Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Sky National News (Fri-Sun) -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services.

Happy Friday, Australia. Welcome to Politics HQ. I'm Nick Reese. Wherever you are, I hope you've got your feet up and looking forward to the weekend. In Campaign Watch, we look at an award-winning ad which puts a new perspective on refugees. A vintage Australian election ad which a lot of you will be singing along to at home. In The Big Idea, we hear the pitch for new local content rules to support Australian film and TV in the era of Netflix. You will get the chance to vote on the proposal live on Twitter. Voting running hot on that already. Finally, a fantastic panel, Rita Panahi and Clare March will help us make sense of a busy week. First, let's look at life in the Spin Cycle. The Greens were rocked and Australian politics shocked by resignation today of WA Senator Scott Ludlam. The Deputy leader of the Greens resigned after revealing he had recently learnt he remained a New Zealand citizen. Despite being naturalised as an Australian after he moved here as a 3-year-old. Section 44 of the Constitution disqualifies candidates from election to the Parliament if they hold dual citizenship so Ludlam today tapped the mat. Today's development is a further blow to the Greens who have had a rotten month with the mishandling of Gonski and open warfare with Lee Rhiannon. Now the Greens have lost one of their most talented Senators. You might not agree with his politics but Ludlam was one of the few Senators with credibility in the communication sector, given his grasp of information issues. He led the fight against the Rudd Government's internet filter and the Abbott Government's mass surveillance regime. He is also a politician with a sense of humour. Lord knows we could do with more of them. Here is Scott Ludlam too much You seem relatively positive about it, not saying you are happy...If I cry on TV, does that mean it will lead?It will go up the bulletin. Thanks. It is still settling in to be honest. It has been an incredible run, I have enjoyed every minute of it. When it goes quiet or when they ring the bells on my colleagues in August, that's when it will settle in.He started waistcoat Wednesday in Parliament. Ludlam took time off last year after he admitted struggling with depression. Full marks to him to being open about that. Ludlam is required to repay his salary for his period in the Senate, a sum that will exceed a million dollars. He says he intends to follow former Senators Bob Day and Rod Culleton in seeking an exemption from that repayment and Special Minister of State Scott Ryan should grant that waiver. Secondly, it is widely expected Ludlam will be replaced by 22-year-old Jordan Steele-John. He was No.3 on the Greens ticket in WA but Ludlam could consider a return to the Parliament and the Greens party should help make this happen. Ludlam's replacement should serve as a seat warmer until Ludlam returns at the next election or possibly even sooner. If Steele-John were to resign once declared elected by the High Court, then the casual vacancy mechanism in the Constitution means that WA Parliament elects the replacement. If Ludlam were to renounce his New Zealand citizenship, in the meantime, he would be eligible to fill the vacancy and back in the Parliament literally in a matter of weeks. Finally, Australia should consider a tweak to the Constitution to avoid this sort of silliness happening again. Ludlam left New Zealand when he was 3. He was naturalised as an Australian as a boy and has been living here for 44 years. If that doesn't qualify you for the Australian Parliament, then there is something wrong. In 1996, Liberal NSW Liberal Jackie Kelly was challenged on the same grounds and lost her seat. She updated her citizenship and then won her seat back by an increased margin in a by-election. This shows that people don't care much about the rule and it should be changed. But keen to know what you think of all this. Let us know at the hashtag Politics HQ. Now it is time for Campaign Watch. This is the segment where the world of advertising collides with the world of politics and policy making. This week we are joined by Paul Gardner, advertising industry guru from Dig and Fish. Welcome to the studio, Paul.Nice to be here again, thank you.The first ad is made by Save The Children an international aid agency that focus on looking after kids and here is an extremely powerful ad they made in 2014 that follows the plight of a young girl living one year in London when war arrives.Happy birthday to you.Make a wish.

Deserve to get shot.Hi mum.Wail wailAir strikes and rebel positions.We are going to stay. What's happening?

Where are we? (COUGHING) Daddy!

Happy birthday to you. Make a wish, darling.

