November 7, 2024 • 42 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is the week that was. And what a lineup
we've got for you this morning. For the Labor Party,
we have got the Member for Solomon, Luke Gosling.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good morning to you. Good to have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
To be back from Canberra.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Hey and a bit warmer, definitely a bit warmer because
of Parliament took me because of the weather.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
We've got Jared.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Mayley, the will Minister for various portfolios, the Deputy Chief Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Good to see you this morning, Jared.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Good morning Katie, and good morning listeners.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And we've got Matt Cunningham from Sky News. Matt, you've
been almost missing in action. We haven't seen you for
a few weeks.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Mate.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
Well, I was waiting for you to get a few
more blokes on the panel, Katy, before I agreed to
come back on.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I mean, let's be honest.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Will be living now though living now with the forgotten.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Men have spoken, well, they certainly have, and we might
kick off with that.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
We know that.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Carmela Harris obviously forced to concede the election to Donald Trump,
saying she respects the result but would not give up
the fight that fueled her campaign. She said, the outcome
of this election is not what we wanted, not what
we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear
me when I say, the light of America's promise will
(01:16):
always burn bright as long as we never give up,
as long as we always keep fighting. There's a lot
to analyze, I think, out out of this American election.
But what I think I would say is that we've
seen here in the Northern Territory, we've seen in Queensland,
We've now seen in America the rise of the working class,
(01:38):
would you call it the middle class saying we've had enough,
We don't want to be sort of told how we
need to think and what we need to do. And
they're even prepared to vote for somebody who is a
convicted felon in Donald Trump, because they felt as though
Carmela Harris maybe wasn't going to represent them in the
way that they wanted.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
I think it's a clear message that people just want
to be left alone to get on with their lives
and do not want to be told what to do
and what to think. If you want to go and
have a go and create a new job or a
new pathway for yourself, go and have a go, have
a crack and I think that's what's happening. I think
that pendulum is swinging back from the wake side back
into you go out and have a go and encourage
(02:16):
people to make a go of their life.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Do you reckon it's also I mean the cost of
living discussion was a huge part of it as well.
From what I can gather, the same as what we're
saying here in Australia.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Obviously, when we do head to the.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Federal polls, there's no doubt that, you know, like we've
seen a lot of similarities. I think despite all of
our differences across the different campaigns, there's a lot of
similarities in the different campaigns we're seeing around the place.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
Cost of living wise, there's a big difference. Federally. It
just flew back from Camber. We had Parliament this week
and Dunden and that mob the Federal Coalition have opposed
every single cost of living thing that we've put up.
So that's card and student, that's getting tax cuts for everyone,
(03:02):
cheaper medicines, three hundred dollars off your power bills, every
single thing that we've legislated, they've opposed.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So I don't know.
Speaker 6 (03:13):
I think Dunn doesn't think it's about cost of living.
You must think everyone's going fine.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
What do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Like, what do you make of the election result in
the US? And do you look at it in any
ways in Australia and think how could things be similar?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Though as we do head to a federal election next year.
Speaker 6 (03:30):
He's always got to be in touch with the pressures
and the wants and desires of the population. And I
think there was in the States a bit of a
feeling like you guys, yeah, you're not really tapped into
the like our life and the pressures that were under
(03:51):
and when that happens, and I think to some extent
we saw that in the NT election as well, you
have a strong pushback. And let's face it, democracy is
so great because it allows every single person doesn't matter
how much money you got, doesn't matter how you identify
or whatever, you just get a vote. And so people
(04:13):
have spoken in the US, I think they don't exactly
know what they're going to get, particularly the working classes,
Like there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what a
tariff actually is and the impact that that might have
on working people. So but they haven't got the education
levels generally that we have in Australia, we've got a
more educated populace that is able to distinguish, I think,
(04:37):
between an offering that says we understand your pain and
we've got all these costs of living policies to support
you and your families, versus well, we've heard really nothing
from the other side.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So do you worry though, that because something that I
found before the last Northern Territory election. I know I'm
sort of slipping between elections here, but.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Do you worry that.
Speaker 5 (04:58):
You know?
Speaker 1 (04:59):
What I heard really loudly and clearly before the last
Northern Territory election is that territories had had an absolute
gutful of sort of being told that issues were complicated
and they didn't quite understand them, and that they weren't
educated enough, or that they weren't maybe smart enough to
understand just how complicated those issues were to try to
deal with them. And I mean, even with what you've said,
(05:19):
they're talking about the tariffs and things like that that
maybe some people didn't understand exactly how they were voting.
Do you worry that ossies have actually had a bit
of a gutful of being told that they're maybe not
smart enough to understand things and that politicians know better.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
I think exactly what you're saying. Luke's mob was talking
about that, you know, talking about the working class. I
think the Labor government have forgotten the working class. I
don't know what they are. They're all up in their
high mighty well doing or what they do. And you know,
Luca was talking about, you know, tax cuts that Labor
promised and then they changed their mind. So when you're
talking about the you know, the silent minority who go
(05:55):
out there and know what's happening, and then when you
promise something like the Labor government and then change your
mind and do something differ, That's what the silent minority
of people out there in Australia are going to pick
up on it. You can't go out there and don't
changed your mind because people.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Are going to hate tax cut. Really, really, what are
you talking about, you even.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Ultimately, is about the silent minority been out there to
go out and do their business, make their money, look
after their family and keep their family safe, which is
unfortunately happening in the Northern Territory and in Queensland. Labor
failed him. Relating to that and Labor's failing and federally
as well.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
I think I think on the tax cut issue, like
I think the tax cut issue, Stage three tax cuts
is an example of a labor government doing what a
labor government should do, which which is basically look after
those who are less well off. And the changes that
labor made even though they broke an election promise. Anthony
Albaneze had said countless times that there'd be no changes
to the Stage three tax cuts. But but the changes
(06:52):
he made basically read distributed some of that money from
higher income earners to middle and lower income earners. That
that that is the bread and butter of a labor government.
But I do think that we are seeing we have
seen and I think we've seen it in the Northern Territory,
We've seen it in Queensland, We've seen it now in
the United States. I do think there is at some
(07:14):
level a rejection from working class people, predominantly male people,
a rejection of a new kind of identity politics that
left leaning parties have fallen into. And that's not just
my view, I mean cos Samaras right, who predicted the
outcome of the Northern Territory election nine months ahead of time,
(07:36):
said it was going to be an former labor strategist
and upholster, and he said it was going to be
an absolute landslide CLBP victory based on his piling, and
he said that the baseball bats are out. He said
this after the US election. He says that Donald Trump's
victory revealed a deepening divide between traditional working class voters
and the established left leaning parties, a trend he says
(07:58):
he's reshaping politics across the Western world, including in Australia.
The Queensland state election underscored a growing separation between urban
progressives and the working poor in regional areas, traditional labor
aligned parties are now drawing support largely from university education
educated professionals, while leaving regional and working class voters feeling
(08:21):
neglected and unheard. And I think we've seen a bit
of that in the Northern Territory. I think we've seen
a lot of it in Queensland, and we've seen it
in spades in the United States. And to use an
example here with territory labor, there are large parts of
territory labor who oppose the onshore gas industry. And I
find that for the Labor Party, I find that and
(08:41):
I'd be interested to hear Luke's few and I know
he's a supporter of the onshore gas industry, But there
is a large part of the Labor Party that is
fundamentally absolutely opposed to onshore gas fracking, which is an
industry that has the potential to deliver thousands of well
paid blue collar jobs to people who would traditionally be
(09:01):
labor voters. And yet there's a large section of that
party now who just says no way, because they've sort
of fallen in you know, I think they're more worried
about the Greens on their left flank than they are
about looking after their traditional base, and that's going to
be a real problem going forward for Labor.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Well, that's one example.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
But then even when you look at before the last
Northern Territory election, when you've got a huge portion of
the Northern Territory population experiencing severe issues with crime, and
then you've got an Attorney General that's coming out saying
jailing is failing and doing the very opposite to what
the community expects. Again, I think you go, like to me,
that goes back to listening to you know, listening to
(09:39):
people and listening to you know, no matter where you
come from.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
Are most likely the victims of that crime are people
who live in less well off suburbs. I mean, it's
generally not people in Culum Bay and Bayview who are
the victims of crime. It's people living in Karama and
malacc you know, people who you know would traditionally be
labor voters. And we saw the NT election those seats
in the northern suburbs that have been Labour's heartland for
(10:04):
twenty four years just absolutely desert them because of that issue.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
So it's a challenge of young blokes who in the
mining industry. Yesterday they are actually on site and they
are over there working for the American company. But they're
Australian boys and they are loving it. They do their
shifts out there, they're out working really hard in a
really tough job for what I could see, and that
they love what they're doing. Remember it's not only about
their employment, it's about the indirect employment of their friends
and their families. And they go and spend the money
(10:31):
at the mechanic, at the hairdresser, so it flows right
through the community. So this whole gas industry, which I
fully support and not only looks after its workers, But
what about all the indirect jobs. And we pass road
trains when I drive from how It Springs carrying all
sorts of stuff going out to the minds. I can
only assume all that indirect stuff is all result of
the mining. And remember I don't know those in but
(10:52):
the money they pay in GST and royalty pays for
the nurses, the doctors, the healthy system, the education system
and all the police. Sore. If you're going to cut
the mining, which labor you know, I want to do,
who's going to pay for the hill, Who's going to
pay for all the police, Who's going to pay for
the education which is super important? So you've got to
get that balanced right, And I.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Think is it a bit of a juggle at the
moment for the labor party when you do have you know,
very extreme left trying to pull you one way, and
then you've got you know, I would consider you to
be like quite a working class, you know, middle Australia.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Kind of bloke. Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Is it difficult, you know, when you've got the party
being pulled one way.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
I think there's obviously been a bit of a tussle
go on because in urban areas, particularly down south. The
Greens who got a bit of a clipping which was
good to see in the Queensland election, you know, threatened
some labor seats and of course there is you know
(11:56):
then a bit of a reaction to say, well, I've
got to represent my constituency and that's our job, right.
