126 Do You Really Want To Be The Prime Minister Hannah Ferguson On Healthy Discourse Cheek Media Pol

You were made for taking care of your dog's every need,

and Farrah Pets was made for taking care of their digestive needs.

Farrah's probiotic supplement is made with innovative ingredients,

herbs, and botanicals specifically formulated to help your dog thrive.

Because when it comes to your dog's gut health,

we were made for going above and beyond, just like you.

Visit farrahpets.com slash dog to get 20% off today.

That's F-E-R-R-A pets dot com slash D-O-G.

Farrah Pets. We were made for this.

Running a business, I've learned that every missed call is a missed opportunity.

Before my team found OpenPhone, it was chaos.

Personal numbers for customer calls, missed messages,

no visibility into who followed up or didn't.

Now we've got a business phone system that keeps up.

With OpenPhone, our whole team can call and text from a shared number,

assign follow-ups, and track every conversation with call transcripts and summaries.

Best part? Whether it's after hours or we're just busy,

AI steps in.

To handle calls, answer customer questions, and capture leads.

Our phones are covered 24-7, and we never miss a beat.

OpenPhone starts at just $15 a month,

and they'll even port over your existing numbers for free.

Over 60,000 businesses are using OpenPhone, and now I get why.

Try it out and get 20% off your first six months at openphone.com slash tech.

That's openphone.com slash tech for 20% off.

OpenPhone. No missed calls, no missed customers.

Hi, I'm Mike Boris, and this is Straight Talk.

Since I was 10, I wanted to be Prime Minister.

Hannah Ferguson, welcome to Straight Talk.

Thanks for having me.

You are the founder of Cheek Media, and Cheek Media in turn owns the podcast Big Small Talk.

What's your thesis behind Big Small Talk?

I think the difference with what I do is that I'm critical of the short-form journalism that

has led us down this path of not being able to talk to each other respectfully anymore.

I think there's no room for healthy debate. There's no public intellectuals anymore.

But I'm trying to engage a younger audience with those more respectful,

secure ideas of how do you consume news, and how do you check your media literacy.

You're not trying to get them to agree with you.

No.

You want them to not change the view they have, but change the way they think about it.

Exactly.

And discuss it.

You said earlier on about becoming Prime Minister. Do you really mean it?

Yeah, totally. It's so funny. It's so funny that you think that, like, come on. Why?

No, no, no. I'll tell you why. Because I was once asked, would I form another party?

And, uh...

Hannah Ferguson, welcome to Straight Talk.

Thanks for having me.

Well, first and foremost, I've got to congratulate you.

I'd like to congratulate you on your success. Your podcast success is killing, like, number three or something like that.

I don't know, two, three, four, we're in that territory?

Yeah, we'll say two. Let's go for the highest we can get.

Let's go for one.

Exactly. Got to knock off Joe Rogan, but we're close.

No, but it's very good. And so you are the founder, I guess maybe co-founder, of Cheek Media?

Yes.

You've got a partner?

Yes.

Well, right now, I'm the founder and CEO of Cheek.

Right.

Yeah.

And Cheek Media in turn owns the podcast Big Small Talk. It's just one podcast?

Yeah, it's currently one podcast.

Currently.

Currently being the key word.

Plans, plans. We'll talk about the plans, perhaps. So, tell me, I mean, I know you studied law, and we'll go back to your sort of history a little bit in a moment, but tell me the thesis behind Big Small Talk. So, what's your thesis?

I guess it kind of comes back to what I felt Cheek was lacking in the space, right?

I think it's really good to have podcasting as a medium.

When a lot of media currently is existing purely through social media. It's how to get people back off that immediate short form algorithmic function and out to like a longer form, get into the nitty gritty of something and listen to people discuss it in an opinion based way that's transparent.

I'm not claiming to be objective in what I say. I'm claiming to challenge the mainstream and to offer my perspective by being transparent about where that's coming from.

And I think not enough young people feel invited into political conversations. So, I wanted to meet that with pop culture.

And so, my co-host offers the pop culture sort of like social commentary side, and I'm kind of leading through that legal and political side to bring something together that Gen Z can engage with and not feel stupid or silly for not quite understanding.

Because it's meant to be confusing, and that's how we break it down as saying, no, no, you should be invited to the table.

You should feel like you have something to say in this space, and I'm going to explain it in a way that other media refuses to.

So, is it a talent-based show, though? Is it you talking about topics?

And or is it you interviewing other people about topics?

It's me talking about topics or my co-host talking about topics.

Together. It's a chat. It's a conversation.

Bouncing off each other on the biggest six stories of the week.

Right. But is your co-host equally aligned to you philosophically?

I don't think always. I think often as well because she's coming more from the pop culture side that we offer two very different sides of like a cultural Gen Z coin.

What does that mean, pop culture?

Pop culture is think about things like celebrities. It's really about celebrities and social issues intertwine with that.

Like it could be about the tabloids.

It could be about Taylor Swift. It could be about Beyonce's new album.

It could be about the new Netflix documentary covering Nickelodeon and the child abuse scandals.

It doesn't really sit alongside.

I think people think it's frivolous, but it actually can be very heavy material as well.

But it's offering really like the celebrity versus the kind of political and legal is what I bring to the table essentially.

But is that then, so is the format then, she brings a topic, pop culture topic to the table.

And then you challenge her.

And then you challenge it from a legal, political policy point of view or is it you're contributing the idea and she's presenting another side of the story?

I guess it's we each present a story, three each week each, and the other person commentates and kind of challenges one person's opinion.

So I'm there not to offer a legal commentary on what she's saying but to kind of question the line of thinking and to create conversation about the debate that might surround the given issue.

So it's an idea though to draw in your cohort of audience, your cohort being your age group or Gen Z as you described it, and I guess you fit into that category.

I do, I'm Gen Z, but my audience is women older than me.

My audience is 37 year old women primarily, which is really interesting.

But are you getting a Gen Z?

Not as much.

Honestly, I have more men over 60 than women under 20.

No.

Yes.

And they're the ones that are paying subscribers too.

Wow.

Yeah.

It's actually exceptional.

It's what I need because they're the people with the money who are going to go and talk about it.

And Gen Z often isn't politically activated until they're over 21, 22 minimum.

So it's hard to get a 16 year old or an 18 year old to give a shit about any of this, right?

It's a pipeline.

So I'm actually impressed that I can reach people and talk equally with people so far my senior.

But it also means I need to get into that audience that need to be activated and get passionate about things.

So do you think it's the reason why people,

let's say men over 60, is the reason they're listening to us so they can find out what people in your cohort are arguing or thinking or basing their debate on?

So in other words, it's a bit of a vicarious glimpse into your world.

Totally.

I think that it's actually the fact that my media company Cheek on Instagram, what I'm doing more than aiming my chat at women is aiming commentary at people who feel like the Murdoch

media hasn't represented their views and isn't being challenged.

So I think more so than having these older men try to reach me.

They're saying there's this woman who sits so far outside my bubble, my echo chamber.

And yet I resonate with what she's saying and the way she's challenging the big dogs.

And I think that people are drawn to that.

So I always find it interesting because you said mainstream media.

I mean, I presume what you mean by this Murdoch,

mainstream media, but does that, can mainstream media with Murdoch being

print and not really any, no TV, no radio either, I don't think, do they?

I think it's, I think there is some, but it's not the main.

OK, so what do you mean by mainstream media?

Do you mean main influencer?

I mean, Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp.