Just because it isn't happening here doesn't mean it's not happening. It's a powerful piece of communication. What a wonderful thing. All too often you see, if there is a major crisis, a non-Western country, a train crash in India, that's on p. 30, a train crash in America is on p. 2. What this is saying is you can take these people and say don't think of them as different to us, they are just the same as us in different circumstances. Very powerful piece of communication.It is obviously very powerful. Is it a good ad?A great ad.Will it give, do you think, people a different perspective on the victims of the war in Syria?I hope so. I hope so. I'm not sure... Once again, the common thing we have talked about the last few weeks is what are you asking me to do? You are asking me to think differently. OK, I think differently about it. Do you want me to vote, or ring up my member of Parliament, donate money, go online? What is the call to action? Call to action is the critical piece of communication. I'm not sure it is a call to action but as a piece of communication, it is very powerful. This next spot has a call to action in it. This is the billboard some people credit as winning the Brexit vote in the UK. It was produced by UKIP.

It was run by Nigel Farage and the UKIP party in the referendum in Britain on whether Britain should remain in the EU or leave. Paul, what do you make of it?Let's look at the communication per se. Look at the headline. It is bold, upper case and red. Red is a strong colour. Red says stop, emergency, fire. That's a really strong piece of communication. Does it make you want to say "I'm now going to vote against Brexit"? I'm not so sure. As a piece of communication which says if you stay with this, all these people are coming in now, look what's happened to us. The way it's constructed is amazingly powerful. Is it the thing that caused Brexit? I don't think so. I think complacency caused Brexit. People thought "It won't happen, I won't have to vote",. I don't think it made Brexit. As a piece of communication, red, strong, powerful. It says stop.The first ad, I found it emotional. I have young girls myself, it really affected me. I suspect it would affect most people who see it. In the second ad, you see thousands of Syrians lined up on the border of Slovenia I think it is and notwithstanding what you said about complacency, it obviously touched a raw nerve in the UK. People say immigration issues were the key reason why they voted for Britain to get out of Brexit. I guess my question is: How can people be affected by the first ad saying let's be sympathetic to the refugees, particularly the children and in the second ad you have Britons voting to leave the EU because of concern?I think the first ad creates an emotion. It is an emotional thing. If it happened here, you'd be outraged. Second one is says if it happened here, you'd be outraged, now you can do something about it. Hence the call to action. If you look closely at the second one, right down the bottom left-hand corner are people that are clearly from Middle Eastern countries, clearly, with the turbans and burqas, so they've obviously cropped it just the right way. It wasn't just you and me standing there, it was people clearly from a country. It is racially vilifying, I think.The next ad is the new Liberal Party ad. This is an ad made by Liberal Party interim federal director Andrew Bragg. They ran it on the Liberal Party new website called Fair Go. Let's have a look and get Paul's view on it.Did you know the Federal Budget contained measures to help millions of Australian families? Here is how. Small businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy and employ over 5 million Australians. They are also slugged with a 30% tax on their profits each year. From July 1, 3 million Australian businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million will pay less tax. Paying your fair share goes both ways. While the Coalition Government is committed to easing unfair tax burdens, multi-nationals need to contribute more to funding the services and society they benefit from. To grow, we need to move. That's why we are investing in the infrastructure to get Australians where they need to be. The government wants to ensure that the NDIS is fair and fully funded so we are introducing a small increase in the Medicare Levy to make NDIS sustainable. Medicare is here to stay. The new guarantee fund ensures Medicare Levy products will be allocated to cover the cost of Medicare. It is like a special savings account.Wake me up when it's over.South Park meets the Liberal Party. What is that? You talked about the first ad about emotion and feeling and personality. That lacks all those things. It is like an animated thing. It is dreadful.What's that old line in advertising? If you've got five good reasons why somebody should do something, find the one that's the best and hit them with that. Don't try and give them every single reason...The hand keeps appearing to count them out. We are talking about emotive thing. This is the government doing a number of things, show how the people are benefitted. That's a waste of people. Do you want me to look at that and go "Its amazing"? A line in there saying 2026, that's nine years away.That's from Australian politics 2017. Let's look at an election ad from 1987. This is an ad from the Hawke campaign. Let's Stick Together. You'll probably remember the song.

