Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 <silence>
Speaker 1 00:00:09 Hello and welcome to the first episode of Aussie Earful. I'm Reuben Barton, and I'm joined by my co-host Greg Pavlos. Today we have some pretty good topics to start us off. We'll be talking about the voice referendum, looking from both sides, the pay gap in sports, and finally some water cooler banter to finish us off. So, I reckon, let's just dive straight into it, the voice. Gregory, what do you think the voice is all about? Gives a rundown.
Speaker 2 00:00:36 Ooh, from, uh, my perspective, the voice, this will be interesting. Well, from, from what I can tell, mate, it's, uh, it's really about, at the crux of it, trying to improve things for the indigenous community. Um, that's what I believe it is. Uh, whether it's gonna achieve that or not, I'm not sure, and we'll, we'll definitely get into that. But basically we're gonna write into the constitution, uh, a group or, or, or a body or a voice, whatever you want to call it, uh, in regards to, uh, indigenous affairs. And they're gonna make and help lawmakers make decisions on things that affect indigenous affairs. Uh, this will be written to the Constitution, so it means, you know, we, it's, it can't get voted out whenever it wants to be, whenever someone wants to vote it out. But, uh, at the same time, that means it requires people to vote on it. Uh, so where do you sit on it, Ruben? Like what, what do you think of it? Uh, what do you think it means for us where you're at with it?
Speaker 1 00:01:39 So, my understanding of the voice is essentially two things, right? It is, it's the recognition of indigenous people within the Constitution, and then it's also the advisory body within the Constitution. Um, and I think the advisory body is where all of the controversy comes from. So both, essentially as politics always does, now everything's split right down the middle, left and right with the yes campaigners obviously being on the left, supporting the voice. And the no campaign is being, you know, you classic conservatives, right? Wingers, um, looking at essentially what they think the problems are with the voice. But both parties agree that, uh, indigenous recognition is needed at this point. It's just, it's just the actual advisory body advising the government that everyone is, is discussing. And I dunno what your thoughts are on the advisory body, but my first instinct looking through it was, I don't see why we should constitutional an advisory body. I dunno what your thoughts were initially when you looked at this.
Speaker 2 00:02:50 Yeah, my, my thought was exactly the same thing. I'm not sure why we need to constitutional something like this. Uh, it seems like something you could do in legislation through the, uh, upper and lower house. It would be a lot more efficient. 'cause I think it would probably pass quite easily if you, you ran it through the houses, uh, a along with, uh, the recognition with, for, um, indigenous people in the Constitution. So I think that should have been separated, um, as a vote. The recognition should have been a vote, and I think it would've overwhelmingly passed. And I, as you say, you, you agree on that, and most people do left or right or center, I think. And
Speaker 1 00:03:26 I think, I reckon, you know, once, if this does fail, we will see a constitutional recognition, um, amendment raised and then pass if it comes to that. So,
Speaker 2 00:03:39 But elbow said wasn't gonna do that. That's, that's the, oh,
Speaker 1 00:03:42 Is that what elbow said?
Speaker 2 00:03:43 Yeah. So elbow's all like, I'm not separating it and if this fails, it fails, I'm not going to, you know, take bits and pieces out of it. He's like, he's standing strong. He doesn't want any part of separating this. He wants the whole thing to get through, which I think is basically political suicide in my opinion.
Speaker 1 00:04:02 You know what? I reckon it's, it's so that the left, the people on the left who are a little bit more, um,
Speaker 2 00:04:08 Radical
Speaker 1 00:04:10 Questioning, questioning of whether we should have the advisory body, but really believe in the indigenous recognition. I think Albo is essentially trying to, you know, play, play politics and just go, if you don't vote through the advisory body, we're not gonna give you anything. You get nothing. It's everything or nothing type of deal.
Speaker 2 00:04:31 Yeah. And I agree with you there, actually, I never thought of it that way. It's like, well, if you want recognition for the indigenous people, you better vote yes because otherwise they're not gonna get it. And I don't know, that's, that's very, uh, how would I put it? Spicy. Um, I, I think, yeah, like, which, which ways this gonna go? And it's not looking good for him at the moment, if you look at the poles and, uh, he's really trying to drum up some support here. He's got, he's even got Qantas on the back helping now and painting their planes with a big yes on them, which really,
Speaker 1 00:05:04 Yeah. Hasn't, hasn't that gotten a bit of backlash recently? Has it ever Oh, what's happened? Give us the rundown.
Speaker 2 00:05:10 Oh, so, so basically Qantas unveiled this big, I don't know what would you call it? A political stance. Um, and they've painted on the side of their planes Yes. Um, yes, referring to a yes vote for the referendum. And a lot of people have been rubbed up the wrong way with this and think that, uh, big corporations should stay outta politics. And I, I agree. And yeah, it's
Speaker 1 00:05:40 Essentially just virtual signaling, isn't it?
Speaker 2 00:05:43 Oh, definitely. And it's, and it's backfired. Like I don't think anyone's come out and said, oh great, great job Qantas for supporting this referendum vote. It's sort of like that, that recent Bud Light commercial in, in the States. And they have absolutely been like massacred Bud Light in the States because of that commercial that they put out. So, um, politics, which politic
Speaker 1 00:06:05 Commercial was that? Was that the um, the pro transgender one?
Speaker 2 00:06:10 Yes, yes. Oh yeah. So yeah, things didn't, haven't gone well for Bud Light since. And I think Qantas is sort of going down the same path. And I know you,
Speaker 1 00:06:20 I don know if, I don't know if Australian politics is quite as wild as American politics. Oh yeah. I don't think Qantas will feel it anywhere near as much as kind of the Bud Light felt it. And the other thing I think about Bud Light is Bud Light I is, is, is generally, from what I understand, this could be totally off. I'm not an American. Yeah. They pander towards, um, ORs, uh, uh, more geared towards, you know, probably your more rural areas, your right wing. Yeah. You know, type of voter whilst Qantas, Qantas isn't, Qantas is probably, you know, operates more in the cities and I think the SW cities are probably gonna swing further to the left than the rural area as well. So I don't think Qantas will really feel anything other than a bit of bad press. They won't see any, you know, declining sales or anything.