I also mean a lot of what Nine represents, because really you're looking at Seven

West Media, Nine and then Murdoch as the three big players in Australia who have this monopoly.

And my thing is, even if there's other

diverse forms of media, they just do not get anywhere near the numbers.

Penetration. Exactly.

And it's also like the quality media in this country has to be paid for.

You know, you have to subscribe to get

that longer form journalism that people would agree is the higher quality

journalism that we're still getting that isn't sort of infiltrated by

Murdoch and the key players that have that clear agenda.

But do you think Nine and Seven,

they come from a different angle, I think, to Murdoch?

Totally.

But I also don't think that that angle is any less driven by a clear

political agenda that isn't transparent.

Yeah. So do you therefore do you think it's the same?

Is it the same political agenda?

I don't think it's as aggressive as Murdoch, but I don't think it's different.

Does that I think that I do not think that they have the sort of conviction and the

aggression and the extremism of Murdoch, but I do think they operate in the same

field, which is leaning right wing. Yeah.

Leaning right wing, whereas Murdoch media and if we talk about Sky or

Newscorp,

et cetera, online, it's very right and unapologetically.

Totally. It's a spectrum and it's really just the extremes of that spectrum.

Do you think if you had Rupert sitting here right now,

well, Lachlan, perhaps,

he would say the same thing to you?

In other words, he would say, you know what?

What we're doing is we're playing into the right wing media because we can own that.

We do own it. We can own that.

But it makes sense for us to own it because we have an

audience and they want to hear our point of view relative to the other side.

Yeah.

Or do you think that they are

dyed in the wool,

non-negotiable

and never relenting right wing protagonists?

I do not think that they believe the views that they perpetrate, that they perpetuate.

I think it's more market driven.

Yeah.

I think that they lean into the fact

that people are taking their views and running to the extreme.

I don't think they think Donald Trump is a prospectively good leader.

I don't think that they believe he's a smart man.

I think that it benefits them to support him as a leader.

Economically. Yes.

I think that it benefits them and their stations in the viewpoint they're trying

to position to support Donald Trump, but I think that they believe he's an idiot.

So your thesis is that it's more a business model.

Their business model is to

speak to this audience because they can own it.

They do own it.

And if they don't, if they move away from it, someone else will take it anyway.

So they own this audience.

The audience is profitable.

That is, advertisers want to spend money to that audience.

That audience is sticky and they know how to feed that audience.

Yes. So it's a business model.

Yeah. They have commodified fear and shame and stupidity.

Yeah. So I was...

Well, you've sort of answered the question before I asked it, but so I was going to ask you,

what are the elements that you think they need to

have in their kit bag in order to appeal to that audience?

I don't think it's difficult because I

think we're already so far down this like rabbit hole of an algorithm where people

are just siloed into their different camps and every issue has been positioned

as a yes or no, a win or loss, every debate.

Yeah, it's polarizing.

So people are not capable of coming to the table and having conversation anymore about

any given political issue.

So whether it's immigration, abortion, the vaccine, all of these issues have like a win

or loss mindset where it's not actually about values or belief systems or policy.

It's literally about this view that's perpetuated.

Are you red or blue? Are you a winner or a loser?

And there's no room for what is the context that brought you to your opinion?

How can I talk to you about your opinion in a safe and healthy way?

I think that what the Murdoch media does differently and they might accuse me

of just doing exactly what they do in the opposite.

Well, that's what I was going to ask you. Are you doing the same?

That's the obvious question, right?

Is like, are you just doing that for the left?

I think the left has nothing like it.

I don't see the left actually being able

to get together and sort of rise to compete with the right, actually,

because there's so much infighting, which I disagree with.

I think the difference with what I do is that I'm critical of the algorithm.

I'm critical of the short form journalism

that has led us down this path of not being able to talk to each other respectfully anymore.

I think there's no room for healthy debate.

There's no public intellectuals anymore.

It's just who has the sound bite.

There's no 45 seconds that sounds aggressive that goes well on TikTok or well on Facebook.

And so as much as I also do lean into that short form content, I always come back

to the value space, which is I've just written a book that's really about how

to have political conversations, trying to engage a younger audience

with those more respectful, secure ideas of how do you consume news and how do you

check your media literacy, where do you fact check?

How do you read three sources?

Where do you get them from?

And how do you talk to your parents

and grandparents about it without leaving Christmas lunch, basically?

It sounds very much like as someone who did the same as you,

it sounds like year one law school, legal research and writing.

Yeah, that's year one subject.

But that's the thing. It's actually quite basic.

First semester subject.

Yeah. Legal research and writing.

It's basic. Yeah.

That's the thing. I'm not asking for the world.

Yeah. So

if we could just go there for a moment, you have a degree, a law degree.

Yeah. So you studied law where?

Where? University of Queensland.

OK. So you studied at UQ and you've got your law degree there.

And when you, why did you go and do a law degree?

I mean, were you this person when you were 17 at school and about to go to uni?

I wasn't left wing when I went to university.

I was politically engaged.

I grew up in Orange.

So for anyone who's not from New South Wales,

it's about three and a half hours outside of Sydney, small town, about 45,000 people.

Beautiful place. Beautiful place.

I mean, not when you grow up there, but beautiful place when you want to visit.

It is today. Yeah.

I went to a Catholic, quite conservative school.

My parents are very working class people.

I didn't have the money to go to university sort of thing.

And I got a scholarship to go to UQ.

And when I got there, I met just the best

people ever who really introduced me to having these conversations.

My parents have always disagreed with, but have always been open to questions.

And they are people that have voted right wing until the last federal election.

And they're the kind

of people where we would have our disagreements and they would always try

to answer my questions, but they always just wanted me to pursue whatever I was passionate about.

There was never pressure.

And I found that since I was 10, I wanted to be prime minister.

So I was always politically engaged.

Like I went to Canberra and I was not fascinated by parliament.

I was fascinated by the Electoral Commission.

And that sounds extremely boring and hilarious.

Like my parents were like, what's wrong with this kid?

Right. And I thought about it.

I was asked about it last week.

And the thing that it came down to for me is I don't really care about politicians

because I think that they're about

as useful as a PNC committee a lot of the time.

Like they're just screaming at each other about shit because of their power position.

Right.

I think I was passionate about something like the Electoral Commission because I

was passionate about what voting meant.

It meant that we all had an equal power

and an equal voice to determine who's in charge.

And from there it was like I wanted to

understand what people in the news talked about because that mattered to me.

And so as much as I wasn't like politically active in terms of being

left wing or in spaces like this and talking the way I do now, I'm fascinated

by how we talk to each other and how we educate each other and ourselves on these

topics. I did law, honestly, because I got really good marks at school.

And I thought, what's the impressive thing to do?

That is the honest truth.

And I wish I hadn't.

But I didn't think I wanted to do anything else.

You wish you had done well or you wish you had done law?

Law. Of course I would have done it.

Because you don't think I think it may well have equipped you.

Totally. It did.

To have this ability to

have a critical thinking process and also understand the importance of making sure

that you can say something persuasively, but more importantly, authoritatively.

Totally. And that's that's that's the whole basis of being a lawyer.

Absolutely. But when you enter law school,

you're not thinking I'm entering here for that.

You think I'm entering here to become a lawyer.

And as soon as I started, I loved the ethics debates.

I loved all of this is persuasion stuff.

Couldn't give a shit about the actual

substance of taught law, property law, like boring.

Right.

Oh, there's social there's social fictions.

Yeah, they're all fictional.

