0:00

Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked

0:02

Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless

0:04

companies are allowed to raise prices due

0:06

to inflation. They said yes. And then

0:09

when I asked if raising prices technically

0:11

violates those onerous two-year contracts, they said,

0:13

what the f*** are you talking about,

0:15

you insane Hollywood a*****e? So to

0:17

recap, we're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a

0:19

month to just $15 a month. Give

0:22

it a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45

0:25

up front for three months plus taxes and fees. Promote for new

0:27

customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Mint

0:29

Unlimited slows. Tired of ads

0:31

barging into your favorite news podcasts? Good

0:34

news. Ad-free listening is available on Amazon

0:36

Music, for all the music plus top

0:38

podcasts included with your Prime membership. Stay

0:41

up to date on everything newsworthy by downloading

0:43

the Amazon Music app for free. Or

0:46

go to amazon.com/news ad free.

0:49

That's amazon.com/news ad free to catch

0:51

up on the latest episodes without

0:53

the ads. The

1:02

sin was to promise cheaper power before

1:04

the last election. And just to go

1:06

out there and say, this is great,

1:08

everyone gets a pony is just as

1:11

dishonest as denying the science or

1:14

having a confected fear campaign around

1:16

attacks. Like the

1:19

real discussion that leadership involves is saying, this

1:21

is really hard. Not

1:23

that this is easy, but this is hard. Hello,

1:25

I'm Paul Karp, chief political correspondent

1:28

at Guardian Australia. Coming

1:30

to you from the lands of the Ngunnawal and Nambri

1:32

peoples. It's our regular essential

1:34

special on the Australian Politics Podcast, which

1:36

means I'm here with Peter Lewis, the

1:38

executive director of Essential Media. Hello, Peter,

1:40

how are you? I'm well, Paul. Thanks

1:43

for joining me. So

1:47

following Anthony Albanese's announcement of

1:49

a new green industry plan,

1:52

the latest Guardian Essential poll

1:54

asked voters if

1:56

they think the transition to renewable energy is

1:58

going to be an easy one. But

2:01

before we talk about renewables and

2:03

how people feel about Made in

2:05

Australia, how about we start with

2:07

the leaders ratings? What do people

2:09

think of Anthony Albanese and

2:11

Peter Dutton this fortnight? Look, the big movement

2:13

and we do check in on the approval

2:16

or disapproval of the jobs each are doing

2:18

in the job they have. So this is

2:20

not preferred Prime Minister. This is approval of

2:22

the job that the Prime Minister is doing

2:24

as Prime Minister and

2:27

the job that Peter Dutton is

2:29

doing as opposition leader. It's

2:31

actually a blue letter day for

2:33

Dutton in that it's the first

2:36

time that his approvals has been

2:38

higher than his disapprovals. 44,

2:43

41 with 15% don't

2:45

know, plus 3 in

2:47

contrast and no big changes here but

2:49

the disapproval for Anthony Albanese is above

2:51

the approval 48, 43 so he's net

2:53

negative 5. So

2:57

the big shift in attitudes

2:59

was really around I think initially

3:02

the interest rate rises and now

3:04

they've kind of levelled out. The

3:07

rise with Dutton has been kind

3:09

of consistent since October

3:11

instead of been going up a couple

3:13

of points each time we check in

3:15

which is every couple of months. And

3:17

it's a net 7 point turnaround with

3:19

his approval up 4 points and his

3:22

disapproval down 3 points. Is there

3:24

any sense of

3:26

who these people are that

3:28

approve of Dutton more? Look

3:30

he's solidifying his support amongst

3:32

coalition voters. He is up

3:35

to strong approved 22, 53 approve of coalition. Minor

3:41

parties independence it's not so strong.

3:43

Green's unsurprisingly low and Labour low.

3:47

Additionally he has approvals

3:50

that are reasonably strong with

3:52

over 55's and

3:54

less support with younger. The

3:57

reality is if this was a nation of over 55's. have

4:00

a pretty strong majority of a liberal

4:02

government and vice versa. If

4:04

only under 35 of voting

4:06

it would be a progressive coalition. So the

4:09

only other thing I'll note

4:12

is that Dutton is at

4:14

49 either approve or strongly

4:16

approve amongst blokes and that's 10

4:18

points more than females. So there

4:21

is I think we'd say

4:23

an older bloke vibe going in behind him. But

4:26

you know I don't want to trivialise this because

4:28

I think one of the stories that has been

4:30

going in under the radar over the last 6

4:32

to 12 months is that I think a lot

4:34

of people on progressive side of politics thought this

4:36

guy was an easy beat. He

4:38

was so creepy

4:40

and weird looking and

4:42

negative and ideological that

4:45

he would be unelectable like there have been

4:47

previous politicians have been sitting before that have

4:49

had those traits and have become very successful

4:51

opposition leaders so successful they become prime ministers.