But so I just got to pick up on something
I couldn't quite understand what Jerry was saying, that labor
has made significant investments in the Northern Territory like federal
labor I'm talking about because let's face it, the NT government,
(12:17):
they get the majority eighty percent of their funding from
the Commonwealth. So middle arm billions, those logistic hubs that
are going to make such a difference eight hundred and
forty million dollars going into our fewer rare earths. And
it goes a little bit to the real issue with
Donald Trump is what does it mean for us here
(12:39):
in the territory. I'm going to I think there'll be
more continuity than there will be change. Like, we're not Americans,
We're Australians. We're here in the Northern Territory. We've got
a long relationship with the United States, the Marines come
here and train, We're going to continue to see an
increase in interoperability. But that's only the military side. And
the alliance is strong and it will continue to be strong.
(13:01):
Our economic relationship is massive, like US investment in Australia
is huge, and actually Australian investment in US companies will
also be But then there's a critical minerals and the
renewables piece. Now that is another big pillar of the alliance,
and that'll continue to be strong. But I don't see
(13:21):
any evidence whatsoever that US federally are not going to
continue to lean in massively into the resources industry. I mean,
we need middle arm to work. We've put up a
substantial amount of money. And just getting back to the
crime thing, Cody, if I can quickly, because you and
I I've sat down with you and talked about how
(13:43):
I've been pushing in Canberra with our Attorney General to
get the then Attorney General Chancey to get the diversion
piece working. My only criticism of anyone who wants to
put kids into detentions one, we know that it can
it can have a negative effect. But what we've got
(14:05):
to do and I think and I think where we
went wrong is we lowered the age, but there weren't
there weren't the programs already in place well.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
And we can thank Chancey for that because he had
said that there was going.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
To be good. Take you back to another the point
you're making before, Luke about resources and middle arm and
just to come back to my point about that there
being a section, and I think it's a growing section
within territory labor who are opposed to such industries. I
mean a chance here's a tweet or a post that
Chancey put on Instagram, I think only a week or
(14:40):
two ago, says powers to exempt and fast tracked. These
are his words. Destructive projects like fracking and cotton expansion
are a massive blow for transparency, the rule of law
and community rights. That's that's one of the most senior
members of Territory Labor who's calling fracking and cotton destructive projects.
(15:02):
What what's what's your response?
Speaker 3 (15:06):
This is Chancey.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
His words, quote unquote about projects.
Speaker 6 (15:12):
This is about the territory control in the in the
concepts of the territory controller.
Speaker 5 (15:16):
But it's it. But he is quoting the words destructive
projects when he talks about fracking and cotton.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Right, So.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
Look, we all know that you need some checks and balances, right,
you don't want the environment wrecked, but you're also want
to have.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Do you think fracking and cotton are destructive projects?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Can? I just.
Speaker 6 (15:39):
K's doing a good job of interviewing all of us, mate, that's.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
What he's here for to help to help his sister out.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
I don't really understand what the question is. So someone
someone in territory in someone in the territory opposition doesn't like.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
As described as describers and describing describing fracking and cotton
as destructive projects.
Speaker 6 (16:17):
So we've got a cotton industry that's pretty sustainable from
what I can see, And as long as things stack
up commercially and environmentally, then of course gas gas production
out of the Beaterloo is going to be a positive
thing for the territory, jobs and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
What have you.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
But do we do we do need some environmental checks
and balances, and territories territorianes don't want our waterways before
we've had. Yeah, but I'm talking about Middle Arm. There's
lots of people that are concerned about Middle Arm. Middle
Arm is mostly most mostly middle Arm is mostly about
(17:00):
going to be powered by renewables and it's going to
be a great industry out there.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
You do know anything about We are.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Going to have to a break in just a moment.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
But can I just say that this goes to my
point right from the get go, that Labor is being
pushed quite left, right because you've got people that are
joining the Labor Party that are part of the Labor Party,
and rightly so right it's meant to be a party
that does represent people from all aspects of life. But
you've got somebody who was the former Attorney General saying
that projects like that are destructive.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
And I get that.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
You know that you are keen to have further jobs
in the Northern Territory and to get industry going.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
But it goes right back to the point from the get.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Go that is the Labor Party being dragged way further
one way than what the middle class of Australia wants.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
To be taken.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I can end that for you.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Yes, all right, we might take a very quick break.
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It is the week that was.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I can tell it's going to be a cracker the
rest of the hour in the studio with us this morning,
Luke Gousling, Jared Malee and Matt Cunningham. There is so
much to discuss this morning, but we might go to
the situation where the COLP reckon that they've identified two
hundred million dollars in savings as.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
They've promised to rebuild the economy.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
The Treasurer Bill Yan said that tough decisions were being
made to ensure that taxpayers money was put to the
right priorities and to help call back Labour's nine billion
dollars in debt. Now, the oppositions criticized the plans, saying
that during cyclone Marcus, a number of Darwin suburbs endured
power outages of up to eleven days due to infrastructure
(18:37):
damage caused by falling trees. Now, as part of these changes,
the COLP saying that they're not going to fund the
undergrounding of high voltage power lines, along with suspending negotiations
with the NBL about a local franchise and as a
result of that, deferring the upgrade to the Darwin Convention Center.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I mean, Jared, not everybody happy about.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
The undergrounding of power lines no longer going ahead in
some of those oldest yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
So look, ultimately there's a bit of a misconception about this.
The Labor have portrayed this says they're going to underground
all the power lines in all the suburbs. If you
go down your normal little streets in northern suburbs, those
power lines that go underground. That was never the case.
This is about undergrounding the major power lines that go
along the high I'm so bag it Road and those
feeder lines you could call it, which in a cyclone,
(19:21):
you know, obviously they're at risks two, but it's not
the inside the suburbs. They were never ever the plan
to do that. And remember Labor had a forecast off
doing it for sixty odd million in a number of
years ago for all the suburbs thirteen. It was going
to cost millions and millions in millions. It would be
another prison blowout. It just to be horrific. So there's
(19:41):
a bit of misconception of how that's going to be.
So what we're going to do is put that back
because right now we need to spend money on health,
education and the police to keep people safe. And it
was never going to be driving to the normal suburbs
and all the power lines to suddenly disappear, because that
was just completely outside our vow.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
How come you didn't didn't tell the at this before
the election.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Because ultimately we got into power and we've looked at
the books and the books have been cooked by the
Labor Party worse than you could ever imagine, so we've
had to go through.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
You must have known.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Actually, you must have thought to yourself, well, hang on,
there's going to be a few things that we've got
to cut here.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well this is this is about putting it off because
ultimately we're not cutting the power lines into the sub No.
Speaker 5 (20:19):
But you must have known because you remember the costings
that came out in the week before the election, and
there was like two hundred million dollars of savings in
those costings. And we asked Mary Claire Boothby on this show,
you know, and you said, they said, oh, we're going
to cut Labour's pet projects and what are they? And
she wouldn't say, wouldn't and couldn't say. And now miraculously
we've got these two hundred million dollars worth of savings.
That would presume that you knew before the election that
(20:40):
you were going to cut these I.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Think what's happened is post election is that the Treasurer
had to sit down with the Treasury people and said,
give us a real accurate breakdown of what's happening out there.
Because remember, as opposition, you don't get that, you just
get to see what's in the media. So now sitting
with the actual books, with the actual treasury of looking
at what these are and for example, the sixty million
dollars or something that was never going to be, what
(21:02):
is going to be and to finish what the perception
was that undergrounding was millions and millions and millions and millions.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
So did you have that discussion though as a wing
before the election saying look, these are the things we're
going to look at. We think that that undergrounding of power, No,
we might be excessive. You think the NBL and the
upgrade to the Convention Center might be No.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Not.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
What we did do before election is go, we need
to look at pre prioritizing some of these things what
they are going to be. We need to get action,
have a look at the bigs because we don't want
to just do bit by bit. We want to look
at the big picture here to work out what can
we do to make the sheriff you're safer place.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Suppose the question people are going to be asking is
what else is going to be cut? Because when I
spoke to Billion yesterday, he did say, yes, there was
the money for the undergrounding of power lines.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
He also spoke.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
About, you know, the the NBL team no longer going
ahead and the infrastructure associated with that then at the
waterfront down there or at the convention center down there.