The whole thing's a fiction. I get it.

It's all made up. I'm serious.

It rules. People look at me.

They're just parliamentary.

Parliament makes fictions, creates stories and out of that codifies it.

And next thing you know, you're in trouble if you don't abide.

And we change it every few years to match that.

Totally.

I think that I did it and I kept doing it

because I was I'm just not a quitter in terms of like I didn't like doing

the degree, but I thought I'm learning a lot about how to critique this system.

And that will always equip me. Exactly.

I always thought this is compelling stuff.

And I have this skill set and how to look at a system.

And critique it, how to look at these

archaic institutions and go, that's wrong, that's wrong.

And that's wrong. And I know how to talk about it.

What I hated about it was the culture of stuffy, elitist sort of people that wanted

to climb a corporate ladder and be decision makers without life experience.

I know. That's lecturers.

Totally. But I resented it.

Yeah. I was like, is this really what?

Yeah, totally. Yeah, I resent it.

Well, but I still have an academic role at the University of New South Wales.

Oh, so sorry.

But I mean, but I also but I also recognise

the fiction that gets created there, like it's just one big fiction.

It's all bullshit. It is.

And it's all supposed to represent social norms.

But what the fuck is a social norm?

I don't know. How can I work out?

Sometimes I think to myself about criminals and I think,

dude, I don't really have that big a problem with you because it depends what

the crime is, but I don't have the I don't have the bigger problem with you because

someone's just created a law which put you in jail.

You know, there's plenty of great examples.

Assange is a great example.

We'll talk about him a bit later because it is a bit.

Topical at the moment.

But someone's created laws around what they think is right and wrong.

Yeah. And who says whether they're right or wrong.

They're politicians. They're the people we elect.

In fact, a lot of times they're not the people we elect.

They're the people sitting behind the people that we elect.

Yes. Who are there forever.

Yes. No matter who's elected.

Totally.

And as a lot of times it's their idea of what should and shouldn't be the case.

Yeah. And what should and shouldn't be the law.

And as a result of that, if you if you fall foul of that,

in other words, you don't toe the line, you could end up in jail.

Absolutely.

There are good people who disobey bad laws.

Right. Yeah.

That's a good way of putting it. Yeah.

It's like the reason I did the law degree is because I feel like I'm

in a position now to explain to people that and how to change it.

There's no use me sitting here and yelling and screaming into the void

about not liking something if I'm not trying to change it.

So I think that's really the push here is

my passion is not necessarily being a politician yet.

It's about saying to people this entire system has hoodwinked you.

Because you feel too silly or not informed to talk about it.

And what I want to do is take the stuffy,

complicated language, which is just a bunch of people in suits saying

a bunch of nine letters in a row that don't really mean anything put together.

Well, they make you feel like you're stupid.

Exactly. And that's my job.

I see it as like genuinely to say stop.

This headline actually means this or this

is missing and this is missing and this is inappropriate and this is why.

But this system cuts across everything, by the way.

It's not just laws. No.

I mean, like I mean,

I can talk about boring stuff like economics, but even things like gross

domestic product, what the Reserve Bank does, you know, that's just an organization

is there to change our behavior because they don't like our behavior.

It's like going to school and someone

putting me in detention by increasing the interest rates to stop me spending money.

Yes.

But by the way, the money came from the government in the first place.

Yes. So it's it's actually the problem is up here somewhere.

It's not me. Yeah.

And we've had a lot of great economists

in the world like Milton Friedman have always said consumers don't create inflation.

Everyone in Australia is being blamed for creating inflation.

And by the way, around the world, you all spend too much money.

You're going crazy. Wait a minute.

As Milton Friedman would have said in 1996,

he said governments create inflation by putting money into the system.

They put money in the system because they want you to spend the money.

Yes. That's what they did to us.

But now so I guess what you're sort of saying.

But I understand what you're saying.

But this system not only exists in the law.

It's not any part of the politics, but it's

just part of the whole everything we do.

Kids playgrounds, you know, where you can put them,

what sort of turf you've got to have under them and what type of plastic you can use.

I mean, like there's rules now around

it drives me mental, OK, and I don't even know how to escape it.

I mean, for me, it's actually a

like a mental intellectual distraction for me.

Yeah, same. It can seem to be crazy.

But you're disrupting the mainstream media by saying that.

Well, I do this for that reason. Yeah.

Because I want to

bring whether or not you and I agree on the policies.

Yeah, it's irrelevant for me.

No, same. I just want to hear what you've got to say.

And I want to talk to you about why you are doing this.

Is it about change? Yes.

For you? Yes, totally.

So your outcome is you want people to listen to your show, perhaps over time,

change the way they approach the discussion.

Yeah. But also, again, I don't want people to agree with me.

I think that's one of the biggest mistakes.

People think I want people who follow me

and do agree with me want to just adopt my view.

And I think that's a failure, too.

Yeah. You're not trying to get them to agree with you.

No. You want them to change the way they think.

Change the way they think,

not change the view they have, but change the way they think about it.

Exactly. And discuss it.

Yes. And when they're reading again at baseline, don't feel stupid if you don't

get it, it's on purpose, come back, use what I'm saying as a springboard

and then go out and approach everything differently.

Exactly that.

It's about change over time and introducing people to the idea that it's

purposeful, this confusion, it's an agenda, it's not a mistake.

And I think that that's really how you

create change by making people feel, hey, person to person.

We're not silly, we're not idiots.

Sit down, read this, go and read it two

other places and then come back to me, what are five facts that you found from that?

Like the basics of media literacy in this country are so low.

Yeah, but that's sort of interesting because whether it's left or right,

I often think to myself, and you might know the answer to this, because I don't.

Is there a group of people

who are sitting there, either on the left or the right,

manipulating the program in order to achieve

the outcome, or is it just the system's gone crazy and it's just

building all these stupid fucking things up that really confound me?

Yeah.

I think it's kind of both because I think there are groups of people that are making

things, whether it be a particular masthead, a particular show, a particular

radio program, a particular podcast that are built with the outcome in mind.

But also that's not because people get into a room and decide to be evil.

That's because they all bring bias to it, right?

Like for me, it's about saying I'm not objective.

I have all these opinions and belief systems that come from a very like niche

and my personal experience of my upbringing, my childhood, my university

experience.

That's why I'm here today talking in the way I am.

All of those millions of experiences.

But I'm more honest about it.

I think I'm saying the reason I think this is this, this and this.

Tell me why you disagree.

I don't think Rupert Murdoch has ever done that.

That's the difference, is how to be

transparent about the fact that we're all prejudiced.

But do you think that is the difference in just technique, though?

Technique in the terms of...

His technique versus your technique.

So he just talks to his audience.

And of course, his audience is massive.

So he just probably takes a view.

I don't know if this is the case because I've never interviewed him.

But I have met him, though.

But like maybe Lachlan, you know, I might have the conversation with Lachlan one day.

But is it just easier just to continually

feed everybody what the algorithm says they want?

Because a lot of this is pretty removed from thought processes.

Yeah. It's, as you said, algorithmic.

And it's about, especially today, news.com.au, whatever it is.

Do you think the difference between him and you is he's got a far bigger audience.

He doesn't have the time to sit down and explain things and

make the debate look reasonable or equal and just feeds them what they want.

Because of the business model, it just works.

I think he has the time he chooses not to.

I think that if I decided tomorrow that I

wanted to be just the opposite of Rupert Murdoch, I wouldn't get to Rupert Murdoch

status, but I would get a lot further, a lot quicker because I could just make

content that feeds directly to that algorithm.