(SONG) # We're on our way # We're on the right track # Australians have always been good at fighting back # With a little more strength and patience # We'll see Australia right # Nothing worth having ever harps overnight # Together # Let's stick together # Australians together # Let's see it through # We gotta keep on holding tight # To that great Australian dream # Nobody ever got anywhere # Changing horses in midstream # Let's stick # Australians # Let's see it through. # Wow. They don't make 'em like that any more.Nobody got anywhere changing horses midstream. This is 1987 but 1979, was Come on, Aussie, Come On.That's a Singo classic. John Singleton who runs 2GB and has wonderful jockeys like Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt. He has changed horses midstream.He has but back in the '80s he kept underwriting the Hawke-Keating years with blinders of commercials.I'm not sure people will start singing this tonight. If you wake up tonight and start singing that song, you have to see someone, that's a problem for you.I have a lot of people tell me I need to see someone. When I was looking at that ad again today, I could still remember the words. Keep holding tight to that Australian dream, nobody got anywhere by changing horses in midstream.What a great line!It played beautifully because, at that time, the Liberals were wracked by infighting, they were changing horses from Peacock to Howard, back to Peacock, the Nats were doing the same with their leader during the period. It not only worked for Labor, it was a great attack on the Libs.Go through the great history of advertising in the Federal Government, I'm not sure that's in the top 10 but it is one that played into what Bob Hawke was. That's an interesting point. It represented the personality, the characteristics of the leader. That's the kind of guy he was. Bob Hawke was a come on, Aussie, come on, don't change horses midstream kind of guy. John Howard could never run that ad. He was much more serious and urbane and much more conservative. But that was an era of Singleton and MoJo and You Ought To Bo Congratulated. It probably made Bob Hawke as Prime Minister.Thank you, Paul, for helping us make sense of the world of politics and advertising.My pleasure.The radical proposal to change Australian content laws for film and TV.

Welcome back to Politics HQ. I'm Nick Reese. Now it is time for The Big Idea. This is a segment where somebody joins us in the studio and gives us their pitch for a big idea for a better Australia. Tonight we are joined by the chief executive of the Screen Producers Australia, Matthew Deaner. Matt will pitch in the Netflix era, we need new local content requirement and public funding to support the Australian film and TV industry. Thanks for joining us, Matt.Thanks.For those who don't know, what is the screen producers association?We are a collective of 450 of Australia's great little production industry businesses. They are made up of sometimes very large businesses, sometimes quite small but what they do is they employ all the creative talent that we have in Australia, from the actors, directors, writers, to crew and create the great film and TV content using those great people, then sell it, market it and export it around the world and to obviously platforms such as Foxtel. We are a great little group of businesses doing a great job of taking Australian stories globally and also in keeping our community connected with our own national story telling.Good on you for doing that. Give us your elevator pitch on why we need some policy changes in this country?$3 billion industry that invests in a lot of new people coming into our industry, creative talent. From that talent, we take their storys to the world. That's no secret or accident. It's been a system of support that has been developed over 30 years of government interventions to bring us to where we are today. The difference as to where we are today is that on our doorstep we have the tsunami of content from global over-the-top platforms such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and other services taking the American, British, global content into our lounge rooms. That means we need, I guess, a different way of looking at how we've been managing all of the way in which we have been taking Australian stories to Australians. In the past that's been through a set of regulations on commercial television and subscription television and it is the time we need to step into: How do we take Netflix on in terms of asking them to contribute to local content and how do we look at the incentives the government has so we can stimulate the industry to be able to compete in this landscape? If you look globally at what Canada, Europe's doing, these are the same measures they are tackling and, indeed, introducing so they have their own national stories. That's important. We are a nation of story-tellers. If we don't have something that ear-marks us in our own way, we are going to be, I guess, speaking soon with American accents and I think we will have missed the point of what is, I think, the reason for our narratives. We want Australian kids to be dreaming Australian dreams. Thanks, Matt, for that opening gambit. You've put your case well. I want to bring in our panel of policy and political experts. Rita Panahi from the Herald Sun in Melbourne and Clare March from Hawker Briton. Welcome to the studio.Thank you for having me.Rita - don't just watch along at home, viewers. You can vote on this prop six. Go on to Twitter at Sky News Australia and vote yes, no or more work needed to the proposition.Matt, I'm interested in what you say because I do love television and I do like Australian content but we just aren't producing quality television at the moment, are we? It is a golden age for the small screen. So many amazing productions, amazing talents, cinematic level of productions and scripts and Australia just isn't doing that. It is taxpayer handouts, is that going to solve that issue, or are the punters essentially voting with their remotes and their laptops when they are opting for this overseas content over what we are giving them here?I couldn't disagree with you more. I think we have been doing incredibly well for a small nation, creating great Australian content. Australian viewers gravitate absolutely to Australian content. It is the thing that drives all the commercial network schedules. It is absolutely the thing that Foxtel invests very heavily in. I think you'd find something like The Kettering Incident which took out the Logies for Foxtel this year was a great-quality Australian piece of work...For an Australian production it was good but when you compare it to what's coming out of the UK and the US. Australians love Australian production and they will give it a red hot go and try to watch anything that's local content but so often they are let down by the standard of the production. You can see that on free-to-air television in particular. I'm just wondering why is there that gap between the quality of what we are producing and what's coming out of other markets? Clare March, keen to bring you in on this debate as well.Thank you. There is no doubt this sector is undergoing disruption just like most other sectors that do in the digital world and there is no doubt that Australians need and love their story-telling. We're a very young country, we are still unpacking our stories, we're still defining ourselves and I guess to that point, I would argue that it's more important for there to be some sort of resource support there to facilitate that. There's also no question that investment in screen underpins our creative sector in the country. Not just screen but advertising and gaming and other parts of our creative sector industry. I wonder if you could unpack, Matthew, a little bit more about those other international models and what is happening internationally and is there an international best-practice standard on this?Clare, thanks for pointing that out. The creative industry is such a vibrant little community and Screen drives the theatre, the writing and the gaming industry which in its helping medical and other types of technology and other things happening throughout the rest of the economy. It is an important entrepreneurial set of activities. Globally I'm finding the Canadians and the UK are probably the best practice when it comes to this area. Particularly in Europe, they have introduced a quota for Netflix and for their over-the-top services like Netflix that must deliver local content and invest in, say, French content. Canada is looking at doing the same thing, Brazil is looking at it. They need to have continuity of employment. Our challenge in Australia is we churn out of some of the best practitioners. There is a reason why globally someone like Hugh Jackman is known as probably the most famous Australian because we are a nation of story tellers and story telling is an important thing. We need a mechanism like the area countries to retain the talent, to keep their working in Australia on Australian stories, otherwise we'll lose them. That global juggernaut of the screen industry has driven the United States, the UK's creative industries and we know the power of those stories because we see them on television sets all the time, and films. The opportunity is a two-way opportunity. It is not just we have a tsunami coming in, and we do, and we should be mindful of what that means and look at how we encourage the new platforms to deliver but we have a great opportunity to take Australian content globally. For a nation of 22 million people, that is wonderful. There is a reason two of the finalists in Academy Awards this year were Australian, Hack saw Ridge and Lion. That is mind blowing. I reject the suggestion we are not kicking above our rate.Why do we need taxpayer assistance, the imposition of quotas? If the product is good and it resonates globally and you've now got this access globally through the streaming services, why aren't you celebrating that and the fact that your market's exploded instead of putting your hand out for government assistance? Government support for our industry comes from investments in the product so the return comes back to the government. It's about mitigation of risks...If it makes money.Mitigation of risk. Indeed, that is part of the reason. We are not a widget churning out product line of the same product once you create one. It's a hit-and-miss industry, absolutely. We are trying to make sure we have more hits than misses, which thankfully we do, but the support for the industry comes at the way in which the global financing of content works. We are not unique. Relative to the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, there is much more investment in those communities from government because a triggering of a little bit of government