Thanks very much Rosemary. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and unawal people and in particular pay respects to their elders both past and present. And I'd like to congratulate Minister Barr and Natalie on the launch of the community sector development program today. And as Rosemary said, please accept Senator Firefield's apologies. He had Cabinet business to attend to so you have me. And I'm glad to see there are lots of familiar faces here today and also many new ones and I look forward to the opportunity of us being able to acquaint ourselves. You will do this, thank you. I'm talking to the imaginary person up there, thank you. So I thought quickly we'd just have a look at how the National Disability Insurance Scheme is changing our world and many of you will know that so already know this information. So my apologies if I'm preaching to the converted. Obviously we're looking at a nationwide demand-driven system of supports that are tailored to the individual with permanent and significant disability that has a substantial impact on their participation in everyday life. Once fully implemented it's going to provide participants with certainty about their future disability support needs with genuine choice and control which is really important for us over how their support arrangements, what type of supports, who provides them and how and when they are provided. It's going to be driven by individual demand rather than by what's currently available through narrow responses to need. And the scheme is intended to be flexible so that it responds to changes in support needs as people's needs change. We've got legislation in place that sets out the provisions for supporting people with disabilities under the scheme and it also has powerful principles and objects that focus on outcomes to be achieved and also how we're going to go about achieving those and particularly how we go about achieving and providing necessary supports. With Western Australia having agreed to a two-year pilot commencing the 1st of July this year we're working towards a full national coverage which is a mind-blowing piece of work I'll just say. And the scheme will be implemented across Australia in a way that's portable, equitable and consistent for every single participant. So this was a slide that was corrupted. Okay so if you can imagine this is a map of Australia on this slide and I would say to you as you can see there are seven trial sites that are being established over the next three years. We've currently got trial sites established in South Australia, Tasmania, Geelong in Victoria and also the Hunter which is also Newcastle in New South Wales. We're launching on the 1st of July as is the Northern Territory in Tennant Creek and Western Australia is also commencing a two-year pilot from the 1st of July as well. Each of these three sites launching this year will be quite different as you might imagine. So the issues and the dilemmas that we are facing here in the ACT are really different from those that are being tackled in Tennant Creek and Western Australia. The next slide that you would imagine you would see is talking about what our role is. So it's really about delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme which is described for those of you who are curious in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the scheme launch and inside our legislation. We've also got a role in ensuring the financial sustainability of the scheme. We have to make sure that individualised funding is reasonable and necessary packages of support are sustainable into the future. We have to provide innovative and flexible support to people with a disability. We're taking a lifetime view of support needs and really wanting to look at ensuring sustainable balance of costs and outcomes and we need to report and advise on the financial sustainability. We want to develop and enhance the sector, not only the disability sector but our community more broadly. Obviously we want to provide a whole lot of support about successfully transitioning existing sector providers into the new way of working. We want to also identify and tackle those barriers that are preventing providers from succeeding in the new world and we want to build a sustainable sector and workforce. One of our other really important roles is to build community awareness about disability and the needs of people with disabilities. We obviously need to manage expectations of those people with a disability and their families and their carers who may have access to use their scheme in launch sites but we also have a really strong moral obligation I believe to raise community awareness of disability and the social contributors to capability and particularly to think about for most of us in the room the things that we take for granted are mostly not available to those people with a disability. So how do we as a community think differently about everything that we do and how we do it so that everyone is included. We also obviously need to collect and analyze and exchange data. We need to have a terrific IT system which captures robust data and produces reports. It would be true to say we've got a way to go at the moment but that's our goal and we want to be able to use that data so that we can promote awareness and make the information useful and valuable to the sector. And we also have a dream of undertaking research relating to disability and how supports support people in most advantageous ways. And that's about sharing information and learning from successful participants but also modelling future needs, looking at prevention and evaluating early interventions and supports. I'm hoping the next slide will work beautiful. Thank you. So this is really about I'm not going to read this out to you but this is about how things are changing under the scheme and if you can't read these screens there's a couple at the back as well. So we're obviously looking at what the former system has been looked like and what it's going to look like under the national disability insurance scheme. The primary aim of our scheme is really about increasing participation and as you'll see it's consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability and this is really about achieving full social and economic participation. It's a focus on individualised approach and you'll keep on hearing that over and over again. Funding is linked to goals, aspirations and needs with an expectation that support outcomes can be addressed in flexible and participant driven ways. And I guess also importantly it's useful to say that the scheme isn't intended to fund and nor will it in the future. Those services and support systems that ought to be provided by other systems through mainstream services or through the community. And I guess the other thing I think it's really important to be commenting on is that we currently have four trial sites up and running with another three this year and we are really clear about learning from each of those trial sites so that each and every time we're doing better than what we've done previously. So that does mean not repeating mistakes of other launch sites but also making original ones and I keep on chanting that as we are counting down the days for the 1st of July here in the ACT. The next slide talks about the three pillars that underpin our design which is the insurance approach, choice and control which you will hear a lot about and community and mainstream. So clearly this is a significant reform process. Some say this is as significant as a Medicare reform and there are going to be huge impacts on our community sector. We're already noticing massive impacts for participants as we work with them to help them think differently about their lives and just as significantly or even more so perhaps in some ways there are massive impacts for providers and we know from existing sites already that many providers have struggled in the new world. Some have managed to alter the way they provide services