Speaker 2 00:07:09 I don't think they need to be more bad press after the last couple of years. That's true. <laugh>, who knows what, it may eventually bite them. But, um, I, I suppose we'll see. And I think the one thing that comes outta this is politicians are always talking about bringing people together and, you know, stamping out racism and, you know, everyone being on an equal footing. But if anything, I think this does the opposite. It creates, you know, divisiveness within the community and it, and it's like an us and a them sort of camp again, which they all preach they don't want, but we seem to end up in the same place every time.
Speaker 1 00:07:48 Yeah. I mean that's like, I think it's just politics now. Politics is just divisive no matter what. Mm-hmm. Once again, not as bad as the us probably not even as bad as say the United Kingdoms, um, here in Australia, but even here in Australia, really, you've just got it's partisanship. Um, I think any, any sort of policy really runs into that to some extent, at least.
Speaker 2 00:08:15 Yeah, I agree. So,
Speaker 1 00:08:17 So anyway, we've got two camps that have essentially merged, like I mentioned before, which is the Yes campaign and the No Campaign. Yes. Campaign's pretty simple to explain. I think they're essentially, they want this, uh, and they want it because indigenous communities face lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, uh, more issues with education and unemployment and higher rates of suicide and in incarceration compared to non-indigenous Australians. So that's, I think, really the crux of the yeses argument for the advisory body portion of the referendum. And, you know, these are, these are fair issues to raise 'cause they are problems and we have failed to solve them in the past though, there has been an effort to solve them. So it's not like they're just being ignored, which I think is an important thing to remember. And I think this is one of the things that probably drives me towards the no, is that we already have, you know, the different political parties working with various pro indigenous bodies to try and solve these problems. So I, I really just don't think constitutionalizing an advisory body is, is gonna change even the approach that much. It's just gonna add some extra legality to it all. Agree. What are your thoughts on that? I agree.
Speaker 2 00:09:51 Yeah, totally agree with you there. It's, it's, it's an interesting topic 'cause you, you say, well, we all already have indigenous advisory boards and we have, um, you know, all our ministers and prime ministers and so forth, meet with them and consult them on issues that obviously affect indigenous people and will adding it to the Constitution really change anything. Like, we're looking for better outcomes at the end of the day. How it gets through parliament or, you know, brought to the forefront really doesn't matter. You just want the outcome to be better at the end. And we've, we've failed in a lot of, um, probably targets that we've wanted to achieve with the indigenous communities. Uh, and whether that's gonna change, just because it's an advisory board written into the Constitution, I, I'm not so sure, uh, maybe we have to start thinking about how we're actually implementing these, these policies and, and how we're spending our money and so forth. Because it really, it's not working at the moment.
Speaker 1 00:10:51 So, so the big one, the big, uh, push that we've currently had, or most recent one, which is still ongoing, is the closing the Gap, uh, policy targets, which is essentially is looking to solve all of the issues that is raised, uh, in this referendum campaign. So there's a, they've got a few stats, so they've been working over the past, I, I forget when they it first started, but I think it's been about 10 years since they've been working on working on solving a lot of these problems. Um, so on early childhood education, they're succeeding in their target currently. And that target is to have 95% of indigenous four year olds enrolled in early education by 2025. So that's on track, uh, expected to, expected to happen by 2025. Uh, school attendance that has failed, um, with the decline of, what was it? One, uh, 2% for non, uh, for indigenous population.
Speaker 1 00:11:50 Uh, and then, uh, 2%, uh, 1.2% decline for non-indigenous students. So school attendance is just declining full stop. So, uh, literacy and numeracy failed the target, but it is improving year 12, uh, attainment on track, but then employment, so not on track on employment, but improving life expectancy. Not on track, but improving child mortality. Not on track, but improving detention of young people, uh, exceeding targets and on track obviously through its, uh, exceeding on targets. So great news and indigenous children in protective services. This one is actually getting worse. Um, this might be a conversation for a future podcast, but I think youth crime across the board is just absolute shit at the moment, like getting a lot worse. And then finally, um, sustained reduction in suicide, failed and getting worse. So those, the two big ones are in, uh, youth crime and, uh, well, yeah, youth crime, indigenous protective services and, um, suicide,
Speaker 2 00:13:02 Obviously, life expectancy would you say as well, like life expectancy and child mortality is not really improving as they would've hoped? Um,
Speaker 1 00:13:10 Well, yes, those ones are falling short. Uh, you're right. But they are improving.
Speaker 2 00:13:15 Mm.
Speaker 1 00:13:17 So I mean, my point in raising, closing the gap is that we already have a pretty concentrated effort trying to solve the problems that the, the Yes campaigners have brought up. So whilst, you know, there are failures, I don't know if, I don't know if those failures indicate that we should make a big change, although maybe, maybe that is actually a good argument for the YES campaign is maybe the fact that we've been doing this for 10 or so years and we've still getting some, some pretty big failures or, you know, target's not on track. Maybe that's a good indicator that we do need an advisory board. Legislated, what do you think of, what do you think of that?
Speaker 2 00:14:03 I just ask how, how is it going to be different? What, like, how, how are we going to implement these, you know, these changes any differently to how we're doing them Now, you may have different people commenting or providing their inputs on these issues, but at the end of the day, why would voting yes make a difference to the life of the indigenous people? It's, it's very blurry. There's not much clarity from the government on how it'll work. Even who's going to be on these boards, uh, where they're going to come from, will they be a voice of the people or is it going to be selected from a minority group within a minority group? That being people of who are already educated, people who live in the cities and don't really know or understand the, the, the things that these indigenous communities go through because they've, they've never been through it.