support triggers international finance into our industry and that's the reason governments do it. It attracts a lot of investment and global sales so something like Lion has done incredibly well and it triggers all of that work from Australia. Governments are clued up to it because otherwise people would go to other territories to create those films.I can see the case for content laws giving the next Hugh Jackman a break and even some government funding, helping foster great movies being made in this country which might not otherwise be made but that's the high end. Surely a lot of these content requirements also mean that a lot of Australian-made reality TV gets made and perhaps even Australian reality TV gets funded. Should taxpayers be paying for that? Do we need rules to get the next series of Ninja Warriors?It doesn't receive taxpayer support. The taxpayer support goes to film narratives and film documentaries and dramas such as The Kettering Incident or Wentworth. That's a 20% rebate people get back from Government for something like Wentworth. The reality television space is not taxpayer supported. There isn't quotas on broadcasters to have to deliver that. Part of the reason there isn't support is networks will generally commission those reality shows because they treat it a bit like sport, if that makes sense, because there are teams competing and people are generally motivated to watch them on the day which means there is an advertising model that easily works for those types of pieces of content. Dramas in this current day and age where people can binge watch, download and series stack all of the content means the advertising model certainly for commercial television at least, isn't working as well because you cannot get the same returns from the advertisers that you once did. That's where the model is being challenged and that has been the model that's kept Australian content really vibrant because it takes all - all parts of the system need to be working together to make something like a Lion or Kettering Incident or other great programs.Clare, what do you think of Matt's pitch? Do you support the case for extended Australian content requirements and additional funding for film and TV? I think on the additional funding, there is definitely a case there but I have to say more work on this one. That's because it's a much larger issue than this about disruption in the sector and a bit of a rethink. More work on this one. I will make the point that probably the sector's strongest point in this argument that needs to be articulated a little bit more is around economic development of the sector and why investment in relation to jobs and the creative sector is something that could be strengthened a little more.Rita?I'm not in favour of more government assistance or higher regulations. I think this is an exciting time for the sector but, as we have seen, there has been so much disruption, media companies decimated with their advertising models completely turned upside down and I don't think going to the government with your hand out is the solution to these issues.OK. One undecided and one no.No.From me, I'm certainly persuaded by the case of Australian content rules should be extended to Netflix and Stan and those other new streaming services. I think that makes a lot of sense. I remain to be convinced about the case for more funding for the industry in this budget-strained time but, on the balance, I will give you a yes. That's one no, one undecided and one yes from the panel tonight. Matt, thanks so much. You did a terrific job in pitching your case.Thanks, guys.A reminder to viewers, of course, you don't have to just sit at home passively watching the show or yelling at the person next to you, you can vote on tonight's debate, go to Twitter,, at the top of the screen, you will see yes, no or more work needed. At the end of the show, I will let you know the results. Up next, the panel will go through the issues of the week. Stick around for that.

Welcome back. I'm here with Rita Panahi and Clare March. Rita Panahi from the Herald Sun. Clare March, leading Australian advocate for Hawker Britton no less. Thanks for joining me on this Friday night. The big news at the end of the political week was the resignation of Greens Deputy Leader Scott Ludlam for being a dual citizen. He didn't even realise he was a citizen of New Zealand, having been born there. He is going to be replaced by Jordan Steele-John.Is that a definite? Well, I would say under the countback it will almost certainly go to him.OK. I thought there was a question mark about whether he wanted the job or not.He is saying that this evening. Who knows where we will be on this tomorrow. On a policy front, Rita, do you think the dual citizenship law should be changed?To be honest, I've never been a fan of it. I don't see there is any logical reason to exclude people who are dual citizens. I'm a dual citizen but this excuse he wasn't aware he was a New Zealand citizen, I find that very hard to believe. I think that is absolutely absurd. I think both of us, from what I read today, we got naturalised as teens. You know whether you have revoked a citizenship or not. I don't understand how that could be a mystery to a man entering politics. He sat in the Senate for nine years and he had no right to be there under the current laws. We can argue about whether those laws are just or not but they are the laws and they apply