But then he also talked about some of the projects
that hadn't been costed by the labor party to it
sort of sounded like there was a number of things
that were still going to cost money rather than they're
(22:05):
being sort of, you know, further savings measures. So I
think people are going to start to wonder, we'll hang
on a see how are you going to save some
of that money? And they might not necessarily disagree. Like
a lot of the messages that we're receiving yesterday, we're like, well, Katie,
if your household budget can't afford an upgrade on you know,
on whatever, you're not going to spend it. So people
are pretty sort of you know, a stud However, they're
(22:26):
still going to be gone well, hang on a second,
job's going to be cuddle, what's going to go on?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
This is about these unfunded commitments, and for example the NBL,
we're talking about what's actually committed in the budget. But
what labor have done on multiple front seas is they
do a project for five years, they put in the
budget for one year and it would be unfunded for
the next three or four years. And the NBL is
the classic example of this. Two hundred million is only
those three projects. But what they haven't done is they
haven't funded the extra eighty five million ied so moving forward,
(22:55):
so part of those savings are going to be is
we're actually going to take out the money that's in
the budget, but we're not going to put what's already
committed into the next future budget. If you understand what I'm.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Saying, the NBA are going to cost eighty five million
for years. Really that's what.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
That's what the Treasury of explained it to me. So
it was a lot a lot of money.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Because there was Lebron James must have been coming to play.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
So so that money is for those three projects, but
what we're doing is they are unfunded and they move forward.
So do you continue though you would have had to
fund them. So that's where all those sayings come in.
So the cuts we're talking about just those three because
there was a lot of money in the NBL, which
is the upgrade to the Convention Center, the actual end bill,
which was committed, and what is what wasn't committed, what
(23:37):
was actually it wasn't funded but committed to you understand?
Moving forward?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
All right, Well, look it's going to be an interesting one.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
I guess plenty of people will be keeping a very
close eye on just how those those funding announcements and
different funding or changes or carts come into place and
what it may mean for them. But look, we might
move along because there is really so much to discuss
this morning. And one of the big news stories which
is making headlines right around the nation today is the
fact that the Albanezy government have announced the confirmation of
(24:05):
the age limit at a press conference on Thursday. When
it comes to social media, the latest step in the
government's increasing scrutiny on those major tech platforms. They've got
plans to introduce this legislation into parliament later this month.
The government have announced that the intent is to legislate
an age limit, but have been deliberating on where to
(24:27):
set the threshold with expectations. Expectations would be between fourteen
and sixteen. Now my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Luke said it is going to be sixteen years of
age before young people can go on social media.
Speaker 6 (24:43):
The PM's obviously showing some leadership on this and has
got the premiers and Chief Ministers today and they're yarning
about it and seeing or he's obviously letting them know
the work that's been done to date on this. I
think it is an acknowledgement of what we're hearing from
(25:03):
parents all around the country that are really worried about
the social harm that comes from social media. Now, we
all know there's various ways that young people can not
only communicate with each other and send harmful things to
each other. We all understand that they're pretty tech savvy
and they've got lots of devices on which they can
(25:27):
sort of and a lot of that stuff's really positive,
and they're in touch with their mates and they're playing
games with their mates online.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
But there are a lot.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Of bad people out there who can use social media
to harm others.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
How is it going to be police?
Speaker 1 (25:43):
That's a big thing for me because I've actually got
kids said of that age, and actually, in fact everybody
in this room does. So how exactly is it going
to be policed.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
That's a good question that a lot of people are asking,
and I guess the PM is consulting today with the
premiers and First Ministers, who will have their own views
on how this will be best done. Obviously policing is
a state and territory responsibility, but federal law is going
(26:14):
to be important. We need to muscle up to the
big social media companies who have got a lot of
cloud who are going to push back against this. But
at the end of the day, it's about protecting our kids.
But that's something I'll be able to answer in a
bit more detail once we've got the draft legislation.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So I'm opposed to it. I actually don't think that
it's going to work.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I think that when you look at teenagers, when you
look at young people, I can't actually see how are
you going to be able to stop them from communicating
on different platforms? And like, I get what the government's
trying to do, and I totally understand it that you
know kids are accessing and able to see you know,
you look at some of the studies young boys able
to access things like pornographic material from when they're very young.
(26:55):
You know, girls seeing things online, looking at different body
shapes and how other women look and it being totally unrealistic. However,
they're going to be able to see those things with
the Internet.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
No matter what.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
And then when you look at some of the bullying
messages and things like that that are going on as well,
they've all got mobile phones, they're all still going to
be able to message each other that content. And then
in addition to that, there's all these gaming platforms where
predators can actually speak to them on their if you're
not keeping a close eye.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So I just sort of from a real.
Speaker 6 (27:25):
Parental responsibilities ob center mental but it's reducing their exposure
to the methods by which people who want to do
some harm. And that might be some creep in his
bedroom who wants to prey on kids, or it could
be a bully, and so there's still going to be means,
but it's reducing the amount of exposure that our I.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Don't think I reckon, it's just going to mean they'll
go to different platforms and actually communicate with each other
in that way, and I know that my opinion may
not be a possiblity with their lawrance.
Speaker 6 (27:55):
There will always be other ways that people can seek
to do to do things and connect with others. But
it's about reducing the number of platforms and having some
controls and putting a bit of power back into the parents' hands.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Well. Look, I see it as an overreach by government myself.
I see it as the government putting their hand into
my household and trying to tell me how to parent
my kids when I actually am very like I feel
as though I'm quite I'm quite good at supervising the
way in which they're doing it. I understand, I totally understand,
and I don't want to sound, you know, like a
wauser on this. I totally understand why the government's doing it,
(28:29):
and I totally understand the harms that social media bring
to so many homes, to so many young people. I'm
not discuating that, but I just think, if we can't
stop people from sharing crimes on platforms.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
You know, and that's what they see, how are we
going to stop them from introduce that posting and basing legislation?
So I know, you know, Lukesma might be hard to enforce,
but our one is quite it's there. It's all in legislation,
and if you post a crime to glorify it, there's
going to be consequence and it gives the police actual
power to go and do that. And I understand that
just recently someone may have been charged under that new law.
(29:06):
So ultimately what we want to really do is during
the week charged under it. So we don't know what's
going to happen to go through the course system, but
really it compliments what we want to try and do
to make it so if you use the internet to
post and boast, it is going.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
To be an I get your point, Katie, like I
do question how effective the law can be. I mean,
I think the government should be applauded for trying to
tackle it and trying to tackle the issue. I think
it's probably you know, what did Kevin Rudd called climate change?
You know, the greatest crisis of our time or something.
(29:43):
I think social media as trumped it by about fifty
people are literally dying every day due to social media.
I think when it comes to the regulation, I wonder,
and I know it's difficult, but I wonder whether the
government's efforts could be better directed at cracking down harder
(30:04):
on the social media companies. The great the great change
in social media was was not the initial invention of
social media. It was once these social media companies started
using the algorithm to shove more and more and more
and more content that was increasingly extreme down people's throats. Right,
(30:27):
so so, And there's been lots of examples of studies
done on this where you know, you you search one term, right,
and all of a sudden, you know in three clicks
you're being sent. You know you're being sent Nazi propaganda.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
This is us taking on the social media.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
Well, it is at an age level, but I'm wondering, Luke,
whether it's better.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Lots of conversations with whether whether it is.
Speaker 5 (30:50):
Better to say okay you know meta or okay x
or whatever if you sent, because I find I've got
I don't have social media, but I've got a stalker
a Facebook out and.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Someone's stalking you or you're stalking others.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
Just for professional purposes. But honestly, Katie, the only people
slash things I follow are boring Northern Territory politicians.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
And you're talking about two people antique you.
Speaker 5 (31:20):
But ninety percent of the content that comes up in
my feet is stuff I don't follow and have an
ass right, yeah, and I think we need to get
to a point where you say to meta and exit. Whoever,
if you send someone a post that is that is
not of communities and it's unsolicited, then there needs to
(31:42):
be a penalty.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
And this is the thing, This is much more of
a concern, right. But also to me, you know, the
what we're seeing now in terms of the deep fakes
and stuff like that, that's more of a concern to me,
Like I think to myself with our daughters. And there
was a story this morning on the news about a
young mum of a young girl whose daughter basically at school.
I believe the boys had somehow managed to use deep
(32:04):
fake to make it appear as though she had sent
nudes when she hadn't. You know, that's that's more of
a concern to me as a parent. That then, regardless
of whether you're on social media or not, images like that,
things like that can be created and then they can
be sent on Now that's utterly heartbreaking to me. And
they're going to be able to be sent regardless of whether.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
You Facebook or not.
Speaker 6 (32:25):
Then aren't on Facebook, then at least they don't see that.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Email they do, they just send it to each other. Look,
that's the thing.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
They just seeing it through social media because the parents
have been to being empowered to say, oh, look no
we're not going to do that. We're not going to
do social media just yet. We're just going to see
how you you know like, And they're thinking. Parents are smart,
They're going, look my child's development at this point in time,
and the kids are hanging around with and the school
(32:51):
that they're at, and these all these dynamics are happening.