Speaker 2 00:15:07 And if, if anything, I think that could make it worse. 'cause we really should be going out to these communities and speaking to the people in these communities rather than politicians. Because politicians, as much as they are voted in to speak for us, a lot of them don't understand day-to-day what even we go through, uh, as, as regular people working nine to five jobs. And are these indigenous politicians or, you know, leaders within the voice going to understand what the indigenous people in these communities are going through and what the best way to solve these issues is. And I, I don't think that's been thought through by, by the government and people are starting to see that it's not really giving them much, much, you know, hope that this will work. And I think that's why they're sort of leaning towards that no vote.
Speaker 1 00:15:59 Sure, sure. I mean, I don't know if we really are leaning that hard towards the no vote. So through what I could tell the government is thinking, they've got Victoria, they've got New South Wales and they've got Tasmania, so South a and they think they also pretty much lost Queensland and may have lost WA as well. So South Australia becomes the swing vote. So I think, I think South Australia is, is poised to vote first as well. Uh, so we might get an idea about what's gonna happen based on what happens in South Australia if the government's, you know, idea about who's what, what states are gonna vote, which way is correct.
Speaker 2 00:16:42 Well I do have an update on that one for you. Every state other than Victoria looks to be voting No now.
Speaker 1 00:16:50 Oh really?
Speaker 2 00:16:52 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:16:53 Interesting. Even New South Wales, I mean obviously rural New South Wales, I would expect to swing No, but I thought Sydney for sure would swing. Yes.
Speaker 2 00:17:02 No, it's um,
Speaker 1 00:17:03 And and that would bring the state.
Speaker 2 00:17:05 Yeah. Queensland is 51 no to 40. Yes. Uh, wa is 48, no, to 39. Yes. New South Wales. 47% No to 41%. Yes.
Speaker 1 00:17:21 Wow.
Speaker 2 00:17:22 And then Victoria is 47%. Yes. 46%. No. So even they are basically 50 50.
Speaker 1 00:17:31 How about Tasmania?
Speaker 2 00:17:33 Tasmania doesn't come up in these stats. Maybe they didn't have enough, you know, respondents from Tasmania. But there's another one that uh, really interests me this stat. So it goes essential found that a higher proportion of respondents describe themselves as a hard no compared with hard. Yes. With 38% to 31. So that means 38% of those people are basically a hundred percent. No, we're only 31% of the people that said they were Yes. Are a hundred percent yes. And nothing will change their mind.
Speaker 1 00:18:06 Interesting. So interesting.
Speaker 2 00:18:08 It's, it's, it seems to be swinging really hard in the, in the way of the No at the moment. And
Speaker 1 00:18:13 I wonder what's changed 'cause, 'cause initially when elbow proposed this, it was pretty strong with the Yes. Right. I think it was a slight a, well maybe, I don't know the exact margin, but it was slightly balanced towards Yes. Succeeding. And now it's, now it's obviously switched by the sounds of it. So what has changed?
Speaker 2 00:18:35 I don't think anything's changed. That's the problem. Like, he came out and, you know, spprt this voice and it's gonna be great and we're gonna help indigenous people find a voice and we're gonna write into the constitution recognition for them as well as providing an advisory board. And people were probably waiting for a bit more information on how this was gonna work and what was gonna happen. But since then all that's happened really is more, more waffle from elbow in the, in the labor party, to be perfectly honest. We've got no succinct, uh, evidence or even plans of how this is going to move forward or improve anything for the indigenous communities. And
Speaker 1 00:19:14 So you think maybe some of those initial Yes voters were thinking, you know what, yes. To the referendum with the expectation that before they voted maybe a little bit more clarity would come out? Or do you think it's just, you know, they've heard more arguments for why it might not be a great idea and they've just changed their minds?
Speaker 2 00:19:32 Well, I think a bit of both. And people are thinking, why, why are we voting on this when we've got other issues in the community that we really need to sort, like solve? You look at things like our inflation and cost of living, and that's what everyone's being hammered by at the moment. And all they seem to be doing is talking about this voice but not saying much about it. And people are probably a bit, you know, cheesed off. It's like, okay, we're going to, we're gonna look after the indigenous communities, which I think we're all for, but is this the best way to do it? And are we, are, are we really, is this gonna be a good use of time and resources and money when we could use this on something else to help us all? Not just one individual group? I I think that's where a lot of people are starting to, um, to sort of flip, especially 'cause they don't have any clarity around it.
Speaker 1 00:20:23 Yeah, I don't know. I I mean I, I generally don't like arguments like that where it's, is this the best use of money? I feel like we can have more than one priority. I mean obviously the voice is taking up a lot of the nationals, the, the national attention at the moment. But I think we can have more than one priority. And I think we shouldn't get bogged down saying, we can't bother trying to solve this problem until we've solved other big problems, uh, that we may be facing at the moment. So I, I generally don't like arguments like that, but I, I see how they can be convincing at the same time, obviously, you know, if you've got cost of living crisis going across the entire population and then you feel a little bit frustrated when the government's just focusing on 3% of the population, uh, which is the indigenous communities. And then of that 3%, how many of that 3% is struggling? Obviously a a decent chunk because statistically indigenous communities are very pro the referendum
Speaker 2 00:21:28 As they would be,
Speaker 1 00:21:29 As they would be. But,
Speaker 2 00:21:32 But I think there's, there's lots of other issues that we have to solve as a country that will, you know, help those indigenous communities as well. Like, as we spoke about before, youth crime is a massive one. Not just in indigenous communities, but all over Australia. Um, especially throughout Victoria. Like it was getting pretty bad there for a while and it still is. So I, I think we need a sort of a, a rethink around how we're going to, you know, move forward with this voice if it is to get up. I think we need, as I say, I'll say again, we need more clarity. We need, we need to know what it's gonna do. Are we gonna vote something in that's not going to work or it's gonna provide too much power for one group over the, you know, over everyone else? 'cause we, we elect these politicians to make decisions on our behalfs. At the end of the day, everyone, everyone's vote counts. You have to vote in Australia. So, which I think is great 'cause everyone gets a say at the end of the day. It's,
Speaker 1 00:22:30 I think, I think, I think being part of democracy means participating in the democracy. Correct.
