.

Teacher stabs principle.

A principle has been stabbed allegedly by a teacher in a distressing and traumatic incident at a school in Melbourne, South East on Tuesday afternoon.

Keyesbra Secondary College principal Aaron Sykes was injured following an alleged altercation with a teacher.

Students forced to hide under desks as the violence unfolded.

It's about forty minutes according to the report that kids were locked in classrooms hiding undesks, sorry, twenty minutes, told to be absolutely silent as things unfolded.

The principle has been taken to hospital and he will be okay.

So there you go.

And this comes just after Remember there was a stabbing.

An eleven year old kid allegedly stabbed another student at Brentwood Park Primary School, also in Victoria.

So there you go.

The other interesting story on the front page of The Herald's son MP office breach claim.

This one's a funny.

One of Victorian Liberal MP has admitted to offering same day printing services from his taxpayer funded office to his party's MPs candidates and branch members in a possible breach of parliamentary rules.

Richard Welsh in that it was not against the rules as he had paid for the printer out of his own pocket.

This is some printer.

This is not just you know, the printer you might have at home.

This printer can print images for corflute signs that you use out the front of houses and so on during election campaigns.

The rules he may have broken relate not to having a side hustle, but that you can't conduct party related activities from your electric office.

He claims he's not, and if he is, it's alfter hours.

Anyway, he could be in trouble.

He could be in trouble, and that he probably ought to be.

But you know, again, it's one of those everyone is doing it.

The Labor Party in Victoria, well you remember the red shirt scandal where they were of course using union labor, et cetera.

But also there are allegations not that long ago that party political staff were being told to go to certain meetings, which was causing ractions in the departments, and that staff who were working in electorate offices were essentially doing campaign work during their electorate office hours, which they shouldn't be.

So again, it's not just one side of politics, it's all of them.

But seriously, mate, just put it somewhere else.

Put your printer at home and.

It wouldn't be Yeah, put it in your house.

I mean, I totally understand why he would want a commercial printer, and I imagine those services are very valuable to a lot of MPs.

You need to print stuff quickly, but maybe don't do it.

You've got a feel for new Liberal leader Jess Wilson, who just gets the job and then the Libs are back on the front page again.

Yeah, a printer, because of a printer.

In the NT News tomorrow, the headline is hotel plan torna.

A one hundred million dollar hotel project at the Darwin Waterfront has been put on ice after the Singapore and developer behind it terminated the deal.

It comes after the Northern Land Council appealed to the Commonwealth to block the project to safeguard a nearby sacred site from desk creation keyword.

There nearby, not at the site nearby.

Again I repeat my earlier point.

We need to find some elders to protect the birds in the Hunter of acts.

According to the article, do you know what the desecration is that people would be looking over the site.

That's the problem.

So there was even a suggestion maybe they get rid of windows from that side of the hotel so people can't look over the sacred site.

That apparently was an unsuccessful negotiation, So this thing doesn't go ahead.

Well, I've got an alternative idea.

If you can't have windows, just put a casino there instead.

Troblem solved on the Daily Telegram tomorrow.

It says cycle of madness.

Moves from the premiere to ban.

That is New South Wales to ban high powered e baks has backed fresh calls for even greater reforms to keep our streets safe.

Cause for tougher rules came as a lineback rider was killed after being hit by a garbage truck in the CBD.

Premier Chris Mens yesterday announced that is today New South Wales would ban ebanks with a power output rate than two hundred and fifty watts from next year.

It is becoming a serious problem this and kids in particular getting themselves in trouble.

They're unregulated motorbikes most of them, and you can.

Get electric trail bikes now too.

I mean, you know, imagine what can doing one of them?

And you see these kids, I mean they are flying.

Long around Crinella.

I am by in any beach suburb in Sydney.

They are everywhere and they fly.

I'm scared walking down the footpath with them coming at me.

Imagine if you're an elderly person.

It's a nightmare.

I'm not scared.

I want one.

They look, I'm with you.

They're dangerous.

They're dangerous.

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

The English cricketers have been in all sorts of trouble on the pitch.

Now they're in trouble off the pitch.

That's next.

Well.

The English cricketers are not having a good time of it in Australia.

The first Test in Perth lasted just a couple of days.

Now they're in Brisbane preparing for the second Test and they've taken quite a liking to Bridge, been getting around on East scooters.

Here's the problem.

Captain Ben Stokes and fast bowler Mark Wood were photographed not wearing helmets now riding an ES scooter in Brisbane without a helmet in curse of one hundred and sixty six dollars.

Fine.

Sports Minister Tim Mander was asked about this and he said no, police would not be pursuing fines against the English players.

Instead, he said what the Pommy cricketers did was very responsible, but it has helped us with a new road safety campaign.

Don't be silly like the Pommy cricketers wear your helmet now.

I would suggest Tim Manda not be put in charge of writing advertising campaign.

Not very pithy, clever or funny at all.

But better was Transport Minister Brent Mickelberg.

He said, I don't want to see anyone bowled over on our streets.

Though judging by their recent form, the Poms seemed to prefer getting themselves out, So there you go.

They won't be fined.

I would say playing for England is punishment enough.

Maybe.

I think the last bid was much better than the first.

My god, there wasn't very catchy, was it.

Now.

You know that old saying, if life gives you weeds, turn them into Christmas trees.

Well that is exactly.

What one counselor has done down in South Australia.

As you can see there, the.

Former acting mayor of Onkaparinger, Simon McMahon, had spotted a weed on a council verge and he thought, you know you've seen people in graffiti the road where there's potholes to get the counseled and draw penises and stuff on it to get the council to come and do something about it.

He said, I'm going to turn this into a Christmas tree.

Good on him for turning a weed into a bit of Christmas tree.

Yeah.

Well, speaking of Christmas, the Dean of Salisbury has released some great advice on where should we find joy at Christmas and he reassures people God does not judge your tacky Christmas sweaters.

He said, God is tasteless too, and that's actually the heart of the good news.

God is without a shred of cultural or aesthetic judgment.

I'm not so sure about that when you read the Bible, but they go Church of England really speaking to the big issues.

You say that God had created sunsets and sunrises and all manner of you know, animals, is not esthetically motivated.

I think God doesn't judge you for wearing the tech he sweater, but he does judge the techi.

Yeah, there are whole sections of the Bible about how to build a temple, the proportions.

God cares about aesthetics, but don't be ashamed.

Of the only that he wants us to wear Christmas jumpers.

He doesn't know Australians exist, Right.

That's it from us.

Stick around.

Coming up is the reader Penny Show.

Good Night