It just gives them an extra piece of armor to
try and protect.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Agree with that point that as a parent, if you've
got a fourteen or fifteen year old, as I do
out top of you do that, if who wants to
get on social media, if you have the ability to
turn around and say, well, it's against the law. So
you know, it's illegal for you to be on social
media at fourteen or fifteen, so you can't be just like,
(33:21):
I mean, we all drank before we were eighteen, let's
be honest, but we had to go to great Well,
you probably could walk into the front bar in order
to beer Jared, but the rest of us couldn't, but
we had to go to greater leaks.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
To be able to do it.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Because look helps, we will take a really quick break.
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
It is the week that was.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
You are listening to the week that was. It's been
a very busy morning in here this morning. If you've
just joined us, We've.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Got Luke Gosling, Jared Mayley and Matt Cunningham. Now it's
been a really quite a busy week. And earlier in.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
The week, Larakia Elder Richard quit as the chair of
the Darwin Waterfront in a stand against the COLP lowering
the age of criminal responsibility, saying today I've resigned as
the chairman of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation in protests because
i will refuse to work for a government who's responsible
for locking up ten year old children. Everyone knows very
(34:18):
well that don Dale is full of Aboriginal children. And
I'll take my place with my people, and I'm here
to make a very clear statement. I will not play
any part of this, not in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Doctor Richard Fijo joined us on the show earlier in
the week, and I've got to say it really set.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
The text line off.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You know, some saying good on you that you've stood
up for what you believe in and you've stood by
your morals are the saying Katie, we haven't had a
ten year old go into don Dale or into the
new youth Detention center. And the government was very clear
in saying that they don't want to be sending ten
year old kids into youth detention. But we've had a
situation where there's not been consequences.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So you know, this all sort of came on.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
The same week that the new Youth Detention Center opened.
It's a discussion I think that we've sort of been
having now for weeks after the Colp government did relower
the age of criminal responsibility and that's now come into effect.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Look, Cardie, look everyone's entitled to their opinion and I
respect his decision for that, but look, we make no
apologies for inducing laws to make the charity a safer place.
You're right, there have been no consequences, and over the
last eight years, labor have just slowly, bit by bit
taken away the consequences. We're here to make the charity
a safer place. We have made laws to do that,
and we make no apologies, and remember our laws apply
(35:40):
to everybody, and simply if you don't want to go
into that area, don't commit a crime because there's going
to be a consequence. And I completely agree. We do
not want to lock ten year olds up. And in
fact I was at the New Youth Justice. They're not
that young there. They're the fifteen, sixteen, seventy year old
young offenders. These young people need help because you know,
I just wake up as a ten year old Katie
(36:01):
and go I'm going to go and steal a car today,
your train you learn into it because that family support
isn't there. So what we want to do is make
these children have a better opportunity to make better decisions
as they move older, so don't end up into the
cycle of going into your justice and then going into
the big prison and then just spending the whole life
in and out of prison. We want to make sure
that these children and the young offenders have his best
(36:23):
opportunity to make decisions to move forward. And without having
that because you can't do it voluntary, these children aren't
going to turn up to a voluntary training course. And
that's what that allows the police to give some certainty,
to be able to wrap around these children and support
them to make better decisions as they move forward. And
again I make no apologies. We want to make the
church you a safer place, full stop.
Speaker 6 (36:43):
What I want to see is I put up federally
six million bucks at the last federal election for a
youth engagement have been Casarina and the idea behind that
was so that for a start, kasquare secure. Really staff
could take young ones who are doing the wrong thing,
take them down to the youth engagement hub.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
But at that facility, which was to.
Speaker 6 (37:08):
Be at the Kasarina Old Casarina fire station, there would
be some programs there, some mentors. They'd be in a
safe place. You know, perhaps home wasn't safe, but that
youth engagement hub. I would really like to see the
COLPNT government crack on and get that established. The federal
funding is there and it was my number one commitment
(37:31):
two their last federal election.
Speaker 5 (37:34):
Why has nothing happened.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Well, it's obviously not a question.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
You got the funding for the anti government, that's right,
I just haven't delivered.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
What Well, it's still.
Speaker 6 (37:43):
There, So the funding is still there with government so
a site was selected, but it didn't get any further
pass that. So I'm just saying it is something real,
and it is one of those things to stop kids
going into detention, let's support them earlier.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Well, I think that's instructive as well, Katie, because we
know that in twenty twenty two, late twenty twenty two,
the Anti Government raised the age of criminal responsibility. Now
it had been on the table since twenty seventeen in
the Royal Commission. My understanding is that Michael Gunner had
always said up to those within his caucus who wanted
to raise the age of criminal responsibility, well, you guys
(38:19):
need to make sure and he even gave carriage of
this to them, you guys need to make sure that
the programs are in place before we do it. But
here you have an example of where Luke's gone out
and got six million dollars for the former Anti government
to put this thing in place, and it hasn't happened,
and yet they raise the age of criminal responsibility without
putting this sort of program. This is exactly the sort
(38:40):
of program we're talking about, without putting that sort of
program in place before they did it.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
And Luke said you know, for the security got to
take them down there without having any authority over You
can't just take someone down there. You can't just take
eleven year old by the hand you're walking neck because
that's physically an assault. So what we're saying is if
if they commit an offense, it gives the police opportunity
to say, look, we're going to put you through the
court system if you don't go through the diversion programs,
to those programs where you talk about, to give the
(39:05):
police opportunity to actually force them into those programs because
we know they're not going to do it voluntary. And
you can't just pick someone up and take them to
assault someone. You need to go there as a power
and the police have the power only when you can.
But if you're eleven under the previous or the police
had no power touch on it.
Speaker 1 (39:22):
Well you couldn't even actually put someone into a diversion program.
They had to voluntary go into it. Didn't age.
Speaker 4 (39:28):
No one took that up. We looked at the figures.
No one took up the voluntary programs because they need to.
Because these children aren't having a fight over a bag
of lollies, Katie. They're having you know, these kids are
fifty sixty times involved with the youth justice and the
family all that sort of stuff. So you know, these
children need support. And that's what the his allows the
authorities to give these people support on a managery basis
(39:49):
because then we know they're not going to do it
on a voluntary basis.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
To give them the judges will do you reckon the
judges will will go for it? Or are we going
to see a situation where some kids are going through
youth detention then going through the youth court? Sorry I
should say, and you know some and I don't know
because I can't. I don't actually think we can follow
stuff properly, can we, Matt in the youth court for us?
Speaker 4 (40:11):
Yeah, at least it's about giving the police a power
to not go to court because remember if you get
if you get arrested for doing an offense at eleven
year old, the police of opportunity to put you through
diversion and then they would draw the charge you. But
if you don't go through the diversion, then you go
through the system.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
I did learn about something a little bit earlier in
the week though, with Strikeforce Trident. They told me about
these different I think it's not called a good behavior bond,
but it's something similar where kids can be on a
behavior type agreement that's court ordered. And last week when
we had a situation where there was literally a car stolen,
(40:49):
they were throwing tools at you out the vehicle.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
At the police.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
My understanding, if I recall correctly, is at least one
of those people was on one of the agreements, so
clearly not behaving in the way that they are supposed
to be, and so it just makes me wonder how
effective some of the things are that we're currently doing.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Because we want to get back to the community service
where if you're going to commit that community service out
going out here in the park picking up the rubbish
and actually a real clear consequence. So if you commit
a crime or do something that's not right, there's going
to be a consequence, and like I said, we're going
to make no apology for that because we want to
make sure that these children have the support to move forward.
And it seems to be based on the evidence because
like I said, no voluntary at all, so we need
(41:30):
to force him into Yeah.
Speaker 6 (41:32):
Support includes having facilities like a youth engagement hub that
can can give the kids a bit of support so
that they don't go and do crime, because there's good
things to do with that youth engagement hub. You've got
the money from the federal government, so I think.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
The community wants year.
Speaker 6 (41:47):
But the community just wants to see you crack on.
I'm glad that we've got a new youth detention facility.
It's got much better infrastructure there to support the kids.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
So that's a good thing.
Speaker 6 (41:58):
But let's stop them from going in there because we
know that they can make connections in there that leads
to a higher level of crime in the future. Let's
try and do the preventative stuff as well as the
diversion stuff.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
We're going to have to take a very quick break.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
You are listening to Mix one oh four nine's three sixty.
I am just being told right now that the National
Cabinet has backed the social media plans to ban kids
under the age of sixteen from being able to access
social media. So be interesting to see how it all
rolls out.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
Now the detail will come yep.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
Well that's a Matt all we've got time for this morning.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
Jens.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
It's been great to have you all in the studio.
Matt Cunningham from Sky News, Thank you so much for
your time today.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
Thanks Katie.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Jared Mayley, the Deputy Chief Minister, thanks so much for
your time.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Luke Gosling, the Member for Solomon, Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3 (42:44):
Being great. Katie's great to be home.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Thank you
It is the week that was. And what a lineup
we've got for you this morning. For the Labor Party,
we have got the Member for Solomon, Luke Gosling.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good morning to you. Good to have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
To be back from Canberra.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Hey and a bit warmer, definitely a bit warmer because
of Parliament took me because of the weather.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
We've got Jared.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Mayley, the will Minister for various portfolios, the Deputy Chief Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Good to see you this morning, Jared.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Good morning Katie, and good morning listeners.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And we've got Matt Cunningham from Sky News. Matt, you've
been almost missing in action. We haven't seen you for
a few weeks.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Mate.