Speaker 1 00:22:36 And I think it's, I think that's one of the failures of America is not making it a, a requirement to vote. I think, I think all countries are better off when democracies, I mean, I don't like any other form of government other than democracy to be honest. But all democracies are better when everyone has a voice and everyone votes. So yeah. I'm I'm with you. So onto the no campaign, which, which has some interesting elements to it, I've found out, I always just kind of thought the no campaign is your coalition conservative groups. Right. Which, you know, a huge chunk of it is. So your main, um, no campaign pushes, uh, recognize a better way and advance. So recognize A Better Way is pushed by Warren Mund, Mundine, I think his name is. And essentially what he's saying is, as I said before, yes to the, uh, indigenous recognition, but no to the federal advisory body.
Speaker 2 00:23:47 Yeah. So seems like he wants to talk about that. It, the reason for that the indigenous community is in this situation, isn't because of a lack of a voice, it's because of other factors, which really, you can't say that the voice will fix these. He says it's caused by lack of economic participation. And recognizing a better way means recognizing economic participation is the only way to close the gap. And that every government policy and initiative should be obsessively focused on these outcomes. And myself, I I, I agree with that. I think firstly, starting with education and then, you know, in, you know, improving economic participation that being, you know, in, into the workforce is, is the best way forward.
Speaker 1 00:24:37 I'm not a hundred percent sure this is his current stance, but definitely his stance that he's held in the past, which is local representative bodies for indigenous communities instead of this federal one. So these bodies would manage native lands, water preserve culture and languages and advance welfare. Um, and he thinks, or at least he's said in the past, that the constitution should require parliament to do this, uh, that would provide true recognition for each of our mobs. That's his direct quote. Uh, so he almost has a different view, a a similar view, I guess kind of to the s campaign in that a constitutionalized advisory body just at a different, different stage of the government. So instead of at the federal level, at the local level, or at least something similar to an advisory body, which I, I don't know, I think is an interesting idea. Uh, and I'm, I'm not totally against it. I I I think local government has a lot more impact on your life, especially probably on indigenous communities, uh, than the federal government does. What would you say to that, Greg, on, in terms of constitutionalizing advisory bodies or advisory groups, but at the local level instead of at the federal level?
Speaker 2 00:25:59 I, I like that that thought being, it being more local as, as I said before, what, who's gonna be part of this voice? I think there's gonna be 24 people part of the, the advisory board from across, across the country and indigenous communities. But as he's saying, it's you, you wanna take those grassroots and figure out the problems there and solve them, you know, seeing them firsthand and people that are a part of those communities and feeling the issues firsthand. And I, I'm, I'm really not against that. Maybe the constitutional part, I'm not, I'm not totally for, uh, if, if that's what he's after. But I believe the best way to solve the problems is to get out there into the communities and, you know, really hear what these problems are and try to solve them from within because that, that that's how you're gonna get the best outcome. You've gotta get these people on board with, with helping themselves and helping their community. Uh, as, as you would say, like, if, if everyone in your community's against something, no matter how much someone wants to help you, you're not going to do it. And I, I think he's on the right track. And, and, and again, I'll say he, he's a voice, he's an indigenous voice. And there's, and there's multiple people in his group. I think Jacinta Price is part of his, his group that's supporting, you know,
Speaker 1 00:27:14 This. I think she may have broke off and, and, and moved to advance. I'm not a hundred percent sure on that. I know at one point they were working together. Yeah. And they might still be working together just under two groups.
Speaker 2 00:27:23 Correct. And, and why is their voice less important than, you know, any other indigenous person's voice? And and I think this is where it starts to create issues. A again, the who's whose voice are we listening to? Is it a minority within a minority again, or are we actually listening to the indigenous people and the, and the communities within them?
Speaker 1 00:27:46 Yeah. And that, that's quite kind of what Warren has said as well, which is he thinks a national body would be expensive and not representative. And just adding to the bureaucracy, which I think is a fair point. I'm not totally against the idea of Constitutionalizing. Um, I do see the issues with it from the no campaign side where it's, you know, is this really the best way to do things? Constitutionalizing advisory bodies and having the, the Constitution separating people based on race in a way. But, uh, at the same time we've also as a country, really struggled to solve problems in the indigenous communities. And I do like the idea of, of, um, change at the local level rather than the federal level. But, you know, maybe that's just wishful thinking. Now, Greg, the other side of the No Campaign is, I would say the spicy one. This is the Black Sovereignty Movement led by Victorian Senator Lydia Thorpe. Have you heard of Lydia Thorpe before?
Speaker 2 00:29:02 Uh, I certainly have.
Speaker 1 00:29:05 It sounds like you've got some strong views on her. <laugh> <laugh>.
Speaker 2 00:29:08 I think she's a, she's an interesting character and, uh, one, one I like seeing in Parliament because she seems to rub a lot of people up the wrong way. <laugh>. Um, so, well, can you tell me about this black sovereignty movement? 'cause I'm not totally across it.