and to think creatively about what services they might offer in the future and some have failed. Some haven't done that nearly as well and we're really, I'll talk in a minute about the work that we're going to undertake to support the sector but it's really important that we support providers as best we possibly can so that this sector is as robust as it possibly can be. And I guess at the risk of studying the obvious there are some very good reasons why we needed to change. So we're moving from a narrowly focused system where people weren't able to choose and have control over the services that wanted in their lives and for me it's thinking about the things that we take for granted each and every day that I can get into a taxi at one o'clock in the morning easily without thinking I'm going to wait for four hours nor do I need to be worried about I can't stay out for dinner beyond six o'clock because my carer won't be, you know, coming on won't be at work for any time past six o'clock. So thinking about the things that I take for granted as the sorts of supports that we might want to be offering to participants. I'm not going to read that out. I'm presuming everyone can read that. So the impacts really about we're going to have a significant employment demand and there are going to be massive opportunities as well in the disability sector. It's fabulous that the funding for the disability sector has almost doubled, but that actually also means that the workforce will need to almost double as well. And we're going to need a workforce that has the capacity to respond to the individualised funding model. And then the next one, please. Thank you. So the agency is really committed to working alongside providers to gradually provide the transition supports. We want to, in the trial sites that we've currently operated, we've been working really closely with providers to help them prepare for the new world. And then also as the first of July last year hit, thinking about what are the difficulties that providers were experiencing. And as part of that, those learnings, the Australian government has made a decision to set up a sector development fund as well, with the goal being to help the disability sector and the community and individuals get ready for this new way of delivering services. So the sector development fund, and my apologies for the small type, is really set to drive change in the disability sector by supporting implementation of our scheme and ensuring people are able to be supported. And the National Disability Insurance Agency Board has agreed on the following priorities, which you can see there. So building community capacity, disability sector capacity, building capacity of people with a disability to participate in the scheme, building individual support capacity, aids and equipment, building workforce readiness, sector provider readiness, and on the next slide, there are the numbers. So over the next over five years, the Australian government will be providing $149 million across Australia, not just for the ACT. The total funding for projects are the completed or in progress today, total is about $91 million, and so we've got about $58 million available for future sector development projects, which is a significant investment. The next slide just talks about some current examples that are currently underway, the National Disability Service, the MediHealth Council of Australia, First Peoples Disability Network, and the Disability and Careers Alliance. In the ACT, some of the projects that are already underway, as you'll see a commitment from the Commonwealth government to spend $12 million on sector development in the ACT over the next three years, has seen a whole lot of community capacity building workshops and projects underway, and you'll read that information there, the community capacity building projects, community awareness, the supported decision making and self-advocacy for people with psychosocial disability, building the capacity of families and other unpaid carers and connecting the community as well as other community capacity building programs, and the agency has provided a further $90,000 for expansion for the NDIS readiness assessment tool project, and I wish that Stephen was there. The sector development fund, we wanted to talk really about what our experiences have been from the other trial sites in terms of sector readiness, and as I said before, we're really focusing on how we can learn the lessons from the other trial sites so that we don't make the same mistakes but make new ones. The issue really, one of the things has been a readiness for management and staff and boards for the change to an individualised funding model and changing from that block funded model that we've been accustomed to. Many existing providers are reluctant to make the significant changes or investments until they have a better understanding of what the full implementation is going to look like. It's really important for providers to have an adequate business plan or a strategic plan and that they're thinking really, that you are thinking really proactively about the NDIS transition because it will be happening very soon. An understanding of unit costs and how to accurately price a support type has been a challenge for some providers. Cash flow issues for particularly for small providers and having enough working capital to operate over the billing cycle and a need for providers to develop communication skills or marketing skills, whatever frame you want to put on it, with more emphasis on meeting client need or participants needs so that you can build and expand business. And we think that those providers who've got a larger proportion of their business focussed on NDIS type business are going to be at greater risk than those who have a smaller exposure to this customer segment at this point. So the next slide, thank you. So just a couple more lessons learned. Really the need to understand unit costs and as we said accurately price is going to be price support type has been a challenge and that's going to be really important. We're hearing stories of participants who are approaching agencies and asking for a quote and an agency has been unable to do that. So the participant has then gone to another agency. Cash flow issues as I said. The marketing and communicating and really thinking about the business planning so that any particular vulnerabilities are tackled and addressed prior to NDIS starting. Thank you. So the sector development fund that I'm talking about has got a number of proposed projects that fit with the NDIA board. And they're focused on building individual support capacity through disability support organisations, research that's focusing on the sustainability of the scheme, building community capacity and engagement with a focus on culturally and linguistically diverse groups, women, young people and people with a psychosocial disability and building sector provided capacity. And depending on the project providers will be selected either by restricted or open selection tender process. The future projects will really be, will go through the National Disability Insurance Agency board for endorsement and we're expecting there will be a number of additional projects that will be initiated in the next few months. And depending on the project as I said will either go to a restricted or open selection process. If you want more information these are three ways that you can get the information. And I guess in summing up I would like to say that we are really mindful of the challenges and the significant reform that the scheme brings to local communities and the ACT is no exception to that. And we are absolutely determined and have a great passion to work alongside each and every one of you to make the transition as easy as possible. And for us to learn from all of the other launch sites so that we can do a whole lot better and that we can learn together to make our community a better place for the participants for the scheme.