Speaker 5 (00:37):
Well, I was waiting for you to get a few
more blokes on the panel, Katy, before I agreed to
come back on.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
I mean, let's be honest.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Will be living now though living now with the forgotten.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Men have spoken, well, they certainly have, and we might
kick off with that.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
We know that.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Carmela Harris obviously forced to concede the election to Donald Trump,
saying she respects the result but would not give up
the fight that fueled her campaign. She said, the outcome
of this election is not what we wanted, not what
we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear
me when I say, the light of America's promise will
(01:16):
always burn bright as long as we never give up,
as long as we always keep fighting. There's a lot
to analyze, I think, out out of this American election.
But what I think I would say is that we've
seen here in the Northern Territory, we've seen in Queensland,
We've now seen in America the rise of the working class,
(01:38):
would you call it the middle class saying we've had enough,
We don't want to be sort of told how we
need to think and what we need to do. And
they're even prepared to vote for somebody who is a
convicted felon in Donald Trump, because they felt as though
Carmela Harris maybe wasn't going to represent them in the
way that they wanted.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
I think it's a clear message that people just want
to be left alone to get on with their lives
and do not want to be told what to do
and what to think. If you want to go and
have a go and create a new job or a
new pathway for yourself, go and have a go, have
a crack and I think that's what's happening. I think
that pendulum is swinging back from the wake side back
into you go out and have a go and encourage
(02:16):
people to make a go of their life.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Do you reckon it's also I mean the cost of
living discussion was a huge part of it as well.
From what I can gather, the same as what we're
saying here in Australia.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Obviously, when we do head to the.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Federal polls, there's no doubt that, you know, like we've
seen a lot of similarities. I think despite all of
our differences across the different campaigns, there's a lot of
similarities in the different campaigns we're seeing around the place.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
Cost of living wise, there's a big difference. Federally. It
just flew back from Camber. We had Parliament this week
and Dunden and that mob the Federal Coalition have opposed
every single cost of living thing that we've put up.
So that's card and student, that's getting tax cuts for everyone,
(03:02):
cheaper medicines, three hundred dollars off your power bills, every
single thing that we've legislated, they've opposed.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So I don't know.
Speaker 6 (03:13):
I think Dunn doesn't think it's about cost of living.
You must think everyone's going fine.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
What do you reckon?
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Like, what do you make of the election result in
the US? And do you look at it in any
ways in Australia and think how could things be similar?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Though as we do head to a federal election next year.
Speaker 6 (03:30):
He's always got to be in touch with the pressures
and the wants and desires of the population. And I
think there was in the States a bit of a
feeling like you guys, yeah, you're not really tapped into
the like our life and the pressures that were under
(03:51):
and when that happens, and I think to some extent
we saw that in the NT election as well, you
have a strong pushback. And let's face it, democracy is
so great because it allows every single person doesn't matter
how much money you got, doesn't matter how you identify
or whatever, you just get a vote. And so people
(04:13):
have spoken in the US, I think they don't exactly
know what they're going to get, particularly the working classes,
Like there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what a
tariff actually is and the impact that that might have
on working people. So but they haven't got the education
levels generally that we have in Australia, we've got a
more educated populace that is able to distinguish, I think,
(04:37):
between an offering that says we understand your pain and
we've got all these costs of living policies to support
you and your families, versus well, we've heard really nothing
from the other side.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
So do you worry though, that because something that I
found before the last Northern Territory election. I know I'm
sort of slipping between elections here, but.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Do you worry that.
Speaker 5 (04:58):
You know?
Speaker 1 (04:59):
What I heard really loudly and clearly before the last
Northern Territory election is that territories had had an absolute
gutful of sort of being told that issues were complicated
and they didn't quite understand them, and that they weren't
educated enough, or that they weren't maybe smart enough to
understand just how complicated those issues were to try to
deal with them. And I mean, even with what you've said,
(05:19):
they're talking about the tariffs and things like that that
maybe some people didn't understand exactly how they were voting.
Do you worry that ossies have actually had a bit
of a gutful of being told that they're maybe not
smart enough to understand things and that politicians know better.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
I think exactly what you're saying. Luke's mob was talking
about that, you know, talking about the working class. I
think the Labor government have forgotten the working class. I
don't know what they are. They're all up in their
high mighty well doing or what they do. And you know,
Luca was talking about, you know, tax cuts that Labor
promised and then they changed their mind. So when you're
talking about the you know, the silent minority who go
(05:55):
out there and know what's happening, and then when you
promise something like the Labor government and then change your
mind and do something differ, That's what the silent minority
of people out there in Australia are going to pick
up on it. You can't go out there and don't
changed your mind because people.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Are going to hate tax cut. Really, really, what are
you talking about, you even.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
Ultimately, is about the silent minority been out there to
go out and do their business, make their money, look
after their family and keep their family safe, which is
unfortunately happening in the Northern Territory and in Queensland. Labor
failed him. Relating to that and Labor's failing and federally
as well.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
I think I think on the tax cut issue, like
I think the tax cut issue, Stage three tax cuts
is an example of a labor government doing what a
labor government should do, which which is basically look after
those who are less well off. And the changes that
labor made even though they broke an election promise. Anthony
Albaneze had said countless times that there'd be no changes
to the Stage three tax cuts. But but the changes
(06:52):
he made basically read distributed some of that money from
higher income earners to middle and lower income earners. That
that that is the bread and butter of a labor government.
But I do think that we are seeing we have
seen and I think we've seen it in the Northern Territory,
We've seen it in Queensland, We've seen it now in
the United States. I do think there is at some
(07:14):
level a rejection from working class people, predominantly male people,
a rejection of a new kind of identity politics that
left leaning parties have fallen into. And that's not just
my view, I mean cos Samaras right, who predicted the
outcome of the Northern Territory election nine months ahead of time,
(07:36):
said it was going to be an former labor strategist
and upholster, and he said it was going to be
an absolute landslide CLBP victory based on his piling, and
he said that the baseball bats are out. He said
this after the US election. He says that Donald Trump's
victory revealed a deepening divide between traditional working class voters
and the established left leaning parties, a trend he says
(07:58):
he's reshaping politics across the Western world, including in Australia.
The Queensland state election underscored a growing separation between urban
progressives and the working poor in regional areas, traditional labor
aligned parties are now drawing support largely from university education
educated professionals, while leaving regional and working class voters feeling
(08:21):
neglected and unheard. And I think we've seen a bit
of that in the Northern Territory. I think we've seen
a lot of it in Queensland, and we've seen it
in spades in the United States. And to use an
example here with territory labor, there are large parts of
territory labor who oppose the onshore gas industry. And I
find that for the Labor Party, I find that and
(08:41):
I'd be interested to hear Luke's few and I know
he's a supporter of the onshore gas industry, But there
is a large part of the Labor Party that is
fundamentally absolutely opposed to onshore gas fracking, which is an
industry that has the potential to deliver thousands of well
paid blue collar jobs to people who would traditionally be
(09:01):
labor voters. And yet there's a large section of that
party now who just says no way, because they've sort
of fallen in you know, I think they're more worried
about the Greens on their left flank than they are
about looking after their traditional base, and that's going to
be a real problem going forward for Labor.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Well, that's one example.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
But then even when you look at before the last
Northern Territory election, when you've got a huge portion of
the Northern Territory population experiencing severe issues with crime, and
then you've got an Attorney General that's coming out saying
jailing is failing and doing the very opposite to what
the community expects. Again, I think you go, like to me,
that goes back to listening to you know, listening to
(09:39):
people and listening to you know, no matter where you
come from.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
Are most likely the victims of that crime are people
who live in less well off suburbs. I mean, it's
generally not people in Culum Bay and Bayview who are
the victims of crime. It's people living in Karama and
malacc you know, people who you know would traditionally be
labor voters. And we saw the NT election those seats
in the northern suburbs that have been Labour's heartland for
(10:04):
twenty four years just absolutely desert them because of that issue.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
So it's a challenge of young blokes who in the
mining industry. Yesterday they are actually on site and they
are over there working for the American company. But they're
Australian boys and they are loving it. They do their
shifts out there, they're out working really hard in a
really tough job for what I could see, and that
they love what they're doing. Remember it's not only about
their employment, it's about the indirect employment of their friends
and their families. And they go and spend the money
(10:31):
at the mechanic, at the hairdresser, so it flows right
through the community. So this whole gas industry, which I
fully support and not only looks after its workers, But
what about all the indirect jobs. And we pass road
trains when I drive from how It Springs carrying all
sorts of stuff going out to the minds. I can
only assume all that indirect stuff is all result of
the mining. And remember I don't know those in but
(10:52):
the money they pay in GST and royalty pays for
the nurses, the doctors, the healthy system, the education system
and all the police. Sore. If you're going to cut
the mining, which labor you know, I want to do,
who's going to pay for the hill, Who's going to
pay for all the police, Who's going to pay for
the education which is super important? So you've got to
get that balanced right, And I.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Think is it a bit of a juggle at the
moment for the labor party when you do have you know,
very extreme left trying to pull you one way, and
then you've got you know, I would consider you to
be like quite a working class, you know, middle Australia.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Kind of bloke. Maybe I'm wrong.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Is it difficult, you know, when you've got the party
being pulled one way.