Speaker 1 00:29:24 The Black sovereignty movement seem to be telling us that they're against the voice. 'cause they don't recognize the Australian's government's sovereignty over indigenous people. And that indigenous people never ced their sovereignty during the colonial days, and therefore they should have their own sovereignty separate from that of the Australian government. And Lydia is on record saying, we are the original and only sovereign of these lands in reference to indigenous people. Essentially, it is no to the, to the, to the change because they don't even really recognize the Crown's government or the Australian government because aboriginal people never officially gave up their own sovereignty. So they, they should have their own sovereignty. So, so recognition within another country's constitution is meaningless, essentially is, is the idea, or at least my understanding of the idea, I may have got it totally wrong there. Um, but she's, she's quoted saying we are the original and only sovereigns of these lands. So I, I <laugh> I think that's essentially, she's essentially saying she doesn't recognize the Australian government, uh, or at least not their authority over Aboriginal communities. Uh, and she's also wanted in the past guaranteed seats, like in the New Zealand government. Um, so the New Zealand, the New Zealand government doesn't have a constitution, but does have laws, um, pretty much reserving seats for indigenous representatives. And she's, she's argued for that in the past. <laugh>,
Speaker 2 00:31:09 I think from both sides, like as, as we would say, you are more probably slightly left and I'm slightly right of center, we could say, but we both really don't like the idea of that. And there wouldn't be, there would be a such a, I think there would even be a smaller minority than just the indigenous communities that wouldn't like that there's 3%, 3.3% indigenous people in Australia, like a percentage of the population. I I don't even think you'd get 3% voting yes for this. I really don't.
Speaker 1 00:31:39 Oh, there was another thing I was looking into Greg, and I thought, I thought, you know, what would Greg be thinking if this does pass <laugh>? He's definitely going to try and imitate or, or claim that he's aboriginal to increase his <laugh> his voice in parliament. So I was seeing if there's actually, um, any sort of rules or regulations against claiming identity. Turns out there is, and it is currently is, is being used for all sorts of different things like grants and whatnot. So the current method of identification is you need all three of these, which is being of indigenous descent, identifying as indigenous and being accepted by the community in which you live slash formally lived. So I think you're out, Greg. You can't, you can't sneak your A
Speaker 2 00:32:28 But how, how do you prove that? How do I prove I'm of indigenous descent?
Speaker 1 00:32:33 Well, that's a good question. I don't dunno how you prove that. I was also just, just quickly thinking like, what, what happens if you want to vote against the grain on your indigenous community? Do they just no longer accept you? Can they like retroactively cancel your indigenous identity just by because you no longer Because because you don't believe the same things they believe as the community just go, you know what? We don't recognize you anymore. We don't accept you anymore. That's, that's true. And then all of a sudden you've lost your identity. That's
Speaker 2 00:33:02 True. Yeah. And I see one of the points you've got here is identifying as indigenous, uh, in, in today's world, we're allowed to identify as basically anything. And it's quite offensive if you don't go along with what I identify as. So I, I think there still is hope for me. Reuben. I
Speaker 1 00:33:21 Think that's Well no, 'cause you need all three. You need all three. So you need, you need, firstly you need to prove your indigenous descent and then you need to find a community that, that will accept you. So you're gonna struggle with that one.
Speaker 2 00:33:31 Oh,
Speaker 1 00:33:32 The identifying is an easy one.
Speaker 2 00:33:34 <laugh>. Yeah. I've got one of threes down, pat. Don't worry. <laugh>, the other two we can sort out as we go. But I, I think that that's pretty wish Wasy come on. If that's how you're going to,
Speaker 1 00:33:44 Well, I don't know. I mean, obviously like I said, it's, it's being used for grants and stuff at the moment, so it must somewhat work, right? So the government's got a, got an incentive to make sure that this somewhat works in order to not be, you know, wasting money on, you know, giving the wrong people grants.
Speaker 2 00:34:02 That's true. But also you, they've gotta be careful in not offending people either. Because what if someone is indigenous but they can't get all three of these, you know, requirements. What, what happens then? Like what if, what if you're a fourth, fifth generation? Uh, you've never lived in an indigenous community. You are, you know, indigenous descent maybe goes back, you know, the four or five generations back. So you, you may not look at, you may not know anything about the communities. You may have never been a part of them, but you are indigenous. Just you could say, I'm Greek, I wasn't born in Greece. My fam my parents were born here, but my grandparents moved over here. But does that give me the right to be Greek? So where do, where do you draw the line there as well? And it's, it's a tricky subject without basically going into d n a sequencing, how are you going to prove that you're indigenous?
Speaker 1 00:35:01 So anyway, give us your thoughts, Greg. Where do you stand? You are hard. No. Or are you, have you softened your views since, since researching this? Where are you?
Speaker 2 00:35:12 I am still definitely a hard no there I have read nothing or heard nothing as to why I should change my stance.
Speaker 1 00:35:22 So nothing. Would you say you're a hard no in that nothing could change your stance or you're a hard no in that they could come out with some information? Unlikely, but they could, which would change your stance?
Speaker 2 00:35:36 No, I, I don't think anything could really change my, the only thing that could change my stance is if they removed, uh, the part about having their own advisory group written into the constitution. More than happy to vote yes for recognition. I will not be voting yes for an advisory board written into the constitution. What what about you mate? I, I know you are sometimes on the fence. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Speaker 1 00:36:00 Yeah, I'm a bit softer. I'm a bit softer. One of my many qualities is soft. <laugh>.
Speaker 2 00:36:05 Yeah, soft.
Speaker 1 00:36:06 Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:36:07 Won't go into that. Will we? <laugh>?