And I think that I choose not to by doing

different kinds of content that challenge our ways of thinking, not just competing

with him in the opposite. So I don't think it's a difference.

Of technique. I think it's a difference in values

because I think his values are money.

I think his values are however that money

comes to his pocket and he retains political control and power.

I think mine and my bank accounts a lot different to his.

And I think that that's because I actually

more care about people and how they approach their own critical thinking.

And yes, there are times when I play into

the exact Rupert Murdoch style of thinking, but for the left.

But it's also about fighting that and being honest about it and saying, yeah, I fucked up.

I know it.

But I'm talking about it.

And I don't think people like Rupert Murdoch do that.

No.

And do you think that's a generational,

here's a couple of generations beyond you, but do you think that's a generational

thing because your generation has been brought up and not only generational,

also education point of view, you're totally differently educated to him.

You went through law school in a, when law school, when you're going through

law school, when I went through law school, law school is completely different today.

Much more critical thinking.

More left to the left than it ever has been in the past.

You know, like, you know, when I was at university in 1975,

it was all about investment banking and make as much money as you could as a lawyer.

Really?

It was not about proper critical thinking.

It was, you know, I went to the University of New South Wales.

It was a more, yeah, it's more about, well, I was doing common law.

So it's a different sort of vibe to today.

I know today it's much,

much broader and more, more equal, more equivalent.

And people's opinions from both sides, in fact, probably more to the left

considered that today than they were ever in the past.

In fact, if you, I remember doing cases like if you had a socialist view,

you were actually, you know, you were looked at a bit weird.

You know, like you might be representing communism.

Yeah, because, I mean,

there was a lot of constitutional laws, a lot of stuff around the infiltration

of the communists into Australia.

Now, let's say Murdoch went through that period.

In fact, he's even beyond that from my point of view.

But he's also generationally totally different.

You know, generationally, look, that's my view.

That's my view.

I don't give a stuff about anyone else's view.

Do you think it's as much about that for him?

Or do you think it's, and because he does control his, I think he controls his

organization, you know, it's like, you know,

it's his policy sort of thing or his family's policy.

Do you think it's about that and therefore there's an excuse?

I think that's undermining his intellect.

Like, I think that, I think people know they can change their view.

I think the smartest people, maybe, maybe we're not.

I think the smartest people,

the people most capable of changing their mind when presented with new information.

I think that people believe that to be steadfast and like committed to a certain

viewpoint is like the greatest sign of you're a smart person, basically.

But I think that that's

an arrogant person because I think that you need to be able to change with the times.

And so I think that Rupert Murdoch, I think he knows what he's doing.

I think it's a purposeful choice and I think it's strategic.

I don't think I think many people of that

time do hold those views, but I don't think Rupert Murdoch does.

So what would be the strategy then, power?

Yeah, I think that he's in control of that right wing extremist sort of narrative

and he can funnel out things and have people pay him to do so.

I think that perpetuating

a sort of feeding into a society that hates each other and stokes those

culture wars and increases those divides benefits him greatly.

He doesn't want that to stop anytime soon.

He wants it to get worse because misinformation and disinformation benefit him.

So that's interesting.

You talk about the divide because I mean, that's one of the things that sort of is

new to me in that it's become quite blunt, the divide now today.

And it sort of aggravates me a little bit that we

seem to be living in this massive divide because you're really forced to take a view, like a side.

Yeah.

And before maybe we were a bit lazy in our thinking.

We didn't have to we didn't have to take sides.

It wasn't a thing.

But now we're sort of being forced to take a side.

And in terms of critical thinking and also debate,

sometimes people don't engage because they don't want to get shouted at.

Yeah.

Either by the left or the right, because whatever position you take, the opposite

applies.

And the next.

So, you know, given the way the media works, mediums work today,

you could find yourself getting cancelled or you could find yourself in all sorts

of shit from either from either point of view.

Do you think that's a big reason why people

don't engage and don't debate and don't think about things critically?

It's just too fucking hard. Totally.

And again, it's like you've got one of two options.

So I think that makes people just pick

a side and just conform to it depending on their social group or their family.

And they just hang out with that group and then therefore there's no drama.

Yeah. No stress.

Exactly.

Or they just.

They remain quiet, disengaged because and it's like things like the referendum are

a really great example of that where.

The recent one. Yes.

And it's sort of pushed by people like

Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, who said, like, if you don't know, vote no,

which is inviting people to go, I'm really scared of this.

So I'm just going to vote one way still,

pick a side as a point of ease to not having to step up and learn something or engage.

And I get it because there's a lot

of shouting and a lot of yelling and a lot of lies out there.

But

I think that the disengagement and withdrawal has always been pushed by

by conservatives because it's like, don't do anything.

That's the answer to being confused.

And I don't think that's the way to be.

I don't think Gen Z thinks that's the way to be either.

And I also had someone a couple of weeks

ago message me and say, just a follower and say,

can you tell me again why we hate Peter Dutton?

And exactly right.

And I thought, oh, my.

And you know what? Obviously, I'm not a supporter of Peter

Dutton, like quite clearly from my political stance is I'm not.

But I think I did some great work for Peter Dutton that day PR wise, because I said I

could have easily gone back and said ten reasons why I dislike Peter Dutton.

That would have been the inflammatory,

easy like I'm just going to enforce my view on your way to do things.

And instead I said, if you can't tell me why you don't like

Peter Dutton, you are fine with Peter Dutton.

You are neutral until you can articulate and go and find reasoning.

I'm sorry to tell you that you don't hate him.

And it's so important that you don't just

agree with people because that's what's popular on Instagram.

It's what you're saying. It's what you're sharing.

But can you tell me?

Because if you can't, you need to seriously reevaluate why you would use

especially the word hate, which is such an extreme, intense emotion

to describe someone that you don't know.

And I don't like Peter Dutton and I can rattle off ten things.

But that's not the way that we should be

going about political conversations and topics, because simply that's someone who

isn't educated and isn't informed on the issues and needs to go out

and find information.

Not too long ago, running a business looked a lot different.

A good location and a solid reputation

were enough to keep a customer base happy.

No websites, no social media, no SEO,

just old school networking and persistence, of course.

But times have changed.

In today's digital world, your business needs more than just a great product.

It needs visibility.

That's where Squarespace comes in.

Whether you're just getting started or expanding your brand, it's the all in one

and managing your online presence simple.

With Blueprint AI, creating a professional,

customized website takes just a few clicks.

Plus, powerful tools like automated client

invoicing, online courses and memberships help you generate revenue effortlessly.

So you can focus on growing your business instead of juggling logistics.

Head to Squarespace.com forward slash mentored for a free trial.

And when you're ready to launch, use offer

code mentored, M-E-N-T-O-R-E-D to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or a domain.

Mic check, one, two, are we recording?

Hi, I'm Michelle Bernstein, an award winning chef, restaurateur and mom.

I have a lot on my plate, including my psoriatic arthritis symptoms.

That's why I was prescribed Cosentix.

It helps me move better.

Cosentix SecuKenumab is prescribed for people two years

of age and older.

With active psoriatic arthritis.

Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentix.

Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis.

An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur

like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections.

Some were fatal.

Tell your doctor if you have an infection

or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough.

Had a vaccine or plan to or if inflammatory

bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen.

Serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur.

Learn more at

www.44cosentix or cosentix.com.

Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentix.