to everybody. It is an absolute farce we have had this situation. He wasn't there for a few months, he was there for nine years. He is paying a big price for being a bit sloppy on that front.A bit sloppy! Gosh, you are giving him a pass. It was a Coalition Senator, you wouldn't be that easy on him. Clare is a former Labor adviser. Clare, what do you think this means for the Greens? They've had a rotten month.They have.What now?As a Labor staffer, we don't do this. We take very seriously running for Parliament. We make sure we have all of our Is dots and Ts crossed. This points to the ineptitude of the Greens. What are they doing back there? Is it green tea and soy lattes? Come on, guys, you have one job to do, make sure this guy is fit to run for Parliament.Not just once but several times. He has run for office a couple of times.This is a well-worn path. We have had three members now be found to have their seat unconstitutional. We know this as Australians. Come on, guys. Rumours around Tony Abbott have been unhinged. Today he Tweeted out the letter confirming he revoked his UK citizenship. It is not like it is an issue that's never come up. You could go through your parliamentary life without realising this is a rule you have to stick by. The flippant way he tweeted it I found quite surprising as if it was just "Oh, diddums. Oops."The other big news out of Canberra today was the Prime Minister unveiled the new digital encryption regime for Australia. These are laws which will restrict the ability of the big social media platforms like Facebook, Apple and WhatsApp from being able to encrypt messages so that security agencies can't get access and read those messages in certain circumstances. Here is the Prime Minister explaining it.Those dark places online must be illuminated by the law. I'm not talking about giving intelligence agencies back doors or anything underhand. This is simply saying the rule of law must prevail online as it does offline.The Prime Minister putting the pitch there for that reform. Rita, what do you think?I don't often agree with Malcolm but for me, national security trumps privacy concerns. When it comes to the dark web, any time I read about the dark web, I'm absolutely horrified by what goes on there, the criminality and the magnitude of how big it has become so anything that can do something to tackle that I think is a positive thing.I will mark that in my diary, 14 July 2017. Rita was on the same page as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Clare, Facebook and Apple have rebuffed this initiative saying they are already doing enough and they are not intending to comply. Who is going to win, Prime Minister Turnbull or the tech giants?This will play out. It is not like the internet filter. You are not getting the general public up in arms about this one. It doesn't apply to censoring the internet or kick off a philosophical discussion on should there be a Magna Carta for the internet. This doesn't apply to everyone, just specific people so a different dynamic altogether.Do you think security agencies should be able to access private messaging? There is a lot of technical detail in this and I think that has to be unpacked and I'd leave it to the security agencies' recommendations on that.They'll want it, they always want extra powers.The debate about censorship of the internet is more interesting in that do we want to censor ourselves to the degree that, unlike broadcast media where you don't have a choice what you are seeing, what you seek out on the internet is your own freedom.The AFL world and the sporting world was rocked today by the announcement that two senior executives at the AFL are resigning for having a relationship with AFL industry employees. Here is CEO Gillon McLachlan breaking the news.Simon and Richard have been honest and forth right to me and to their credit own their mistakes and do not want the work of the AFL to be impacted by their actions. I expect my executives are role models and set a standard of behaviour for the rest of the organisation.You know a lot about the world of AFL, is this the right outcome?I think it is the only outcome but I don't give so much credit to the executives as Gill does because the AFL and the executives only acted after media reports made this situation public. The AFL, for a very long time, has not just been a sporting organisation, they have made themselves a moral arbiter. They have been vocal on a lot of issues and taken firm positions on social issues and you cannot put yourself on a pedestal and then behave in this manner. They've had three senior executives resign, being forced to resign, in the last week and a half. One for the king-hit on the ground and these two for inappropriate sexual relations. When you have got powerful men having relationships with female underlings who work for them, it's obviously fraught with danger. Those men should have known better.Do we know if they were underlings to these two senior executives or did they work in the wider organisation?One certainly, from what I understand, was in the same area as the person she had a relationship with and significantly junior to him. They are both very senior positions.The other one?This is another thing that's really troubled me today. The women have been named. I don't understand why that is because they are not prominent people, they are not powerful people. There is no suggestion they have done anything