Speaker 1 00:36:11 I wouldn't say I'm a hard, no, I would say a, a soft no, I could be convinced otherwise I really do like, uh, Warren and what he's saying, I, I like his idea of local representation. As you said before, I'm not so sure on the constitutionalizing of it, but I could be, I could see myself voting for it, constitutionalized, you know, if it was set up in a, in a way that I thought was, you know, really just, and really fair and would really work. So that's kind of where I am. I, I don't, I don't have much faith in the federal government generally <laugh>, I think local government, I think local government's a lot, a lot better for, for solving problems, though local government obviously stuffs up all the time as well. So yeah, I'd, I'd say I'm a soft, no, I like the idea, I like Warren's idea. So maybe, maybe if they, if they come back with a, with a new referendum after this one, I could see myself voting yes, depending on, on what it looked like. But with this current one, without some more detail, I'm probably, probably on the no side, uh, leaning, no, like I said, soft, no at the moment. Can't really see myself voting yes. Just, just, just because of the, the advisory body. I'm a hundred percent on board for the recognition as, as most people in the no campaign are.
Speaker 2 00:37:40 Yeah. And let's, let's see where this goes in the next couple of months leading up to the vote. It'll be an interesting couple of months. Will they, you know, ramp up the, the campaigning and the information they're giving out or will be more fluff and everyone should vote Yes. 'cause if you don't, you're not a good Australian, who knows which way they're gonna go with it. I'm quite interested to see where it's gonna go, but, you know, we'll just have to wait and see.
Speaker 1 00:38:04 Alright, Greg, let's move on to our next topic, the Matildas and the Women's World Cup. And then the really spicy topic, the gender pay gap in sports. So obviously we had the Women's World Cup here this year, which was a, you know, great watch. Unfortunately we only came fourth in the end, but I think that's, that's further along than we expected. But the spicy conversation, like I said, the pay gap. So Socceroo pay, last men's World Cup was 830,000 Australian dollars. And the Matilda Pay this year was apparently average around $120,000. Now, on top of that, the women's, uh, prize money was $150 million and the mens was three times that. So three times larger at $440 million. What's the explanation there? Do we have some classic case of sexism going on or
Speaker 2 00:39:06 What? <laugh> Good try there mate. Good try. Um, firstly, I, I, I think the Matildas for making the semis each pocketed somewhere in the realm of 200 to $250,000 each, each player. So they, they did quite well out of it for finishing forth and, uh, and, and they deserve it. They, they brought in the money, they brought the crowds, had great crowds here. They had like a lot of the, basically every Matildas game here in Australia was sold out. A lot of the games in New Zealand got really, really good crowds as well, considering New Zealand wasn't a part of a lot of it. So in terms of a sporting event, it did really, really well. In terms of the pay gap, it just comes down to basic economics, mate. I, I don't think I can explain it any other way. The, the more money you bring in, the more money you're gonna, you're gonna get, uh, as you said, the, the Women's World Cup was about a third of the prize money of the men's.
Speaker 2 00:40:03 Uh, but I read today the, the Women's World Cup brought in 880 odd million dollars in revenue this year up from, I think it was 500 million the last Women's World Cup, which is, which is an awesome, there's a massive increase. Uh, but the Men's World Cup brought in 6 billion. So for the sake of this, let's call it 1 billion to 6 billion, that's still six times the revenue in the men's game, but only three times the prize money. So if anything, the men are getting shortchanged. I dunno what you think of that, but if we, we go with basic economics,
Speaker 1 00:40:40 That's not a popular opinion
Speaker 2 00:40:41 Or it's, or it's not an opinion people wish to voice. There is reasons why these differences in pays exist. I'll give you a really good, uh, example here that a lot of people probably won't think of. Let's, let's go models for example. You, you, well you and me probably dunno the names of any female or male models <laugh>. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:41:04 No, not, not off the top of my head. No,
Speaker 2 00:41:06 No. <laugh> like, I don't care. It's not my thing. It could be someone else's thing. But we've probably all heard of Kendall Jenner.
Speaker 1 00:41:13 That is, that is, I have heard of that name.
Speaker 2 00:41:16 Yes, you would've, you probably know nothing about it knowing you mate. But Kendall Jenner, um, is considered the world's highest paid female model and she brings in $40 million a year. Oof. Okay, that's
Speaker 1 00:41:29 Generous. And
Speaker 2 00:41:30 They're not a, not a bad pay packet for being pretty, I say that's
Speaker 1 00:41:34 Real good. I don't know, I don't know how, I don't know how models make money though, so maybe, maybe it's actually hard work being a model mate. I don't know. Yeah,
Speaker 2 00:41:41 <laugh>. Well you'd have to start to win the, you have to win the genetic lottery to start. That's true. Which we haven't. Yeah, that's true. And then you gotta make it through
Speaker 1 00:41:49 <laugh>. But,
Speaker 2 00:41:50 But anyway, then you go the highest paid male model, which is some guy called Sean o Pry never heard of him. You obviously would've never heard of him either. And he makes 1.5 million.
Speaker 1 00:42:05 Oh, a fraction.
Speaker 2 00:42:08 Yeah. So Kendall makes over 20 times what Sean does. And I, I went and did some research of the top 10 highest paid in each, um, you know, male and female. So the 10th highest paid female is earns approximately 19 million. So that is still still 12 to 15 times higher than Sean, who is the most well-paid male model. So again, where at, at that point you say, okay, well the women bring in more money, the fashion industry's bigger for women and they deserve more of the pay. Yeah, totally agree with you. Kendall Jenner would bring in way more customers than Sean would. Nobody, nobody knows who Sean is. And at the same time, the, the men's soccer brings in a lot more money than the women's does. So that's why they're paid more. It's, to me it's basic economics. It's got nothing to do with whether you're a male or a female in different industries. Different people are paid different amounts and it's basically got to do with the revenue they bring in.
Speaker 1 00:43:11 So are you telling me you wanna see the Women's prize money cut to, to be representative of, uh, of how much revenue revenue they bring in?