Because it's interesting, you know, it's funny, you should say, because the other

day I ran into Dave Sharma and sent it to Dave Sharma.

Yes. And and he's, as you know, is pro-Israel.

He was the ambassador, the ambassador or

the consul general or something like that in Israel many years ago.

He's not he's not Jewish.

In fact, he's Indian.

Everyone thinks he's Jewish, but he's not.

And Dave,

I bumped into him in a building where there's a lot of politicians.

It was in Sydney where they come when they

come to see him in Parliament, not Sydney.

And I said, Dave,

how are you going mate down there?

The divide down there in relation to pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine is quite

emphatic. It's nearly like you've got to take a side.

I said, when you are debating these individuals, either in Parliament or on media,

when you walk past them,

how do you feel? Like, what do you say?

G'day, how are you going? You know, Penny?

Yeah, you know, whatever.

And he said, it's interesting, Mark.

He said, we're all very cordial to each towards each other.

And we manage to

maintain our position or our dignity person to person.

What do you think about that?

I mean, it's,

I mean, I know.

The word hatred is not a good word, like it's a bad word.

Is this sort of what you're saying?

Like, let's just have it's fair that Penny Wong can have her view and it's fair

that Dave Sharma can have his view, but equally and they can express it

and prosecute it however best they can.

But at the end of the day, it's just a debate.

Is it beyond just a debate for you?

Yes, but it depends on the issue.

Like, I just think it's OK, for example, in this particular example,

I think it's difficult because we're talking about a workplace, right?

We're talking about people just

showing each other basic human respect in a workplace, which I think is necessary

because in order to have longevity in those sorts of roles,

which are all about human issues every single day,

you need to show respect to one another outside the chamber.

I get that.

Or and yeah, OK, as in the corridors.

Yes, exactly.

I mean, if you can debate all you want inside.

But I think the reality is it's not a debate, is it?

We're talking about the murder, the killing of tens of thousands of people.

And so what's interesting

is that it's like I think the question always comes up how to how to engage

with people who have a different point of view to you.

And I think it's because, again, there's a spectrum.

If I go to my family lunch, I have a particular family member who

fundamentally doesn't believe that I should have equal rights to him as a woman.

I find that hard to sit at a table with

because that is deeply disturbing and makes me not feel like a human.

As a fundamental. Right.

And it's like, how how long can I debate something before it's like,

actually, just there's no use because what I say to people is like,

do not relentlessly put yourself in a position of harm with someone that just

is a racist or is just a misogynist, right, that's fundamentally hates a group

of people and is overt about that because you're never going to have

a respectful conversation with that person where you walk away,

feel like you both had thoughts to give and things to take away.

Because it's not really about winning for me.

I'm not trying to win you over.

I'm not trying to impress you.

I'm not trying to convince you.

I'm right.

I want us to talk and go hard.

That made me think about three things and

now go away and approach something differently.

Some people you can do that with, but many you can't.

And so like in a person to person context, it's not political, not politicians.

I mean, I think it's about like I'm not going

to debate someone that doesn't see me as a person and I'm not going to debate

someone that's really overtly offensive, I'm going to talk to someone that is open

to hearing what I have to say and respects me as a person.

And we can walk away saying,

oh, that was kind of convincing.

I liked that point.

I think that's the key for me is like I don't think the politicians are the greatest

example because they're the people that we lobby to make change on the views

that we reflect in our society.

So I want them to be doing more than they're doing.

I want them to respect each other as people.

But I'm more harsh on that level of debate where I think, no, no, no.

You're the change maker here and you're

the person I should be talking to to have that change made.

So I'm harsher.

So as you say, change occurs and sometimes it occurs.

It's a glacial speed, unfortunately.

And a good example of that is.

I heard this morning and I don't know when this show is going to get away,

but it doesn't matter, I heard this morning that Biden's now considering

giving Julian Assange a pardon.

Which that's new narrative.

Yes.

Obviously, Biden sort of represents the left, I guess, in the US elections coming up.

But someone like you, how would you approach it?

Because would you start to say to yourself, well, hang on a minute.

Are you changing because it's proper to Biden?

Are you changing because it's proper to change or are you changing because you

want to make sure you satisfy all those people who are actually going to maybe

going to vote for you in the next election?

Is this real or not real?

That's what's exhausting about this, is that they withhold change until

an election year and we'll see it with the Albanese government too.

I, again, they're a.

Quoting in quotations, progressive government, I think they're moderate at

best, and I think that in this election year that's coming up, we will see a lot

of commitments when we've seen a lot of inaction for the last year or two.

Like I've seen them do very little in terms of policy.

By just coming up, you're going to see a heap.

Exactly. But that's what I mean.

They wait till they're primed and they do something for a headline and that's it.

And then we wait another year for anything

meaningful to happen again because they don't want to rock the boat.

Biden's the same.

He's copying a lot about over Israel and his

inaction around, you know, he's basically weaponizing what's occurring in Palestine.

And so for his own for his own benefit.

Absolutely.

And in fact, for some states where he does, where it's critical for him to win.

Yes. It's not even across America.

No, it's for specific states where he must win.

Which is pork barreling, really.

If you want to come up with a term, that's one that comes to mind.

Yeah. And so it's exhausting because you're

looking at these people knowing they could do anything at any time.

And they wait and they do it when it's

appropriate for a headline and for a vote.

And it is it's it really comes back to that view of like politicians are just

people and they're just trying to retain power.

And it's like a firm belief.

I have like people who really want to be

a cop or a politician are probably the people that shouldn't have the job.

You know, if you desperately want it, you're probably not the appropriate person.

And I think that it's very rare to come

across someone who is there for the genuine reasons.

And that concerns me. But how do you change that culture?

How do you get people in that care?

And don't succumb to that that ecosystem?

What do you think about this situation?

I think that he should be pardoned.

I don't or I think like what I read a few weeks ago before Biden's come out and

suggested this is like that the UK wanted confirmation that he wouldn't face

the death penalty. I think that he's been held for long enough.

I think that he's done his time, so to speak.

Yeah. But does that mean can I extravaganza please do?

Can I extrapolate from that?

Does that mean that you think he committed a crime?

No, I.

Or a transgression?

He's honestly here's what I think.

I do not think Julian Assange committed a crime.

The reason I generally don't talk too much

about Assange is that there were allegations of sexual assault made against him.

I know, but I can't put it aside

because I think all of those things together, that's a different.

Well, but I really don't think he committed a crime.

I think he released confidential information for the public interest.

That was for good.

OK, can I just talk about that?

Because from America's point of view, they just take a hard line view.

You released government secrets or defence secrets, whatever the defence secrets.

Yeah.

Therefore, you got to pay the piper, OK?

Yeah. And may well be he's already paid because

he's already been effectively incarcerated for all this time.

Yeah. But just put that aside for a second.

Because for me, it may be that he should have released that information.

He shouldn't have. He should have.

Yes, I agree.

He actually should know about this sort of shit.

I agree. That's my position.

And but there's an old rule in the US that talks, that's been around forever.

No matter what, you do not commit this transgression by giving the enemy.

Not you or me, but the enemy.

Yep. Whoever that might be.

Access to stuff that's been the weak even secret that might actually have

a deleterious effect on us in relation to our ability to defend our shores, for example.

Yeah.

But one would say.

But now we're in a different world now.

Now we're saying, but some of the stuff you should have released.

But therefore, some of the stuff maybe you should have.

Some of the stuff you should have.

Semantics, isn't it?

But it's getting very it's sort of like they get tricky.