Speaker 6 (11:33):
I think there's obviously been a bit of a tussle
go on because in urban areas, particularly down south. The
Greens who got a bit of a clipping which was
good to see in the Queensland election, you know, threatened
some labor seats and of course there is you know
(11:56):
then a bit of a reaction to say, well, I've
got to represent my constituency and that's our job, right.
But so I just got to pick up on something
I couldn't quite understand what Jerry was saying, that labor
has made significant investments in the Northern Territory like federal
labor I'm talking about because let's face it, the NT government,
(12:17):
they get the majority eighty percent of their funding from
the Commonwealth. So middle arm billions, those logistic hubs that
are going to make such a difference eight hundred and
forty million dollars going into our fewer rare earths. And
it goes a little bit to the real issue with
Donald Trump is what does it mean for us here
(12:39):
in the territory. I'm going to I think there'll be
more continuity than there will be change. Like, we're not Americans,
We're Australians. We're here in the Northern Territory. We've got
a long relationship with the United States, the Marines come
here and train, We're going to continue to see an
increase in interoperability. But that's only the military side. And
the alliance is strong and it will continue to be strong.
(13:01):
Our economic relationship is massive, like US investment in Australia
is huge, and actually Australian investment in US companies will
also be But then there's a critical minerals and the
renewables piece. Now that is another big pillar of the alliance,
and that'll continue to be strong. But I don't see
(13:21):
any evidence whatsoever that US federally are not going to
continue to lean in massively into the resources industry. I mean,
we need middle arm to work. We've put up a
substantial amount of money. And just getting back to the
crime thing, Cody, if I can quickly, because you and
I I've sat down with you and talked about how
(13:43):
I've been pushing in Canberra with our Attorney General to
get the then Attorney General Chancey to get the diversion
piece working. My only criticism of anyone who wants to
put kids into detentions one, we know that it can
it can have a negative effect. But what we've got
(14:05):
to do and I think and I think where we
went wrong is we lowered the age, but there weren't
there weren't the programs already in place well.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
And we can thank Chancey for that because he had
said that there was going.
Speaker 5 (14:17):
To be good. Take you back to another the point
you're making before, Luke about resources and middle arm and
just to come back to my point about that there
being a section, and I think it's a growing section
within territory labor who are opposed to such industries. I
mean a chance here's a tweet or a post that
Chancey put on Instagram, I think only a week or
(14:40):
two ago, says powers to exempt and fast tracked. These
are his words. Destructive projects like fracking and cotton expansion
are a massive blow for transparency, the rule of law
and community rights. That's that's one of the most senior
members of Territory Labor who's calling fracking and cotton destructive projects.
(15:02):
What what's what's your response?
Speaker 3 (15:06):
This is Chancey.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
His words, quote unquote about projects.
Speaker 6 (15:12):
This is about the territory control in the in the
concepts of the territory controller.
Speaker 5 (15:16):
But it's it. But he is quoting the words destructive
projects when he talks about fracking and cotton.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Right, So.
Speaker 6 (15:24):
Look, we all know that you need some checks and balances, right,
you don't want the environment wrecked, but you're also want
to have.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Do you think fracking and cotton are destructive projects?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Can? I just.
Speaker 6 (15:39):
K's doing a good job of interviewing all of us, mate, that's.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
What he's here for to help to help his sister out.
Speaker 6 (15:57):
I don't really understand what the question is. So someone
someone in territory in someone in the territory opposition doesn't like.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
As described as describers and describing describing fracking and cotton
as destructive projects.
Speaker 6 (16:17):
So we've got a cotton industry that's pretty sustainable from
what I can see, And as long as things stack
up commercially and environmentally, then of course gas gas production
out of the Beaterloo is going to be a positive
thing for the territory, jobs and.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
What have you.
Speaker 6 (16:37):
But do we do we do need some environmental checks
and balances, and territories territorianes don't want our waterways before
we've had. Yeah, but I'm talking about Middle Arm. There's
lots of people that are concerned about Middle Arm. Middle
Arm is mostly most mostly middle Arm is mostly about
(17:00):
going to be powered by renewables and it's going to
be a great industry out there.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
You do know anything about We are.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Going to have to a break in just a moment.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
But can I just say that this goes to my
point right from the get go, that Labor is being
pushed quite left, right because you've got people that are
joining the Labor Party that are part of the Labor Party,
and rightly so right it's meant to be a party
that does represent people from all aspects of life. But
you've got somebody who was the former Attorney General saying
that projects like that are destructive.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
And I get that.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
You know that you are keen to have further jobs
in the Northern Territory and to get industry going.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
But it goes right back to the point from the get.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Go that is the Labor Party being dragged way further
one way than what the middle class of Australia wants.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
To be taken.
Speaker 4 (17:50):
I can end that for you.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Yes, all right, we might take a very quick break.
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It is the week that was.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
I can tell it's going to be a cracker the
rest of the hour in the studio with us this morning,
Luke Gousling, Jared Malee and Matt Cunningham. There is so
much to discuss this morning, but we might go to
the situation where the COLP reckon that they've identified two
hundred million dollars in savings as.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
They've promised to rebuild the economy.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
The Treasurer Bill Yan said that tough decisions were being
made to ensure that taxpayers money was put to the
right priorities and to help call back Labour's nine billion
dollars in debt. Now, the oppositions criticized the plans, saying
that during cyclone Marcus, a number of Darwin suburbs endured
power outages of up to eleven days due to infrastructure
(18:37):
damage caused by falling trees. Now, as part of these changes,
the COLP saying that they're not going to fund the
undergrounding of high voltage power lines, along with suspending negotiations
with the NBL about a local franchise and as a
result of that, deferring the upgrade to the Darwin Convention Center.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I mean, Jared, not everybody happy about.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
The undergrounding of power lines no longer going ahead in
some of those oldest yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
So look, ultimately there's a bit of a misconception about this.
The Labor have portrayed this says they're going to underground
all the power lines in all the suburbs. If you
go down your normal little streets in northern suburbs, those
power lines that go underground. That was never the case.
This is about undergrounding the major power lines that go
along the high I'm so bag it Road and those
feeder lines you could call it, which in a cyclone,
(19:21):
you know, obviously they're at risks two, but it's not
the inside the suburbs. They were never ever the plan
to do that. And remember Labor had a forecast off
doing it for sixty odd million in a number of
years ago for all the suburbs thirteen. It was going
to cost millions and millions in millions. It would be
another prison blowout. It just to be horrific. So there's
(19:41):
a bit of misconception of how that's going to be.
So what we're going to do is put that back
because right now we need to spend money on health,
education and the police to keep people safe. And it
was never going to be driving to the normal suburbs
and all the power lines to suddenly disappear, because that
was just completely outside our vow.
Speaker 5 (19:57):
How come you didn't didn't tell the at this before
the election.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Because ultimately we got into power and we've looked at
the books and the books have been cooked by the
Labor Party worse than you could ever imagine, so we've
had to go through.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
You must have known.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Actually, you must have thought to yourself, well, hang on,
there's going to be a few things that we've got
to cut here.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well this is this is about putting it off because
ultimately we're not cutting the power lines into the sub No.
Speaker 5 (20:19):
But you must have known because you remember the costings
that came out in the week before the election, and
there was like two hundred million dollars of savings in
those costings. And we asked Mary Claire Boothby on this show,
you know, and you said, they said, oh, we're going
to cut Labour's pet projects and what are they? And
she wouldn't say, wouldn't and couldn't say. And now miraculously
we've got these two hundred million dollars worth of savings.
That would presume that you knew before the election that
(20:40):
you were going to cut these I.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Think what's happened is post election is that the Treasurer
had to sit down with the Treasury people and said,
give us a real accurate breakdown of what's happening out there.
Because remember, as opposition, you don't get that, you just
get to see what's in the media. So now sitting
with the actual books, with the actual treasury of looking
at what these are and for example, the sixty million
dollars or something that was never going to be, what
(21:02):
is going to be and to finish what the perception
was that undergrounding was millions and millions and millions and millions.
Speaker 5 (21:07):
So did you have that discussion though as a wing
before the election saying look, these are the things we're
going to look at. We think that that undergrounding of power, No,
we might be excessive. You think the NBL and the
upgrade to the Convention Center might be No.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Not.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
What we did do before election is go, we need
to look at pre prioritizing some of these things what
they are going to be. We need to get action,
have a look at the bigs because we don't want
to just do bit by bit. We want to look
at the big picture here to work out what can
we do to make the sheriff you're safer place.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
Suppose the question people are going to be asking is
what else is going to be cut? Because when I
spoke to Billion yesterday, he did say, yes, there was
the money for the undergrounding of power lines.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
He also spoke.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
About, you know, the the NBL team no longer going
ahead and the infrastructure associated with that then at the
waterfront down there or at the convention center down there.