Speaker 2 00:43:22 Well, that's, that, that's a good question, mate. Look, I wouldn't ever want the money or the, the prize money cut for them. I, I think they deserve it. Um, and, and it's a good way to grow the game. Like we need, we need to grow the game. And if you're going to grow the game, you need to invest in the players. So I'm not against them being paid out a greater percentage than the men are because that's, that's where we're investing our money and, and it is growing and it's good to see that it's growing. And the men's, you know, the men's league isn't having to support them as much now as it probably would've in the past. But to ask for the same pay dollar for dollar, I, I don't agree with.
Speaker 1 00:44:03 Okay. I think we can move on to our, uh, our final little segment, which will be water cooler banter. So just 'cause this is our first episode, just give a, a brief description about what this is just essentially interesting topics that Greg and I have found, uh, that we, that we think are worth having a little chat about. Something interesting throughout the week or Yeah, a bit of a laugh. Yeah, a bit of a laugh. So I'll start. 'cause I don't think you've even got anything organized. You're lazy bastard <laugh> almost work during the day, mate <laugh>, which is the western world's declining birth rate. Now, this is obviously old news, but I was scrolling through Twitter or X now and I saw Elon Musk, you know, go on ham about it as he, as he likes to do. So I thought I'd give it a bit of a look.
Speaker 1 00:45:02 It's pretty interesting stuff. So there's essentially falling fertility rates in nearly every country. Um, so shrinking population across the world. Um, end of the century. We're meant to see some, some pretty significant change in in population demographics if this trend continues. Um, so the big numbers that they throw out, uh, in 1950 women were having 4.7 children in their lifetime. Global fertility rates have nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017. So pretty, pretty significant changes going on here. The why of these fertility rate change is it's essentially driven by women now have more options. Like it used to be women were have the kids raise the children, the man goes out and works. But now women are more educated, they go out and work. Now there's greater access to contraception. So essentially women are deciding that they don't want to have as many children or children at all the most impacted countries that, that I that I saw in the, in the article I was going through was Japan's population and Italy's population.
Speaker 1 00:46:25 So Japan is expected to reach a peak of 128 million in 2017. This is a pretty old article. And then fall to less than 53 million by the end of the century. And then Italy was meant to crash from 61 to 28 million over the same timeframe. So the big problem that this causes is young people, like who, who's your tax base? Your tax base is young working class people. Um, and as people, you know, as as time goes on, we're better at keeping people alive. So people get older and they collect their pensions for longer and they keep their, inherit their, their, how much they've saved up for longer. So there's less inheritance going out 'cause people are spending spending their money through their retirement, which they should do. But it essentially means that the young people are being left to fund the older retirees. And that's kind of what you saw in France, right? Where you see these increasing, um, the government increasing the retirement age. So you have to be older to, to claim pensions. So what this all means is young people are gonna get screwed over and we're gonna be looking after the, the oldies for a lot longer. <laugh>. So Elon is a huge advocate for all this. And and I think he's had like nine kids or something himself. So he's, he's he's having a decent crack at Repopulation. <laugh>. He's
Speaker 2 00:47:54 Doing, he's doing one for every, doing a good thing for everyone here. He's repopulating.
Speaker 1 00:47:58 Yeah,
Speaker 2 00:47:58 Yeah. Well, bill Gates tries to kill us.
Speaker 1 00:48:01 Elon's trying to populate us. Yeah, Elon's, Elon's really is saying no, I'm, I'm gonna say this. He's he's gonna have a kid for Yeah, he's gonna have a kid for every kid that Bill Gates kills
Speaker 2 00:48:11 <laugh>, you've been here for a while
Speaker 1 00:48:15 Now. The, the experts do say that Elon, Elon Musk is, is essentially like a dor. He is like, it population di decreases, uh, or the population change, you know, old aging population, no one, no new, no new tax base coming in is a bigger problem than global warming, which I thought was a really interesting position for an electric car manufacturer to take. You'd think <laugh>, you'd think the electric car manufacturer would be like, oh yeah, let's get on this global warming train. Like I don't, I don't know what he's thinking. I reckon, I reckon he's a bit of a noober, but I I I bet I love the I knew you would. I knew you would. <laugh>. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:48:59 Well, I don't like everything he says, but there's a lot of stuff that I'm just like, at least he calls it out. He's not, he's not controlled by anyone. Well, well, from what we know, yeah.
Speaker 1 00:49:10 He's controlled by Bill Gates. He's got just like all the rest of us,
Speaker 2 00:49:13 <laugh>
Speaker 1 00:49:14 <laugh>,
Speaker 2 00:49:14 He's, he's got enough money that he doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks.
Speaker 1 00:49:17 I reckon he does care what people think. That's why he bought Twitter, man. He, he cares. He cares. He cares. To the point that he is willing to, willing to throw $45 billion at the wall to pick up Twitter so he could, uh, so he could tell everybody how great he was
Speaker 2 00:49:33 So he could actually create a free speech platform. Ruger.
Speaker 1 00:49:36 Oh,
Speaker 2 00:49:36 None of this censorship crap. I see. One these canceling people because you don't fit the mold that everyone wants you to fit. I love it. <laugh>. I'm glad he's done it. There's
Speaker 1 00:49:46 Obviously, so you're fan of x other platforms out
Speaker 2 00:49:47 There as
Speaker 1 00:49:47 Well. You're a fan of X.
Speaker 2 00:49:49 Oh yeah, of course. Yeah. It's, it's not the best. Uh, I use a couple of different platforms to get my, uh, my news or whatever you wanna call it from my conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1 00:50:00 Conspiracy theories. <laugh>.
Speaker 2 00:50:02 Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:50:02 <laugh>.