And

how do you on your show, I don't know if you've done a podcast on this, but how do

you on your show approach, it's complicated.

Yeah, it is. How do you approach it?

Well, I think it's about really laying out the timeline of what occurred.

And you can't do that in a 10 minute news segment, but doing it to the best of your ability.

Yeah.

And discussing, I think from my perspective, it's like, what is the purpose of the law here?

Right.

Exactly what you've just said, like that the US is saying you've given information to the enemy.

Right.

But then I kind of look and think, OK, let's look at this.

What's occurred? What was his intent and what was the impact?

Right. So his intent was really to show war crimes that had been committed.

And his impact was that he did like that was that was unleashed this information

about what the US had done, both the intention and the impact.

I support.

The release of those things.

I support that decision making.

And I think in the same position, I would have done exactly what he did.

I don't know if I'm brave enough, but I would hope that I could.

I don't think.

And earlier when I said, like, I think he's done his time.

I mean, surely Biden just lets him go like he has been caged basically for so long.

That's a practical outcome. Totally.

But I think in terms of my personal view, the approach I have is laying out the facts,

laying out the law and then having a conversation about what is freedom of speech and what is kind

of in terms of US military secrets, like what is the impact here, the intention?

And what does the enemy get from this?

Ultimately, I think when the US says it's about the enemy, they're lying.

I think it's about the fact that they've been exposed.

And I think anything else is a lie that they would say in defense of that.

So and we're seeing in Australia right now, we're saying seeing a former military lawyer,

David McBride, who's being prosecuted over leaking similar information about Australian

war crimes in Afghanistan, and I backed his case.

And we covered on our podcast as well, because this is important.

And these things are just.

Buried under the guise of like government

protection, but that's not what it is at all, it's to conceal crime.

The government has the ability to determine what is considered crime at an

individual level, but when it's turned on them, they're unwilling to accept it.

Instead, they prosecute the person calling it out.

And I think that's fundamentally wrong.

So if I said in the beginning, I was in the earlier period of when you and I

were talking about when I sort of said.

The law is a bit of an ass anyway, like it's all fictional.

So on one hand, if he committed a crime, it's a science, for example,

according to US legal position, it's a fiction that they created.

But equally, if he accuses someone of a war crime, can a war crime be equally fictional?

See, I don't agree with you that the law

is fictional, but I think it's really about public rules right around what is

fair and what is moral behavior or is it more about what is better to sort of

control society, societal control, so we don't have in a non-anarchist way.

We don't need anarchy.

I was about to say you an anarchist.

No, I'm not, but I accept because I accept

controls in order just like religion helps control some things, too.

I accept controls to the point of view of stopping anarchy.

And otherwise, if there's no rules, I can go and chop someone's head off.

Yep.

Which is sort of what some of the terrorists tend to do from time to time.

Correct. There's no rules.

Yeah.

So but like that's the worst position.

But then when you start layering that and layering and keep layering and all of a

sudden there's rules about everything, you know, what you can wear, what you can say,

how quickly you got to speak, you know, I'm against that shit.

Like, I know you got to stop anarchy down here.

I get that. The question is, how far do you go?

Yeah.

So Assange is an example.

You he's he's he's calling out war crimes.

But are

you saying the war crimes, would you say the war crimes are actually at a moral

level and therefore are close to anarchy, a form of anarchy, therefore should be

called out compared to his crime, which is something that's just developed

a matter of convenience for the government.

Is that what you are saying?

I think I kind of agree with a bit of both, actually, what you're saying.

I do not think the US should be able to commit war crimes in Afghanistan and not

have that held to account. But I also think in regards to the second

option, it is a law that's been created by the US to protect themselves.

Both can exist there.

So I obviously I would say a bit differently to you.

I believe in most laws.

I understand their purpose and I believe

that they help society function better.

I also believe that parts of the system need to be completely reformed

because I don't think I actually don't really believe in a prison system.

I do not think that 90 percent of people

that are currently in prison should be in prison.

What about the 10 percent that are?

I think the 10 percent that are people

that have committed serial murder, serial pedophilia.

Is society safer?

I believe certain crimes.

I believe most crimes should still

exist in the rule of the law.

I think the way that they should be punished should be different.

So I believe that most of the behaviors

that form under the Crimes Act, say, are real, existing and should have

accountability as a form, whatever that system looks like.

I don't believe that most of those crimes should result in people being caged.

I think that most people who commit crime

have existed in socioeconomic standards and situations and been unsupported

by the government that have led to them committing crimes.

And I wish... Caused by the government sometimes.

Exactly.

And I wish that those barriers were removed so that people were more

supported in society to not have to commit crime.

And I also think that the way that we go about prosecuting is not right.

The way that we

force victims to retraumatize themselves through that process.

I also think that if we asked most victims

of different crimes what they wanted out of the outcome, it probably wouldn't be.

And this is obviously a generalization because there's so many crimes, but take a lot of

there's a lot of the Me Too movement, right?

A lot of it is around this, like, this culture war.

We've got people saying, like, presumption of innocence, fair process, all these things.

But no one's arguing against the presumption of innocence.

What we're arguing against is a court

system which forces victims to retraumatize themselves and never really gets a just

outcome for anyone, because ultimately what they want is for

the crime to never have occurred or not to occur again.

And you don't really get that through 1% of people being jailed or through the jail

system anyway.

It's not rehabilitative, right?

So I disagree with the way that our prison

system and legal system punishes perpetrators instead of helping them from

childhood or helping rehabilitate them after the crime's been committed.

That's my kind of belief system as opposed

to yours, which is really like a lot of law is fiction.

Yeah. Well, I have friends who have gone to jail

because when they were young, young men, like teenagers back in going back a long

time ago, we had effectively had reforms

to schools and just dreadful places where they were sent because they might have

stole something at 12 or 13 and they were committed to these places and they were

either sexually abused or physically abused, bashed.

And they come out, they become institutionalized and they come out of

that system thinking most of them, you know, would have had

dyslexic or things that were never recognized back in those days.

Poor learning abilities.

Not stupid, but just inability to learn the normal way that you and I learn at school.

They weren't supported.

And and they become institutionalized and they believe that that's the person they

are and, you know, because I'm a big believer and there's a very famous book

called Neurocomic, which where it's a neurologist or neuroscientist works

together with an illustrator where they they in a comic form, they show us how we

build a story about ourselves and we then have that story confirmed and affirmed.

And eventually that's how our brain works and to rehabilitate someone.

We have to actually put a stop on that thought pattern and actually change

how your brain actually thinks about itself or the story about who I am.

Exactly.

My mates, a lot of my mates, they come out of these places thinking, well, I'm a criminal.

Yeah, that's who accepts me.

And I can't go and do a law degree like you or I because I'm not smart enough

because I'm being told I'm a bit dumb when I'm not.

And but I'm pretty actually bright and I can perpetrate a really good crime.

You know what I mean?

They just keep doing it. Yes.

And eventually.

But but how do you how do you reform that?

Like, how the fuck do you fix that up?

Yeah, well, the system's massive.

Yeah, totally. And it's not an overnight fix, right?

But you look at it and like especially

right now, there's a huge issue with youth offending in this country.

Right.

And a lot of the media perpetrates like youth delinquents, you know, like put them

away, but you're putting children as young as 10 who can be strip searched, arrested,

charged, put in youth facilities all over the country behind bars and isolating

them from the ability to be rehabilitated, right?

Or worse, you're putting them with other criminals.

That's the thing.