Ben Rosemount here with head coach Tracy Johnson following Stevenson 6-0 win over Kings coach 6-0 win here today 10-0 a night ago What are your thoughts on the last two games? I think we had an opportunity to realize that we can put the puck in the net when we when we really try We've been struggling to do that leading up to this weekend So it's good to be able to find the back of the net and we that's something we're gonna need to continue to do The rest of the season and the rest of the semester Talking about keeping the puck or putting puck into the net you guys were able to keep the puck out of the net limiting Kings today to just seven shots. I believe what do you think about your defensive effort? I think any time that we can keep the puck out of our zone It's it's a good thing and we in the moments where we were in our defensive zone We did our best to keep those pucks to the outside and the shots that our goaltenders did need to see They did a great job keeping dialed in and making sure that those pucks didn't get through now the seven times She was challenged. Annika Anika Carlander made her first career start today. How would you assess her performance? Yeah, Annika played great. You know, she it's her first start You know that's always got to be a little nerve-wracking there You know not quite sure how things are gonna go, but I thought she did great and stayed dialed in and you know Got her first career shutout. So hopefully that's the first of many moving forward. You had 10 nothing the other day Six nothing day. What are you hoping momentum wise this does for you guys? I'm hoping we can keep you know carry this into our last weekend of the semester and Keep staying hungry for that net and on the flip side of that making sure that we're tightening up on some of the things that we Could definitely clean up a little bit from this weekend coach. Thanks, and good luck the best way through. Thanks so much For head coach Tracy Johnson, I'm Ben Rosenbaum and for more news and notes on your favorite mustangs team head over to Go mustangsports.com


In Europe and the Pacific, we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Well, we just get wired up for sound here. That's not a spy operation or anything. In case you, after, would have any one of these. It's going to be a little bit of a transcript. Thank you, everybody. Mr. President. I hope you're going to oppose colorization. This is an awful record question on the city. Help your friends, Mr. Stewart. Yes, but I had a visit with him on that subject the other day. I hadn't known all the facets of it, nor have I been able to see enough pictures that have been done, but I think it's clear that there are some artistic rights involved there. Right. And when you think back to some of the... I don't have to think back. As a matter of fact, up at Camp David every once in a while, we run movies, and I've taken to running for our people and our staff up there. I have them come in for the movies. I've taken to running what I call some golden oldies, and they have become fans. Okay. But when you see some of those pictures and the magnificence of the black and white photography and all of the shading and all of that, and it's just wiped out in the colorization. Let me change, if I may, to politics. You've spent more time with Mr. Gorbachev than any other western leader has, and you know about his political position as a politician in his own country. What are your advisors telling you about how serious this nationalist threat from the Armenians and the others is? Well, we don't... I don't think that anyone can give really a proper estimate of that. It is something new, and I do know that he... He still, he was born and raised in that theory. He still believes in the communist theory of government. At the same time, I think he's very sincere about Glasnost and wanting to make some changes. In my own mind, from what I know and have read about Lenin and what he referred, it seems to me that Secretary General Gorbachev is... He's going back beyond Stalin and actually is advocating some of the things that Lenin talked about that were not as restrictive and single-minded as Stalin was. The ideas that Lenin had, that you could actually live together capitalism and socialism side by side, as a matter of fact, even use the term ones that you could learn, that the communists could learn from it.  Has he ever said that to you? No, but we have talked earlier just that in some of our earlier meetings. We were talking about, well, here we are both with the great military machines and we are not armed or we do not mistrust each other because we are armed that way. We're armed that way because we mistrust each other and we have to find ways to reduce that mistrust. Do you think he has the room for maneuver to make deals that can reduce that mistrust? What has been successful so far? I don't know how far he can go. There's no question but that his bureaucracy, there are great elements that are opposed because they see their own fate involved in some of the things that he's proposing. You know, a lot of our friends in Western Europe say that we should try to help Mr. Gorbachev, you know, by extending credits, by not criticizing him, help and reform. Do you think that's the right approach and do you think we can influence change inside their country? Well, I think we've been on the right approach. First of all, we have been not dealing alone in disarmament or reduction of the arms but we have been dealing in that. I think that he sees an advantage to his own country in that happening but I think also that our success has been because we sought the peace and freedom through strength. But for example, do you think the United States should expand trade now with the Soviet Union to help him and should there be some limits on that? Well, we do have trade with them. We have some limits with regard to high technology and so forth and I think until there is a better assurance with regard to the use of military and so forth that we have to maintain those. On Afghanistan, apparently because of your convictions, the United States is saying very firmly that we will not cut aid to the Mujahideen until the Soviet Union cuts off aid to the Kabul regime and one of your advisors told me yesterday that the United States will not leave the Mujahideen worse off than the Kabul troops. Now what are you going to tell Mr. Sheva Nazi about this? Well, that's exactly what we've said, that their withdrawal must be irreversible and we certainly will not do anything that endangers the Mujahideen. Does that mean you might even consider increasing aid to the Mujahideen if there's a problem? I don't see any need for that but certainly we will have to continue it as long as there is a threat to them. Talking about the chance of trouble in Honduras, how do you rate the odds for the kind of trouble that you don't