to abuse their positions so I don't understand why the women needed to be named after these two men resigned and the AFL held that press conference. I think that's an ugly... It will dissuade women from going forward if they do feel like they've found themselves in a position where they are not comfortable in the workplace, if they are going to be named and shamed in the media if they escalate a complaint, not talking about the AFL specifically here, talking about in general, I think it is unhealthy this has happened today.Clare, is this the new standard across all workplaces now, that somebody can't have sexual relations with somebody in their workplace? I think it is more complicated if it's a direct reporting line or an underling but if it is across the broad work place, is that the standard?It does feel strange to be talking about people's private lives. We don't know if this has professional implications, we do not the details of this case. That was a personal relationship between these people... There is stuff we know that hasn't been reported and stuff that's been talked about the press conference that has been put on the table.What does this mean for Tim worner at Channel 7, the CEO who had a relationship with his executive assistant as I recall?There has been so much said and written about that, there has been a great deal of scrutiny, there has been board members taking certain positions on it so it is something that's not limited to the AFL but the AFL make themselves a bigger target because they do grandstand on these issues. You can't, on the one hand, present yourself as a champion for respect and responsibility towards women and women's rights and have themed rounds celebrating women and have this boy's club culture at AFL House. They make themselves a target by...Holding themselves out like that?That's it. Putting themselves on a pedestal.Out of the bed rooms and into the kitchens. Coles and Woolworths announced today they are going to phase out single-use plastic bags in the next 12 months. Clare, is this a good thing?It's terrific. It is terrific to see a big corporate taking a stance in a really practical area instead of a more symbolic gesture. It's terrific. Look, the environment is, you could argue, maybe Rita will argue, your individual choice should prevail but ultimately the environment and the ocean is a collective issue and we all need to think collectively about that. If it means forking out an extra 15 cents for a reusable bag, I'm for it.I'm not a fan. I reuse those bags, a lot do. Now I have to go out and purchase plastic bags so, there are still going to be plastic bags being used, we just have to purchase them rather than reusing the ones we bring our shopping home in. Of course no-one wants to see the oceans polluted by plastic but Australia ace not exactly the sort of country that does that en masse. That's an issue that is prevalent in all sorts of parts of the world but Australians aren't going down to the beach or the local waterway and just dumping their rubbish in there as is the custom in some other places. Some of the stats used to push this ban through are a little bit mischievous.Would you like for taxpayers' money to fund expensive new tips because Australia's tips are mostly all at capacity? Is that how you could see this problem solved?That's a local government issue, they take care of the tips. When you have a growing population, you are going to need places to dispose of your rubbish. Even if we ban plastic bags, we are still going to need facilities to dump rubbish. There is necessary rubbish and there is rubbish that could be easily avoided by policies like this. What's the...Clare, a quick one for you, you accept the ban on plastic bags, what about paper cups, the wax-covered paper cups we drink our coffee in? Do you support a ban on them?Let's get the bags through first and then have a discussion about cups but you could extend this to lots of products, disposable nappies, moving to bio degradable nappies. What is causing the most damage to the environment and work backwards from that?Are paper cups next?You've got that, water bottles, people who every day buy water and then dump the bottle. There is a lot. Where do you stop? Are we going to wear hemp and just, you know, burn our rubbish in the back yard? You can't burn it because that's emissions, isn't it?We have to leave it there. Hemp and burning things in the back yard. Twitter poll results are in:

Yes for more protection...No, the numbers have changed.This just in, Nick! The poll is still open so voting is still going. We will close that tomorrow morning. Rita is telling me she has her peeps voting. Vote no, people.Thanks for joining us. Time for Peter Berner and the B Team. From me, wherever you are, keep your feet up and have a great weekend. Goodnight.

This program is live captioned by Ericsson Access Services. ANNOUNCER: Live this is The B Team with Peter Berner.Welcome to The B Team here on Sky News Live. On a Friday night - we are become at the right end of the pool. We will have fun over the next hour as we look at the week's news from Trump in France to - to not Trump in France! (LAUGHTER) And everything in between. There is obviously some news of the day - very important. Terrific people on the couch. I will introduce them in a minute. You can follow us on Twitter - I remembered! #B Team or #The B Team. We have had a lot of meetings about this! Or #Bernardi