It's like these kids are stopped from their education.

They're already clearly in a socioeconomic

environment, a lot of them that isn't supported.

We're in cost of living crisis, like the trickle down effect on families.

Like a lot of kids are really responding

to lack of attention or support and struggling at school.

Right.

And you'll find that when we look at the

data on kids that die after being in youth facilities or, you know,

or take their own. Yes.

Or who just completely reoffend over and over again.

You're looking at a system that hasn't

supported them and will continue to fail them into adulthood.

How do you change that?

Well, I've got mates who have been through

exactly that process and they've never changed.

It's not until they get to a point in their

life physically where they can't actually do it anymore.

Yeah. And they can't take the stress.

Like they just it becomes a point where they become broken.

Yeah. And I just don't want to go back to jail

again, so I'm never going to commit that crime again.

I can't do it.

That that that conversation is ultimately where you end up in the 60s.

Eventually, the system will break them down.

Yes. And they just give up.

Yeah. But they fight against it, you know, forever.

But then a point just comes, that's it.

And they sort of retire from crime because they no longer can take the fight.

I have to ask you, you said you said earlier on.

About becoming prime minister.

Come on. Yeah.

Do you really mean it?

Yeah, totally. It's so funny.

It's so funny that you think that, like, come on.

No, no, no. I'll tell you why.

Because I was once asked many years ago and I won't go into the story because it's

quite confidential, but from another person, I couldn't give a shit.

But I don't want to reveal who it was.

But I was asked, would I form another party, political party?

This is like 15 years ago, maybe 10, 12, whatever.

And somewhere between left and right, like between the two major parties.

And

the person offered to fund it, it was a big deal.

And I thought about it, I thought, oh, that'd be fun.

I'd change things. Shit, I want to change.

I don't like this, I don't like that.

Some things you and I discussed.

But I thought, my God, I can't imagine myself going down to the mothership

in Canberra and living in Canberra for whatever amount of time they're going to spend down there.

And being away from everybody.

And just that whole environment, I think it's toxic.

Yeah, it is.

It's just a shit environment.

I'm sorry to say, all the senators and politicians love it.

I hate it.

I think there's a lot of shit people involved, if I'm being honest.

But the whole thing is shit.

Like, it's not modern.

Yeah, it's not. It's old.

It's like going back in time.

And you walk in there, I mean, I've been there a number of times.

You walk around there, you feel like you're

in an old institution that controls you, that owns you there and then.

Why would you?

Why would you consider it?

Because I believe I'd do it differently.

You have to believe that going in, right?

Because you can change that as well.

Yeah.

You say you can all dial in or I mean, like.

I think that, like, if I disagree,

if I don't think current politicians are there for the right reasons,

I don't think they're real people.

I think that they get media training and

then they're just selling something to us basically over and over again every three

years. How do I challenge that?

How do I become a real person in this

spectrum and say, be the point of difference?

And it's hard because, like, do I genuinely believe I could get in there

and maintain who I am now and not be muzzled?

I don't know. That's why the only reason I

haven't done it yet is because I don't really agree with the two party system.

I would I would consider being an independent candidate.

But how do you become prime minister?

Well, you can't become an independent.

You can't become prime minister if you're an independent.

Well, let's start a political party and then we'll win.

That's my point.

Yeah. So then you got to start a political party.

And you got to get funded. You got to get funded.

Yep. You got to start a political party.

But then you got to find other like minded people.

Or not.

But you got to have your your team.

Yeah. You know, Team Hannah.

Yep.

Like the like like the Teals.

Yeah. You got to have them representing one

in Wentworth, one blah blah blah all around the joint.

It becomes a mission. It is.

It's a major mission.

And you get so bogged down in the mission

that you forget about the principles or the real reason why you might be there.

I don't know. How do you feel about that?

I don't. Maybe you're young enough to do it.

Like, you know, for me, maybe I'm naive.

Maybe I'm too hopeful about all of this, but I don't think that has to happen.

I think you have to have the right people, which is the hardest part.

I think trusting people with a mission

like that is the harder part than sticking to your values.

Correct. Getting the people.

But how do you find those people?

There are so many people.

You're going to need 150. There's 150 seats.

Yeah. Or something like that.

You go slow at first.

You build. It would take my lifetime to do what we're talking about.

It will take your lifetime.

But I believe I can do it.

Yeah. So what would it take to get you to do that?

I considered we got an election coming up next year.

I've had some conversations about

potentially running, had some advice about which party or going

independent. The hardest part for me is I'm not a business mind.

I don't know how to run a party and to get the funding and do all of those things.

I'm not confident in that space.

I'm not confident financially.

And so that's the hardest part to me is

getting the backing in the initial phase to then have the confidence to go out and

do this. I'm also 25 and I think I have more power

right now talking in the way I do as freely as I want to about any given issue.

And I would rather build that out for potentially three more years before having

a crack.

I think I need to get some more experience

under my belt before I have a go at the big league, the mothership, as you describe.

Yeah. So if I put an idea into your head,

if you don't mind, not that I'm trying to manipulate you,

but I wonder whether or not someone like you

and your co-order like-minded friends of yours

established an online parliament.

And everyone in Australia who chooses to can

register in the current ward that they're in, like, let's say I'm in Wentworth or I'm

in the CBD, or let's say I'm in Wentworth to make it easier, I'm in Wentworth.

So you create the ward of Wentworth online.

And everybody who's in Wentworth can now register as a voter in Wentworth.

But then the election is coming up.

And the administrator of the website just says,

nominate, anyone can nominate to be the person in Wentworth.

You don't have to have a name.

You don't have to have any money. Just go online and you get up in your soapbox.

It's like the domain, the old days getting in the domain.

You get out there and you go online and you facilitate the platform.

And you stand in one of the seats too.

You stand in the seat of Orange or wherever you choose, whatever that seat is.

And you choose the place you want to sit in.

And if you get elected, then you control and you say, I'm now running

the, for want of a better name, the moderates or the in-between party.

And because, and then every time you allow,

and the reason why I'll go and register online is because you're going to say

every single issue, Mark, that comes up, I'm not going to decide it as your

senator or your House of Reps person, you all get a say.

And everybody can vote on nearly every

issue or any issue they choose to vote on.

Yeah. As opposed to electing so-and-so in my ward.

And then I never get a say again until the

next election as to everything that individual decides.

Totally.

I understand what you're saying.

No, it's sort of like disrupting the whole election system.

It is.

But is every person informed enough on every issue to make-

It's up to the person in the ward.

And it's up to you who administers the whole thing.

So this better than going to parliament.

It's better than, you're doing all this online.

You're doing it from your home.

Do you think people would do it?

I would.

But- I don't know this.

I've never done a survey, but I would.

Survey one.

My worry is the people that would opt in to deciding on every single issue are

the poles of people, the extremists on both sides when we lose a lot of the middle.

But if you can, someone like you could,

could, I think, could influence, not influence people,

persuasively

and authoritatively explain the reason why you should be engaged.

You could say to your parents and your

relative who doesn't think you're this equal to him.

Might not listen.

But you can explain to them why it's important for them to get up and put their point of view up there.

Yeah.

Otherwise, they're intellectually weak.

Get up and say what you think.

And it doesn't have to be on every issue.

But at least you, the politician will be, or whoever gets voted in, will be getting

their access to all the people they're supposed to be representing.

Because that's the biggest, for me, the biggest problem in politics today is

politicians are voted in on one day and they represent you for the next three

years on every issue that you never even get a chance to talk about.