want? I mean, what are the odds that U.S. forces could find themselves in some kind of conflict or combat with Sandinistas? Well, we certainly did not send these ladies down there for that reason and we sent them at the request of the Hondurans who wanted the show that we are staying with the agreements that we've made about support for our neighbors and friends down there and this group has been pointed out is more than 100 miles away from the scene of the present conflict. But I think it also shows what we have been trying to tell some in our own Congress about this situation that yes, we were supportive of the RESP's plan and yes, we wanted to send, want this to be settled in a political way, this whole affair down there. But it's been plain to us from the beginning and even beyond the beginning that the Sandinistas are not going to give up their totalitarian rule in any kind of an agreement. As a matter of fact, they have actually publicly stated that Ortega has said they will not give up their power. Now what we're talking about is a kind of civil war within Nicaragua in which the people are asking for what was promised in 1979 at the overthrow of Samosa and that was a pluralistic democracy. And as a matter of fact, the Sandinista organization pledged its support of that in return for some aid they got from the Organization of American States. I don't know whether this is known to you or not, but the revolutionaries appealed to the Organization of American States if they would not ask Samosa to step down in order to end the killing. Well what I think is hard for Western Europeans sometimes to understand is how deep your concern is about Central America and is there not some comparison between what's happening there for the United States and the Europeans own situation? If the threat became grave enough, is there a risk that America would have to divert some of its defense energies? Well, yes there are situations in which this could happen but you have to remember that the Sandinistas themselves have publicly and repeatedly stated that this revolution of theirs is not going to stop at their border but in other words they're going to spread revolution. We do know that they have through Cuba and the Soviet Union and other people that have joined in like Gaddafi and so forth. They have been given all the help that can be given to them to sustain that power and something that our media didn't pay very much attention to. After our freeing of Grenada, we seized just great amounts of paper and much of this was documentation from the Soviet Union about what their goals were here in the Mediterranean and they used Nicaragua as an example of what they were holding up. Now we brought all those papers back and put them in a hangar out at Andrews Air Force Base and made them available for anyone to come in and see for themselves.  Could it become a kind of Eastern Europe? Could it become to the United States like Eastern Europe is to Western Europe? Yes, it very well could because this is their goal. They have Cuba and now they this is as I say this has been carried out as or portrayed as a communist base here in Latin America. And we could even go back to that man Lenin I quoted earlier and find that he spoke of the expansion of communism and you know the Marxian dream that communism must the goal must be a one world communist state. And Mr. Gorbachev has not abandoned that in your view. Except that I must I have to say that he unlike the previous leaders has never made that statement as all of the others did in a pledge to the communist Congress that this was their goal. He has not said anything of that kind. Now what he may believe I don't know but back going back as I said to Lenin there he cited that the final battles would come in Latin America and then as he put it once they had seized that they wouldn't have to take the United States. He described it as it would fall into their outstretched hand like overripe fruit. You know that Poles in West Germany show that Mr. Gorbachev is more trusted there than you are. How do you explain that? What can you do about it? Well they've they've had quite a disinformation network for many many years long before him. But also he has well he's been outspoken now in his desire for reduced armaments and so forth. And in his I have read his book Perestroika and if he really means to carry that out it means quite some dramatic changes and I could see where the Polish people would believe him. There has been propaganda that has tried to portray us as the war maker. If you will remember I am the originator of the idea that became our INF Treaty. But when I first voiced it the Soviets not under Gorbachev he wasn't there then. They walked away from the table and said they refused to negotiate. Then they came back and in coming back they announced it as if it was their idea. Let me ask you two quick questions one about Japan and one about arms control before I leave. I know you have a close and good relationship with Mr. Nakasone and Mr. Takeshita. What should Japan do to help shoulder more of the security burden in the Pacific and around the world? Well they have been doing they have been increasing and taking on more responsibility but you have to remember also that they are bound in by certain of the treaty clauses limiting them at the time when a war was over and in order to keep them from becoming a military threat. Would you change that sir or would you ask them to give aid to people? I think well they are they're giving aid in a number of the... Should we change the treaty? At the moment I don't think that's necessary but I will say that they have under their own rules they have increased their willingness to take on some of their own defense. If Mrs. Akino has problems in the Philippines what do the military think we should do about our bases? What contingency plans do we have? Well I don't know we're waiting we hope that when the time comes for renewal that there will be a renewal and we think it's every minute and much as in their interest as it is in ours when you look at the placement now of the greatly enlarged Soviet fleet throughout the Pacific and how nearby there is a Soviet military and naval base I think that it is that it's imperative that we continue with those bases. The bases have become more vital than ever. Yes. Last question if START is not ready for the Moscow Summit sir would you consider another summit later in the year when the treaty is ready? Oh if they sign a treaty yes. Certainly. Let me just say it is turning out to be a much more complicated treaty the START treaty than the INF treaty was and so there's a time limitation there and we don't want anyone negotiating against a deadline because that way you can come up with a bad agreement. So we're hopeful that if it could possibly be all the things worked out in time for the summit yes if not why then I think this