But then he also talked about some of the projects
that hadn't been costed by the labor party to it
sort of sounded like there was a number of things
that were still going to cost money rather than they're
(22:05):
being sort of, you know, further savings measures. So I
think people are going to start to wonder, we'll hang
on a see how are you going to save some
of that money? And they might not necessarily disagree. Like
a lot of the messages that we're receiving yesterday, we're like, well, Katie,
if your household budget can't afford an upgrade on you know,
on whatever, you're not going to spend it. So people
are pretty sort of you know, a stud However, they're
(22:26):
still going to be gone well, hang on a second,
job's going to be cuddle, what's going to go on?
Speaker 4 (22:31):
This is about these unfunded commitments, and for example the NBL,
we're talking about what's actually committed in the budget. But
what labor have done on multiple front seas is they
do a project for five years, they put in the
budget for one year and it would be unfunded for
the next three or four years. And the NBL is
the classic example of this. Two hundred million is only
those three projects. But what they haven't done is they
haven't funded the extra eighty five million ied so moving forward,
(22:55):
so part of those savings are going to be is
we're actually going to take out the money that's in
the budget, but we're not going to put what's already
committed into the next future budget. If you understand what I'm.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Saying, the NBA are going to cost eighty five million
for years. Really that's what.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
That's what the Treasury of explained it to me. So
it was a lot a lot of money.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Because there was Lebron James must have been coming to play.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
So so that money is for those three projects, but
what we're doing is they are unfunded and they move forward.
So do you continue though you would have had to
fund them. So that's where all those sayings come in.
So the cuts we're talking about just those three because
there was a lot of money in the NBL, which
is the upgrade to the Convention Center, the actual end bill,
which was committed, and what is what wasn't committed, what
(23:37):
was actually it wasn't funded but committed to you understand?
Moving forward?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
All right, Well, look it's going to be an interesting one.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
I guess plenty of people will be keeping a very
close eye on just how those those funding announcements and
different funding or changes or carts come into place and
what it may mean for them. But look, we might
move along because there is really so much to discuss
this morning. And one of the big news stories which
is making headlines right around the nation today is the
fact that the Albanezy government have announced the confirmation of
(24:05):
the age limit at a press conference on Thursday. When
it comes to social media, the latest step in the
government's increasing scrutiny on those major tech platforms. They've got
plans to introduce this legislation into parliament later this month.
The government have announced that the intent is to legislate
an age limit, but have been deliberating on where to
(24:27):
set the threshold with expectations. Expectations would be between fourteen
and sixteen. Now my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Luke said it is going to be sixteen years of
age before young people can go on social media.
Speaker 6 (24:43):
The PM's obviously showing some leadership on this and has
got the premiers and Chief Ministers today and they're yarning
about it and seeing or he's obviously letting them know
the work that's been done to date on this. I
think it is an acknowledgement of what we're hearing from
(25:03):
parents all around the country that are really worried about
the social harm that comes from social media. Now, we
all know there's various ways that young people can not
only communicate with each other and send harmful things to
each other. We all understand that they're pretty tech savvy
and they've got lots of devices on which they can
(25:27):
sort of and a lot of that stuff's really positive,
and they're in touch with their mates and they're playing
games with their mates online.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
But there are a lot.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Of bad people out there who can use social media
to harm others.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
How is it going to be police?
Speaker 1 (25:43):
That's a big thing for me because I've actually got
kids said of that age, and actually, in fact everybody
in this room does. So how exactly is it going
to be policed.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
That's a good question that a lot of people are asking,
and I guess the PM is consulting today with the
premiers and First Ministers, who will have their own views
on how this will be best done. Obviously policing is
a state and territory responsibility, but federal law is going
(26:14):
to be important. We need to muscle up to the
big social media companies who have got a lot of
cloud who are going to push back against this. But
at the end of the day, it's about protecting our kids.
But that's something I'll be able to answer in a
bit more detail once we've got the draft legislation.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
So I'm opposed to it. I actually don't think that
it's going to work.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I think that when you look at teenagers, when you
look at young people, I can't actually see how are
you going to be able to stop them from communicating
on different platforms? And like, I get what the government's
trying to do, and I totally understand it that you
know kids are accessing and able to see you know,
you look at some of the studies young boys able
to access things like pornographic material from when they're very young.
(26:55):
You know, girls seeing things online, looking at different body
shapes and how other women look and it being totally unrealistic. However,
they're going to be able to see those things with
the Internet.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
No matter what.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
And then when you look at some of the bullying
messages and things like that that are going on as well,
they've all got mobile phones, they're all still going to
be able to message each other that content. And then
in addition to that, there's all these gaming platforms where
predators can actually speak to them on their if you're
not keeping a close eye.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So I just sort of from a real.
Speaker 6 (27:25):
Parental responsibilities ob center mental but it's reducing their exposure
to the methods by which people who want to do
some harm. And that might be some creep in his
bedroom who wants to prey on kids, or it could
be a bully, and so there's still going to be means,
but it's reducing the amount of exposure that our I.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Don't think I reckon, it's just going to mean they'll
go to different platforms and actually communicate with each other
in that way, and I know that my opinion may
not be a possiblity with their lawrance.
Speaker 6 (27:55):
There will always be other ways that people can seek
to do to do things and connect with others. But
it's about reducing the number of platforms and having some
controls and putting a bit of power back into the parents' hands.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Well. Look, I see it as an overreach by government myself.
I see it as the government putting their hand into
my household and trying to tell me how to parent
my kids when I actually am very like I feel
as though I'm quite I'm quite good at supervising the
way in which they're doing it. I understand, I totally understand,
and I don't want to sound, you know, like a
wauser on this. I totally understand why the government's doing it,
(28:29):
and I totally understand the harms that social media bring
to so many homes, to so many young people. I'm
not discuating that, but I just think, if we can't
stop people from sharing crimes on platforms.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
You know, and that's what they see, how are we
going to stop them from introduce that posting and basing legislation?
So I know, you know, Lukesma might be hard to enforce,
but our one is quite it's there. It's all in legislation,
and if you post a crime to glorify it, there's
going to be consequence and it gives the police actual
power to go and do that. And I understand that
just recently someone may have been charged under that new law.
(29:06):
So ultimately what we want to really do is during
the week charged under it. So we don't know what's
going to happen to go through the course system, but
really it compliments what we want to try and do
to make it so if you use the internet to
post and boast, it is going.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
To be an I get your point, Katie, like I
do question how effective the law can be. I mean,
I think the government should be applauded for trying to
tackle it and trying to tackle the issue. I think
it's probably you know, what did Kevin Rudd called climate change?
You know, the greatest crisis of our time or something.
(29:43):
I think social media as trumped it by about fifty
people are literally dying every day due to social media.
I think when it comes to the regulation, I wonder,
and I know it's difficult, but I wonder whether the
government's efforts could be better directed at cracking down harder
(30:04):
on the social media companies. The great the great change
in social media was was not the initial invention of
social media. It was once these social media companies started
using the algorithm to shove more and more and more
and more content that was increasingly extreme down people's throats. Right,
(30:27):
so so, And there's been lots of examples of studies
done on this where you know, you you search one term, right,
and all of a sudden, you know in three clicks
you're being sent. You know you're being sent Nazi propaganda.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
This is us taking on the social media.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
Well, it is at an age level, but I'm wondering, Luke,
whether it's better.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Lots of conversations with whether whether it is.
Speaker 5 (30:50):
Better to say okay you know meta or okay x
or whatever if you sent, because I find I've got
I don't have social media, but I've got a stalker
a Facebook out and.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Someone's stalking you or you're stalking others.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
Just for professional purposes. But honestly, Katie, the only people
slash things I follow are boring Northern Territory politicians.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
And you're talking about two people antique you.
Speaker 5 (31:20):
But ninety percent of the content that comes up in
my feet is stuff I don't follow and have an
ass right, yeah, and I think we need to get
to a point where you say to meta and exit. Whoever,
if you send someone a post that is that is
not of communities and it's unsolicited, then there needs to
(31:42):
be a penalty.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
And this is the thing, This is much more of
a concern, right. But also to me, you know, the
what we're seeing now in terms of the deep fakes
and stuff like that, that's more of a concern to me,
Like I think to myself with our daughters. And there
was a story this morning on the news about a
young mum of a young girl whose daughter basically at school.
I believe the boys had somehow managed to use deep
(32:04):
fake to make it appear as though she had sent
nudes when she hadn't. You know, that's that's more of
a concern to me as a parent. That then, regardless
of whether you're on social media or not, images like that,
things like that can be created and then they can
be sent on Now that's utterly heartbreaking to me. And
they're going to be able to be sent regardless of whether.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
You Facebook or not.
Speaker 6 (32:25):
Then aren't on Facebook, then at least they don't see that.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Email they do, they just send it to each other. Look,
that's the thing.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
They just seeing it through social media because the parents
have been to being empowered to say, oh, look no
we're not going to do that. We're not going to
do social media just yet. We're just going to see
how you you know like, And they're thinking. Parents are smart,
They're going, look my child's development at this point in time,
and the kids are hanging around with and the school
(32:51):
that they're at, and these all these dynamics are happening.