Speaker 2 00:50:03 But, uh, it's, it's an interesting ploy from him to, to buy that out. Sure. And I, I think one of the, like coming from, you know, an IT background, one of the, one of the interesting parts about it's how he's cued so many people from that company and it still runs just as well as it did
Speaker 1 00:50:25 Before. Yeah. But hang on, a lot, lot of the people that he's called are moderation staff. So, you know, there's, there's exactly. So what, but I mean, how
Speaker 2 00:50:34 Many moderation staff do you need,
Speaker 1 00:50:36 Bro? But I mean, you, you, there's definitely a lot more controversial views that a lot of people would find pretty offensive or consider like fake news that wasn't coming up to the same degree before Elon Musk took over. So, so Elon Musk has totally changed their, their, um, their policy on it. We, we are definitely moving away from it, from our <laugh> discussion about changing
Speaker 2 00:51:03 Their, this is, this is ban
Speaker 1 00:51:06 <laugh>. So, but what do you, what do you, what do you think about Yvonne saying that uh, demographic changes based on a shrinking population are bigger, a bigger threat than global warming? Do you agree with that?
Speaker 2 00:51:22 From my very little knowledge of the subject, like obviously I haven't gone into this, this was your little topic that you've brought up, but I I, I do agree with him from the, from the little bits and pieces. I know I am, I'm not a massive advocate on the global warming front. Uh, that's, that's probably a whole episode's worth of chat there. So in terms of declining population, I sort of have to agree with him. 'cause we to keep up the, the living standards we're used to, we're, we're going to need people around and we need, and I think the bigger issue here is the, the destruction of core family values. I think that's happened around the world, especially in the West.
Speaker 1 00:52:06 Interesting. And
Speaker 2 00:52:07 I think that's led to a,
Speaker 1 00:52:07 You're really coming through with the, with your conservative viewpoints here. Yeah. <laugh>,
Speaker 2 00:52:13 That's what I'm here for, mate. And I think that's a big reason you see this reduction in, uh, population growth and even a declining population. A lot of these countries, like for example, Japan, I've actually got the stats from, from last year. They, they had a decline in population of 0.46, so they haven't had an increase in population since 2010. So their population has been slowly declining since then. And, and that's got to do with
Speaker 1 00:52:45 So declining semi fast, like pretty fast.
Speaker 2 00:52:49 Yeah. And this last year was the worst for it. Um, so we, I think we're seeing, yeah, people have less children all around the world. Why that is, I, I think one of the points you brought up was really in really good that the women aren't really just at home now raising a family, raising children, uh, that they're out in the workforce. Personally, I, I, I think, I think we've gone away from, uh, core family values and we should see the creation of, of life in children and raising a family as something beautiful and not something you should have to compete, um, with your career. And, and I think that's where women struggle these days because a lot of these women that love their careers also really want to have a family a a and it's really hard for them to make that decision. It's like, do I take five years out of my career and put myself back five years to have these children as much as I'd wanna have? And they, and they pr they probably play a lot with that.
Speaker 1 00:53:51 Sure. I don't know. I mean, I, it seems like it's in, I mean, I don't really care about traditional family values. I, I don't give, don't give a damn. I mean, <laugh>, I'm, I'm of the opinion just someone wants to live some way, let 'em live that way. It doesn't impact me none. And I don't mind how people live. But like, even if you were to care, I mean, what can you do? There's almost no solution, right?
Speaker 2 00:54:19 Well, I don't think you could say there, there's no solution. I just, I, I, I, from my perspective, think we, we've started to demonize families and children and you here, out there, we, you know, you shouldn't have children for, for the environment and you shouldn't have children because it'll wreck your career and this and that. And you're like, well, like as a, I do feel sorry for them as a female. Like, it's like, like what do I do? Like, like where do I go from here? Uh, and, and as someone who wants to have a family, uh, you think bloody hell, I've, I've gotta, I've gotta have a really good job to be able to, you know, provide for my, my wife and my children and you know, send them to the schools I want and buy them what they want or, or go on, even even go on a family holiday. It's, it's, um, it's a tricky situation we're in. And I think a lot of that's got to do with it economically. Um, how we've been, you know, set up recently, especially co cost of living's not getting, you know, any better. Uh, and wages aren't growing at the pace of the cost of living or the pace of houses or anything like that. So, uh, it's a, it's a, it's an issue we've got and it's not getting any better and I, I dunno how to fix it either, mate. I really don't. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:55:37 All right. That's my topic, Greg. Uh, so what have you got for us?
Speaker 2 00:55:42 My God, look, I, I didn't come with anything prepared. I, I, I will be honest,
Speaker 1 00:55:46 Classic <laugh>, um,
Speaker 2 00:55:48 Yeah, you, you know what? I'm like <laugh> and I seems to have jumped on the back of yours there with family values. You know, I, I think I, I've, I've got my couple of points off, so I, I think we can, we can leave it there for
Speaker 1 00:56:00 You call it later today. Alright.
Speaker 2 00:56:01 Yeah. I can bring in something a bit more controversial next week for our, you know, water cooler banter, banter, banter.
Speaker 1 00:56:08 We might need to think about new name for that. I'm not sure if that's as catchy as we need it to be.
Speaker 2 00:56:13 Yeah, probably not. But if, if anyone's listening and they've got some ideas, let's send them through. True.
Speaker 1 00:56:18 We, we should, we need to set up a, a social media for that. So what do we say? We'll say the Instagram, we'll, we'll set up an Instagram direct message us on Instagram. You can find us on Instagram at ozzy earful. So send us through your thoughts on any of the topics we've discussed this episode, uh, and also any interesting stories or topics you've heard over the past week. And, uh, we'll look at including any interesting topics sent through by our listeners next episode. Cool. All right. Let's call it there.