summit would engage itself in helping to further the things where there was still disagreement. And then yes I would support the idea of getting together for a signature just as we did here with the INF. Well on the START agreement you said of course that SDI would never be a bargaining chip but some people talk about the possibility of a schedule that mutually agreed for SDI research that would not slow down the US program but would reassure the Soviet Union. Is there room for compromise there or is SDI still off limits as far as you're concerned? Well you have to remember that Mr. Gorbachev recently to one of our anchor men here in national television stated that they were doing the same thing we were and they've been doing it for 15 years and they've also spent something like 15 times as much on it as we have so far. So we're not using this or looking toward SDI as a means of achieving a first strike capability and what we believe is that the acronym for the Mutual Assured Destruction Plan which is supposed to be our detente, MAD, it is truly MAD the idea that we consider each one of us with a gun pointed to the other's head and the gun cocked and think that someday there might not be an accidental pulling of the trigger by one or the other that it makes sense to say if it is possible to have a defense that could make these ballistic missiles obsolete let's have that defense. And I have even proposed that it should be shared. I know that sir. So you think that SDI will not be an obstacle to the start? No, I don't. As a matter of fact that didn't seem to be when we were having our earlier talks here about start. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you very much for your time. And your forthright answers. It's a great help for us in Europe and in the Pacific to be able to get a chance to hear you on some of the directly interest our readers. I was expecting you to ask about NATO. Well I'd be glad to hear what you'd like to say. Well I think it's in this most recent meeting most, well it was just a very successful meeting and it showed that the bond is tighter than ever between us and of course I pointed out to some of our allies there in NATO I have thought in recent years that many of the wars of the past that have so divided Europe came about because in the settling of a war they always laid the foundation for the next war and the seeking of vengeance and so forth and after World War II this time probably built around the Marshall plant that didn't happen and to look around that table and see you're not just looking at your erstwhile allies you're looking at the enemies you hated so much in that war and there we are bound together that common bond the protection of freedom and I think it's a miraculous thing and I think it's something that none of us should ever abandon. And you felt that there was a meeting of minds there that showed us Yes, very much so. Yes, don't walk away with your... I might tear your hand here. I'll let a specialist take that. Thank you very much. Thank you again. Good to see you. No, no. Very nice of you. You're sorry. Thanks.


During our own in-depth, long-term investigations into the possibility of our small planet, once being home to possibly multiple developed civilizations, each met cataclysm, thus each lost civilizations, as far as mainstream academia would accept, civilizations far more advanced than will ever be academically shared. Never even considering the possibility that one was indeed once responsible for the many inexplicably precise yet enormous ancient ruins found all over the world. We recently did an expose regarding the Bosda Caves. Located within Turkey, we covered the many ancient tool marks present within the caves. It was an ideal place for us to launch a pursuit into whether we could identify multiple lost civilizations. We pursued the identification of signature features within and amongst the many enigmatic stone-cut scars left by ancient technologies once used to create these incredible sights. In doing so, we identified a signature within the block building of one specific civilization, whose ruins dot Greece, Egypt, and far beyond, whose signature also present at this circular mound. Discovered by mainstream archaeologists a while ago, yet regardless Greece's culture ministry, warning against overboard speculation that an ancient artificial mound being excavated could contain a royal Macedonian grave or even Alexander the Great, the mainstream awareness of the site it seems was successfully suppressed. Regardless, due to our own independent investigations into a civilization who once constructed a number of ruins still unexplained identifying their signature present at the site, it is unquestionably an ancient structure of a now lost and suppressed civilization. Now known as the Castatum, it was intriguingly adorned with a pair of sphinxes whose heads are missing, alas we have previously addressed this mass destruction with many other sphinx heads destroyed in an effort to suppress Anubis as its true identity and the sphinx's true canine origins, yet alas the main stonework is the smoking god. The compounding factors indicating that this site was once built even quite possibly by the Great Pyramid builders due to the addition of sphinxes, yet it has been successfully stifled from mainstream view. These headless sphinxes clearly of a canine nature, and as we have previously postulated in regards to the great sphinx of Giza, was in fact once depicted as the head of Anubis, and the water erosion theory, a convolution in an effort to hide the fact that the great sphinx once rested within a great lake, namely Anubis Lake, yet I digress. The circular structure within Greece may have indeed once been built by this same once inexplicably advanced ancient civilization, yet alas any academic study funded by mainstream institutions will never accept or even consider the possibility of any advanced civilization regardless of the precision evident in their stonework, once anywhere as close or even more advanced than us today ever having existed. This advanced yet most likely claimed as Greek ruin may have indeed been used by said characters as their tombs as claimed, unfortunately however said tomb is also often claimed as their handy work as well, regardless of the inexplicable features present upon all these sites. Whether claimed as Greek or Roman, the size and indeed precision of some of the blocks often present are far out of their capabilities, yet these mainstream conspiracy theories remain the status quo regardless of said evidence. It is a system of denial and process, and we think, for good reason, although argued as the burial site of Alexander the Great, the signature features never lie, allowing us, no matter how controversial, to date this relic to a forgotten time within history. It is a debate and a site which we find highly compelling.