It just gives them an extra piece of armor to
try and protect.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Agree with that point that as a parent, if you've
got a fourteen or fifteen year old, as I do
out top of you do that, if who wants to
get on social media, if you have the ability to
turn around and say, well, it's against the law. So
you know, it's illegal for you to be on social
media at fourteen or fifteen, so you can't be just like,
(33:21):
I mean, we all drank before we were eighteen, let's
be honest, but we had to go to great Well,
you probably could walk into the front bar in order
to beer Jared, but the rest of us couldn't, but
we had to go to greater leaks.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
To be able to do it.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Because look helps, we will take a really quick break.
You are listening to Mix one O four nine's three sixty.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
It is the week that was.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
You are listening to the week that was. It's been
a very busy morning in here this morning. If you've
just joined us, We've.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Got Luke Gosling, Jared Mayley and Matt Cunningham. Now it's
been a really quite a busy week. And earlier in.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
The week, Larakia Elder Richard quit as the chair of
the Darwin Waterfront in a stand against the COLP lowering
the age of criminal responsibility, saying today I've resigned as
the chairman of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation in protests because
i will refuse to work for a government who's responsible
for locking up ten year old children. Everyone knows very
(34:18):
well that don Dale is full of Aboriginal children. And
I'll take my place with my people, and I'm here
to make a very clear statement. I will not play
any part of this, not in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Doctor Richard Fijo joined us on the show earlier in
the week, and I've got to say it really set.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
The text line off.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You know, some saying good on you that you've stood
up for what you believe in and you've stood by
your morals are the saying Katie, we haven't had a
ten year old go into don Dale or into the
new youth Detention center. And the government was very clear
in saying that they don't want to be sending ten
year old kids into youth detention. But we've had a
situation where there's not been consequences.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So you know, this all sort of came on.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
The same week that the new Youth Detention Center opened.
It's a discussion I think that we've sort of been
having now for weeks after the Colp government did relower
the age of criminal responsibility and that's now come into effect.
Speaker 4 (35:18):
Look, Cardie, look everyone's entitled to their opinion and I
respect his decision for that, but look, we make no
apologies for inducing laws to make the charity a safer place.
You're right, there have been no consequences, and over the
last eight years, labor have just slowly, bit by bit
taken away the consequences. We're here to make the charity
a safer place. We have made laws to do that,
and we make no apologies, and remember our laws apply
(35:40):
to everybody, and simply if you don't want to go
into that area, don't commit a crime because there's going
to be a consequence. And I completely agree. We do
not want to lock ten year olds up. And in
fact I was at the New Youth Justice. They're not
that young there. They're the fifteen, sixteen, seventy year old
young offenders. These young people need help because you know,
I just wake up as a ten year old Katie
(36:01):
and go I'm going to go and steal a car today,
your train you learn into it because that family support
isn't there. So what we want to do is make
these children have a better opportunity to make better decisions
as they move older, so don't end up into the
cycle of going into your justice and then going into
the big prison and then just spending the whole life
in and out of prison. We want to make sure
that these children and the young offenders have his best
(36:23):
opportunity to make decisions to move forward. And without having
that because you can't do it voluntary, these children aren't
going to turn up to a voluntary training course. And
that's what that allows the police to give some certainty,
to be able to wrap around these children and support
them to make better decisions as they move forward. And
again I make no apologies. We want to make the
church you a safer place, full stop.
Speaker 6 (36:43):
What I want to see is I put up federally
six million bucks at the last federal election for a
youth engagement have been Casarina and the idea behind that
was so that for a start, kasquare secure. Really staff
could take young ones who are doing the wrong thing,
take them down to the youth engagement hub.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
But at that facility, which was to.
Speaker 6 (37:08):
Be at the Kasarina Old Casarina fire station, there would
be some programs there, some mentors. They'd be in a
safe place. You know, perhaps home wasn't safe, but that
youth engagement hub. I would really like to see the
COLPNT government crack on and get that established. The federal
funding is there and it was my number one commitment
(37:31):
two their last federal election.
Speaker 5 (37:34):
Why has nothing happened.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Well, it's obviously not a question.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
You got the funding for the anti government, that's right,
I just haven't delivered.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
What Well, it's still.
Speaker 6 (37:43):
There, So the funding is still there with government so
a site was selected, but it didn't get any further
pass that. So I'm just saying it is something real,
and it is one of those things to stop kids
going into detention, let's support them earlier.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Well, I think that's instructive as well, Katie, because we
know that in twenty twenty two, late twenty twenty two,
the Anti Government raised the age of criminal responsibility. Now
it had been on the table since twenty seventeen in
the Royal Commission. My understanding is that Michael Gunner had
always said up to those within his caucus who wanted
to raise the age of criminal responsibility, well, you guys
(38:19):
need to make sure and he even gave carriage of
this to them, you guys need to make sure that
the programs are in place before we do it. But
here you have an example of where Luke's gone out
and got six million dollars for the former Anti government
to put this thing in place, and it hasn't happened,
and yet they raise the age of criminal responsibility without
putting this sort of program. This is exactly the sort
(38:40):
of program we're talking about, without putting that sort of
program in place before they did it.
Speaker 4 (38:45):
And Luke said you know, for the security got to
take them down there without having any authority over You
can't just take someone down there. You can't just take
eleven year old by the hand you're walking neck because
that's physically an assault. So what we're saying is if
if they commit an offense, it gives the police opportunity
to say, look, we're going to put you through the
court system if you don't go through the diversion programs,
to those programs where you talk about, to give the
(39:05):
police opportunity to actually force them into those programs because
we know they're not going to do it voluntary. And
you can't just pick someone up and take them to
assault someone. You need to go there as a power
and the police have the power only when you can.
But if you're eleven under the previous or the police
had no power touch on it.
Speaker 1 (39:22):
Well you couldn't even actually put someone into a diversion program.
They had to voluntary go into it. Didn't age.
Speaker 4 (39:28):
No one took that up. We looked at the figures.
No one took up the voluntary programs because they need to.
Because these children aren't having a fight over a bag
of lollies, Katie. They're having you know, these kids are
fifty sixty times involved with the youth justice and the
family all that sort of stuff. So you know, these
children need support. And that's what the his allows the
authorities to give these people support on a managery basis
(39:49):
because then we know they're not going to do it
on a voluntary basis.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
To give them the judges will do you reckon the
judges will will go for it? Or are we going
to see a situation where some kids are going through
youth detention then going through the youth court? Sorry I
should say, and you know some and I don't know
because I can't. I don't actually think we can follow
stuff properly, can we, Matt in the youth court for us?
Speaker 4 (40:11):
Yeah, at least it's about giving the police a power
to not go to court because remember if you get
if you get arrested for doing an offense at eleven
year old, the police of opportunity to put you through
diversion and then they would draw the charge you. But
if you don't go through the diversion, then you go
through the system.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
I did learn about something a little bit earlier in
the week though, with Strikeforce Trident. They told me about
these different I think it's not called a good behavior bond,
but it's something similar where kids can be on a
behavior type agreement that's court ordered. And last week when
we had a situation where there was literally a car stolen,
(40:49):
they were throwing tools at you out the vehicle.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
At the police.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
My understanding, if I recall correctly, is at least one
of those people was on one of the agreements, so
clearly not behaving in the way that they are supposed
to be, and so it just makes me wonder how
effective some of the things are that we're currently doing.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Because we want to get back to the community service
where if you're going to commit that community service out
going out here in the park picking up the rubbish
and actually a real clear consequence. So if you commit
a crime or do something that's not right, there's going
to be a consequence, and like I said, we're going
to make no apology for that because we want to
make sure that these children have the support to move forward.
And it seems to be based on the evidence because
like I said, no voluntary at all, so we need
(41:30):
to force him into Yeah.
Speaker 6 (41:32):
Support includes having facilities like a youth engagement hub that
can can give the kids a bit of support so
that they don't go and do crime, because there's good
things to do with that youth engagement hub. You've got
the money from the federal government, so I think.
Speaker 3 (41:45):
The community wants year.
Speaker 6 (41:47):
But the community just wants to see you crack on.
I'm glad that we've got a new youth detention facility.
It's got much better infrastructure there to support the kids.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
So that's a good thing.
Speaker 6 (41:58):
But let's stop them from going in there because we
know that they can make connections in there that leads
to a higher level of crime in the future. Let's
try and do the preventative stuff as well as the
diversion stuff.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
We're going to have to take a very quick break.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
You are listening to Mix one oh four nine's three sixty.
I am just being told right now that the National
Cabinet has backed the social media plans to ban kids
under the age of sixteen from being able to access
social media. So be interesting to see how it all
rolls out.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
Now the detail will come yep.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
Well that's a Matt all we've got time for this morning.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
Jens.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
It's been great to have you all in the studio.
Matt Cunningham from Sky News, Thank you so much for
your time today.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
Thanks Katie.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Jared Mayley, the Deputy Chief Minister, thanks so much for
your time.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Luke Gosling, the Member for Solomon, Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3 (42:44):
Being great. Katie's great to be home.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Thank you
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!