It's all in retrospect.

So they are prospective.

So they're prospectively voted in today

for everything that's going to happen over the next three years.

Yeah.

Which doesn't make sense to me because I don't even know what's going to come up.

And you don't really know much about them.

You just know at the party often.

Correct. Yeah.

So I don't know whether they're equipped to talk on

international security or what's going on in Israel and Gaza at the moment.

I don't know. I mean, I didn't know it was going to come up.

Nor did I know it was going to come because it happened and it happened and they weren't

privy to this sort of stuff because I just think the system of politics is wrong.

I don't mean the people.

They're wrong. The system is wrong.

I worry, though, that the the idea, which is a good idea, I will be thinking about it.

But I think it's interesting because it

puts a lot of trust in the general public who do not give a shit.

Mostly, mostly I'm sure we are a bad example, but you've got your followers.

Yeah. And I got my followers.

So I mean, I'll if you do it, I will definitely

support and promote it to everyone who listens to my show.

My first

thing is I'm going to get a lot of engagement from an idea that's your so

your IP, I'm executing your endorsing.

Exactly. You like that's called

I am the prime minister.

I'm only joking.

When you're talking about the people behind the person, that's you right now.

I know I'm going red.

I can feel it. But it's because it's funny.

I actually put this idea to a guy many years ago.

And because after they asked me to do something, I thought, no, no, that's just

dumb. It doesn't make sense. And over time.

But I keep thinking about it.

I think it's more effective behind the microphone like you are.

Yes.

But then I thought, no, that's that's a bit that's a bit of a cop out.

What environment would you do it?

I probably would do it in that environment.

Why?

I don't want to look simple.

I don't want to go to Canberra. That's it.

That's it. You just don't like the place or the mother.

I don't know. I don't know.

I don't like the place. I don't like what goes on there.

I don't like it the way it works.

Everybody's doing deals, corridor deals, and everyone's trading.

I don't like that part of it.

And I don't like and I think it's infected.

You're actually your theory of change is

not becoming part of the system and changing it.

Change the system. Changing the system.

I like that. That's how you change.

You've got to change the system.

You're about burn it down, try something else.

Yeah, because you are saying to me you want to become

promising, but the prospect is very, very it's in the distance.

Totally. And what I like about you is you're

your youth and your energy and to some extent a little bit of naivety,

which is very important. It is.

In terms of making change. Yes.

What I'm saying to you, though, is I think

if I could somehow be part of promoting all of that and garnering all

of that, which I don't have because I'm by definition older, but by garnering

and also I'm more defensive. Yeah.

I've got more to lose.

And that's just a natural instinct. I've got more to lose.

Yeah.

And that's my lifestyle, how I live and how I get to talk to people like you.

You're conserving.

Yeah, because that's what happens at the end of your time.

Like, I've got 646 weeks left.

If I've got 4000, if I've been given 4000 weeks of my life, which statistically I

have, I've only got 640 something left.

OK, so I'm going to think, hang on, I want to make every post a winner.

Yeah. And if I want to make change, I want to make sure I'm going to make change.

Yeah. Not talk about making change.

I don't want to talk about making change.

And I don't have 2500 weeks like you do.

I've got a lot less.

So I've got to make it.

And I've got other things, other things that prioritise my life, you know, like

grandkids and shit like that.

So I guess, yeah, I just have a conversation.

I know we've gone all over the joint.

And I just putting it to you, though, as an idea.

And I know you're friends with Jono.

He used to be one of the production guys here.

Yes. I put that idea to Jono years ago.

Really? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And Jono is very politically aware, as you know.

Yes, he is.

And which is no doubt the reason why you guys are friends, but very politically aware.

And and he sort of thought it was a good idea at the time

because I quite like make changing systems.

I mean, you know, I did the podcast because I thought Australia needed a podcast.

I started this nine years ago, you know, and

as a fun thing to do.

But let's bring Australian content to the podcast world.

That's what I wanted to do. Yeah.

And genuinely, the point of like this for me is, yes, I'm naive and young.

But my job, if I have two and a half

thousand weeks, is to convince people with six hundred weeks

to vote on behalf of someone with two and a half thousand weeks.

And totally, totally.

And to like, I would vote for you.

One hundred percent.

Like, I would vote for your energy, if nothing else.

And your I don't mean just energetic.

No, but I mean, but I mean energy in terms

of consideration of both sides of the of the discussion.

Yeah, that that's that takes energy.

Thank you.

It takes a lot of like intellectual energy.

I mean, I fucking know what it's about.

Because it is exhausting because you keep bumping into things all the time and you

bump into really powerful things, things with lots of momentum.

Yeah. And, you know, like, whoa, like that.

That takes a lot of fucking energy.

Someone like me, I'm not going to do it. Yeah.

Because I don't have that energy anymore.

Unfortunately, I just don't have it.

I mean, I. But you do so much.

Yeah, I know. But it's it's what I do is to be honest,

it looks like a lot, but it's it's it's easy.

OK. It comes second nature.

Yeah, I do it. I just do it.

I do it on my ear, if you know what I mean.

I do. I don't I don't mean that.

I'm not sort of exalting myself.

I just I've been doing it for so long.

It's easy for me. Yeah.

Someone like you, I don't I would not have the energy to do what you do.

Yeah. What some.

And I think there's so much potential there.

Yeah. It's how you use it and how I go about it that can have longevity.

That's my fear. That's.

Yeah. And anyway, if I can help you

at any stage, if you've got an idea and you want to share it with me,

I'm happy to help reach out any time you like.

And I think.

Australia needs to see not just one of you, though, we need to see a hundred

and out of the hundred and fifty seats, we need to see, you know, 75 at least of you.

So calling out to all people

who like what Hannah stands for and it's not left or right, it's just

the debate or the the discussion, the intellectual energy to actually open

up the discussion for both sides of the argument.

I'm serious.

Go and listen to her podcast and follow her.

Thanks, Mark. That's that's one vote.

That's one vote. That'll do.

That actually will do.

That's where you start.

Yeah, it is. It is.

And my mom. You won me over.

Thank you. Good on you, Hannah.

Thank you very much.

If you've been listening along for a while,

you'll know I'm all about staying sharp physically and mentally.

As I get older, staying on top of my game means being smarter with how I support my

body.

I've got a newfound mind.

One product I've already added to my

routine from the bulk nutrients range is the NMN Extend.

It's a science backed blend of ten powerful ingredients, including NMN,

resveratrol and hyaluronic acid.

Now, this is designed to support everything from energy and muscle

recovery to skin hydration, joint health and even mental clarity.

And by the way, I need all those.

Whether I'm powering through a busy week or just investing in my long term health,

NMN Extend helped me stay ready for whatever's next.

And believe me, it tastes pretty good too.

Head to BulkNutrients.com.au and see why

NMN Extend might be the edge you've just been looking for.

Not all that long ago, money was simple.

You earned it, saved some, spent some and maybe invested in a house if you were lucky.

No apps, no online banking, no thinking beyond what was in your wallet.

But times have changed.

In today's money market, growth can come in many ways.

And the way we think about cash is continuously evolving.

Enter Australia's highest rated crypto exchange, SwiftX.

Whether you are just starting to explore

the crypto market or are already deep in the game, SwiftX makes it easy to acquire,

sell and trade digital assets all in one place.

So if you're someone who's thought about

dipping your toes in the crypto market but isn't sure where to start,

this might be for you.

Visit SwiftX.app

Mark Boris to check it out.