You're welcome back to the breakfast on Plus TV Africa and Happy Independence Day Nigeria. This morning we'll be taking a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the country called Nigeria as we celebrate our sixth the first independence anniversary. Joining us to do this is Public Affairs Analyst Mr Upunnawo Ingotaria. Good morning, thank you for joining us. Good morning. Why does a lot of emphasis on all the things that are going wrong in Nigeria at the moment? I want us to begin with the positives. When you take a look at Nigeria since 1999 and then with a focus on the Buhari administration what could you you know say would be one of the greatest achievements so far? The greatest achievement? Yes, please. From independence and the Buhari administration? Well, if it's from independence, the greatest achievement so far is that we are still one. We don't have the vision, not the vision so far. The encasement is still one like Nigeria. That's the greatest achievement so far. I don't think there is any other achievement we cannot try to talk about. But if we talk of the Buhari's achievement, at the railway, at the railway, I think that's all. Apart from the railway, there's many other achievements. So you commend the rail infrastructure basically? Well, the president you know feels completely different you know of course from his speech this morning he said that in the last six years we've achieved a lot more than we have achieved you know since 1999 and you know of course which moves to put Nigeria on the right path. So what you know may he be referring to? Is it the you know improvement in the agricultural sector? Is it science and technology? Is it maybe infrastructure? The fight against corruption? You know of course maybe you know improvement in our GDP. Which exactly would you say the president might be referring to? I don't think the president, you know I would like to put it they say in the local parlance that which person my mask would wear this week? You don't expect Mr. President to come on air and criticize himself or criticize his government. You don't expect that.   It's not possible. I mean the facts tell us in the face are you talking of agriculture? Is it talk of improvement in the agricultural sector? We are all aware of the hunger in demand. We are all aware of the skyrocketing prices of food commodity. So what are we talking about? Because the whole extent of improvement in the agricultural sector is the reduction of prices. In this particular instance, the reverse is the case. The cost of living is extremely high. You go into talk of, you mentioned one thing, you mentioned about four other things. Please can you remind me? Oh I think I mentioned our GDP growth, agriculture, you know science GDP growth. Now let us forget about the soft history. Let's forget about the corruption and go to the first. When you say GDP, what is GDP? What does GDP mean?  So we all understand when they say GDP. But does it make sense when it cannot transmit? The common man should not even without understanding what GDP means should be able to live above very well, above God. That is the whole extent, doing international communities talk of GDP, it translates. That is the whole, they are telling you this is the GDP and by extension it has improved on the lives, the economic lives of their citizens. Is that the case in Nigeria? That is not the case in Nigeria. Just yesterday, the day before, because 580 Naira to a dollar. So what GDP are we talking about? It makes the whole non... Are you going to tell the market to man GDP? Are you going to tell the capital GDP? Are you going to tell the proletariat GDP? It means nothing to them. What does it translate into? That is what the people on the masses, that is not the hyperloy, that is not the actor, what we need to translate into. We are talking of improved GDP, very why the cost of living is high. People can barely have the square million a day. So what essence is the GDP? So let's forget about this whole grammar. The whole bottom line is cost of living. The market to man... Are you even as educated as you are? Of what importance is the GDP to you if you cannot pay your children's coffee, if you cannot put food on the table, if you cannot pay your electricity bill, if you cannot do the basics, we are not talking of taxes, but the basic of what importance is GDP. So it doesn't make sense at all. You mentioned something else again, apart from the GDP. I really was just sharing those things. We may not need to focus on them individually. I just wanted to know what the president may have been referring to when he said that we've done pretty well compared to where we've come from. I'm very sure to say this on that. I don't even believe that the president understands what he's saying. Please present it to him and he's just being interested in nature. You can tell him to analyze his speech himself. It is reaching for him to be back in the nation. That's simple as it is. Well, many other people will disagree with you and say, you know, that's Sims, you know, almost like an insult to the president and his intelligence. I know you play the devil's advocate. The only people that will disagree with me are those that are also benefiting from this system. They are the ones that are good. Minority of them, because I believe majority of them are also essentially. So minority will just agree. Some are forced to agree because they don't have a choice. For example, behind Mohammed, the spokesperson, that is the additional quote, are forced to agree because they don't have a choice. They have to defend the policy no matter how bad it is. That is what they are paid to do. But I can tell you that even those in the government majority of them are not pleased because this is the worst government we've had. Apart from their backyard government, this can be said to be the worst government in the history of this country. All right. Mr. Inkotaria. Sorry, Anita. We've seen what the last few weeks or months, you know, have been like here in Nigeria. And that includes security challenges. Yesterday, of course, we had to speak about the death of Dr. Chika Kunili. We've also seen, you know, about 35 people or 38 people who were murdered in the north in, I think, the U.S. state or Burma state in the last 24 to 48 hours. We've seen the secessionist agitations, you know, both from, you know, the U.S. Sunday, the whole faction and, of course, Namdi Kanu. We've also seen, of course, a fight against corruption in Nigeria has not really improved much in the corruption index. There's a lot of things, you know, that we can point out as, you know, major, major challenges Nigeria is currently dealing with. Would you argue that or would you agree with those who say that we were always heading down this path to where Nigeria is today? And these 61 years really have just been, you know, moving in this same trajectory. And it's not necessarily the current administration that is to blame for where we are today. Well, to a very large extent, I would say yes, because we are posing into a travesty call in Nigeria, you know. I've always said that this program on a lot of other programs, on a lot of other programs, I have a chance to speak, that unless we agree on what I refer to as the movement of Nigeria, we will never have a fight. We will go with plundering the morass of procedures. You see, Nigeria and we are different nations, we're made up of different nations. And we have failed to appreciate the fact that Nigeria is made up of different nations. We still see Nigeria as what I refer to as the Asmetuins. In other words, we cannot separate them. The leaders before him and after him are said, you cannot question the individuality of this country. And I just laugh because, you see, what action is different from what's at the top of action? You can tell me, you can shout, you cannot invade my premises, you cannot revoke my deal, you cannot do this. But the man with the gun is invading. You don't have a gun, you don't have any means of defending yourself. And he's invading. We are just talking, he's doing the job. We can see that the Spanish leadership under Buwari, it is because it is so accentuated under Buwari because of his time of leaders, capacity leaders. That is why it's so accentuated. Others were able to manage the difference. No doubt, from 1914 up to this, it was snowballing, I agree with you. We're definitely going to get to the point of anarchy. If you don't address the bombing, senior issue, we're definitely going to get to that. The presidents before him, they're able to manage. But there's a great difference between managing the conflict and resolving the conflict. What our leaders have been doing in this country is to manage the conflict and not resolve the conflict. And so it's faster because when you bounce back, like when you're pushed to the wall, you bounce back to the double level. That is what's going on now. And that is why the issue of secession is assuming apocalyptic dimension, because a lot of people are sick and tired of what is going on in this country. So a lot of people believe that strategy is being employed just to keep the country together. Whereas it has to be a willy and good thing, not you don't need to coax people, not the willy. That's how you sit down and discuss. We had a lot of influences in this country. And like I said before, we don't even need another national conflict. It's completely unleashed. All we need to do is complete the various reports of all the conferences that have taken place. You add and supply. And we are going to get a document, a walkable and legitimate, not legal, legitimate document that Nigerians will walk with. And everybody will be happy. But if we fail to do that, it's just a matter of time, because we are headed slowly, unconsciously, to render with anarchy. No amount of force can stop it. No amount of networks can stop it. What will stop it is a practical approach and the realization of the fact that we are different entities that are coming together for a common good. And unless that fact is realized, it will be to be a freedom illusion to think that Nigeria will exist for another 30 years. That will be a freedom illusion. So we know that there's been lots of criticism of the presidency regarding insecurity. But one of the things the presidency mentioned here is that despite how it may be perceived by lots of Nigerians, that men and women of security agencies are actually taking the fight to the terrorists. And that in fact, in the north alone, over 3,000 Boko Ram insurgents have actually 8,000. Over 8,000 Boko Ram terrorists have surrendered. He also went on to mention the thousands of personnel that have been recruited into the security space in Nigeria. Do you think that's something we should praise the president for? 8,000 surrendered Boko Ram terrorists and lots of investment in security? I will start by saying the federal government is complacent in the first two security situations in the country. And those so-called Boko Haram defendants, I don't think they are actually Boko Haram defendants. And allow me to make the background. First and foremost, with the president, it's sympathetic to this criminal, they called Bandit. If you recall, he was the first person who said, if the Niger Delta military school, why not Boko Haram? Then again, when Boko Haram that was preceded as president, again when Boko Haram nominated, persons to represent them. The president is nominated for General Muhammad Ibu Ari. So there is a strong nexus between the Bandit and the suppressant. Now, we also have the issue of Gumi. If a South American should say a thing, next, terrorist, as in sender, as Gumi has said, we would have been behind bars. Gumi was never the federal government's representative. Gumi went and discussed with Boko Haram to put out pictures with them, but he never pleaded with them. Let's get this back to you. He never pleaded with them. He never insisted on the station of hostility by Boko Haram people. Rather, he gave the federal government the condition that unless they have granted amnesty to Boko Haram, these Bandits will continue in Dainiku. You can imagine, they are in this, the president, they are in the federal government. And yet, and Gumi also said that the federal government knows where these people, that even the soldiers, the wounded commanders know where these people are. Gumi said it, I did not say. I did not national tell him what has happened, not the federal government's competition. Shortly after, they are talking of amnesty for this Bandit. And they are saying talking of amnesty because the Niger Delta militants were given amnesty. But let us make this distinction here because they are not depending on any material particular. Let us make this distinction here. A militant is different from a Bandit. The Niger Delta militants, all they did was to frustrate the exploration of oil in the Niger Delta region. And that is the way to command the attention of the federal government, that have decided on this idea that there will be so much spiritual out of the people who are living or nothing to show for it. And Niger Delta still, tomorrow, are dying gradually because of the oil exploration and exploitation. The Phoenicians had a will. So they said, no, unless you address the Niger Delta issue that will not allow you to continue with this exploitation of oil in the Niger Delta region, they are talking of the road. They did not bend their swing on the regions, on other regions. They did not go out to kill people. They are not kidnapping persons. No. This is different from Banditry. These are terrorists. Who are now, these are innocent people, who are trying to crush their own style of religion, their own lifestyle, on other people in the country. They are two different things. And we didn't go against the federal government. So you can never compare them. I mean, it is the cloutness of the people. Now, how do you grant these Amnesty people?  What are the family members they have still? And this Amnesty is only a decoy because they will reintegrate. It has happened in Kaduna. It has happened in a few others too. They will reintegrate. They will come into the system, get reintegrated, get more convert, and we will relaunch. Because what are you going to give to them? These are people that are used to receiving 50 million later, 100 million later, 200 million later. So what are you going to give to them? And we are talking of prison congestion. When you reintegrate, where are you going to keep them? Where are the IDP camps that you've not been able to take care of? Are you talking of 8,000 people? Are you going to reintegrate them into the system after this time? It is just not possible. But just because the Niger disaster militants were not killed. Just because they were not persecuted. It is as if, why will you prosecute our own?  But the situations are different. The scenarios are quite different. These are criminals who do away against a country. These other ones are saying, don't come into my house. Don't come into my house. I am talking about Niger disaster militants. So they are two different things all together. But the question is, if we don't kill these people, we cannot kill my own. And that is the problem we have in this country. All right, Mr. Angotara. That is the way. 60, 61. But he cannot do it. He cannot bounce over the issue of the refugee militants. Those people who are not refugee militants. They wait and force them to come out. So in explaining, they are, they are, they are protected. They, if you are not going to become a woman, I doubt it. And even the Kajuna state government has said it. But he doesn't want to negotiate with them. So what is the whole problem? Why would you prosecute them? I'm not sure if you can still hear us. So I may have lost him briefly. I hope, you know, that we can reconnect with him the few minutes that we have left to quickly speak on, you know, what he feels is, Mr. Angotara, can you hear us? Okay. So final question for me. I want your thoughts on what you will describe as, you know, the most disappointing part of our journey in the last 61 years. You know, and of course, the failures with which we've, you know, walk the failures as a nation with being able to fix our leadership recruitment process, you know, maybe that would have put us on a better trajectory. The influence of the military, you know, since independence, you know, with different coups here and there. But what would you say has been the most disappointing part in the last 61 years?  All right. Seems we may have lost him again. But of course, we're still discussing Nigeria 61 years later, the good, the bad and the ugly. And of course, seeing what we've been able to achieve as a country where we currently are headed. Are we going to celebrate Nigeria 62 and 63 and 65? Or, you know, because there are going to be things that we may have to deal with in the future.  Yes, indeed. The president did mention things about diversity, the fact that, you know, we're one great people, even though we have different cultures, different religions, and things like that. But one of his final words was that security, the unity of Nigeria, non-negotiable was still, our hands must be on deck. We must all see the other person as an equal member of society. We must all value one another and we must work with the government to make sure the country is in a better place. Yes, we're not where we want to be, but if we must get to where we want to go to, we cannot but do that together. We're going to short break. When we come back, we're moving into a totally different conversation. And of course, in the bit to move forward, how much can we involve our young female Nigerians in science and technology? After it comes up next day on the Bracklist, we'll be back in a minute.