4:53

So I just think the

4:56

numbers a good wake up call for progressives

4:58

who might naturally recoil at

5:00

some of the ways he's

5:02

portrayed in the galleries he's playing to

5:04

but he's like he's doing well for

5:06

an opposition leader with those numbers. Yes

5:08

and you've been very consistent in making

5:10

that warning. It's not the first time

5:12

that you've pointed out that it would

5:14

be very foolish to count out a

5:16

political animal like Peter Dutton and

5:20

in your column this week you argued that

5:23

the other thing that's not going to

5:25

be a cakewalk is selling this energy

5:27

transition. So let's move

5:30

on to talk about that. First

5:32

up did people think that the

5:34

transition from fossil fuels to renewable

5:36

energy would be positive,

5:38

negative or have no impact on

5:41

Australia, on their community and on

5:43

them individually? Yes so look

5:46

glass half full more

5:48

people think that a renewable energy

5:50

transition will be positive than negative

5:53

but in none of those three

5:55

categories Australia as a whole my

5:57

community or me individually. Is

6:00

it a majority? So, Australia as a whole,

6:03

49, 26 with 25% undecided. My

6:08

community, 42, positive, 25, negative.

6:13

I want to come back to that in a sec, Paul. And

6:15

then 36, 23, me individually. Now,

6:19

there's two things going on there.

6:21

One is that there is

6:23

a big shift between people that are

6:25

lived in, in a metro and

6:28

rural. So my community benefiting

6:30

53% of

6:33

people who are in a metro agree with

6:35

that, just 34% of

6:37

rural. Me individually, it's 47, 26. Now,

6:43

I think a lot of the renewable polling

6:45

that we've seen over the last 12 to

6:48

18 months gives us this sort

6:50

of number of 65% say they're basically

6:52

on board with renewables. And

6:55

I've been thinking about this a lot. And we've

6:57

been running quite a few focus groups, various folk

6:59

around this as well. And it

7:01

really has a bit of a voice vibe to

7:03

me at the moment in that we kept getting

7:05

in our quant at the beginning of the voice

7:07

campaign, this 65% number. And

7:10

everyone thought, oh, this is going to be fine. But

7:12

once you started unpacking it, you

7:15

realize that the support was quite brittle.

7:18

And I think particularly in

7:20

rural areas, there's a real

7:22

incentive for the Nats to

7:25

turn this into a political contest, because

7:28

those are seats they want to hold on

7:30

to. And there are some particularly up the

7:32

coast of New South

7:34

Wales where they see potential

7:36

pickups. So it's kind

7:38

of a be alert, not alarmed. But I

7:40

do think that more work needs to be

7:43

done in explaining what that

7:45

renewable transition actually is.

7:49

And a real honest discussion, as I say

7:51

in my column this week, that it's

7:53

hard, like to fundamentally change the

7:55

energy base of a nation is

7:59

not something that's done with a

8:01

slogan or a new law, it

8:03

is like decades of hard work

8:06

that involves a big industrial investment.

8:09

It involves disruption through

8:12

the creation of effectively a new energy

8:14

grid being fed by new inputs.

8:18

So we're shifting from a fossil fuel

8:20

base to wind, sun, hydro, underscored

8:23

in the long term with battery technology.

8:25

But all that technology is new and

8:27

needs to be funded and developed. And

8:30

you wouldn't be doing this if

8:32

you didn't have to, but because of the challenge of

8:35

global warming, it is something that the whole

8:37

world is confronting. And so Australia needs to

8:39

be doing it. Now, the good news

8:41

out of all of that is that I think the

8:44

government is recognising that. And I think

8:46

in a way, the

8:48

way to read the speech

8:50

and the kind of foreshadowing that the budget is

8:52

going to be based around this future made in

8:55

Australia is that for probably the

8:57

first time I'm seeing the

8:59

government recognising they've got to sell the hard

9:01

work and not just the sound grabs. I

9:03

joke, I don't have to say joke, I

9:06

observe in this week's column that most

9:08

of the messaging that has been coming out

9:10

of the government has either been this horrible

9:13

torrid technocracy that says it's

9:15

either a target, an acronym or

9:17

a megawatt hour. So that's one

9:20

bit of communication coming out of

9:22

the government. And the other

9:24

is this kind of schmaltzy, cheaper,

9:26

cleaner, better future, yay, with lots

9:28

of explanation marks. And neither of

9:30

those are really an honest characterisation

9:33

of what's involved. And so I

9:35

think a lot of what we'll go through today is

9:37

just sort of looking at what's happening

9:39

underneath that and the work the government needs to

9:41

do to build the social licence for this really,

9:44

really big change. Because if

9:46

you start at the general level, Australia as a whole,

9:48

49% said it will be positive

9:51

for that, then come

9:53

down to my community, 42%

9:55

and then down to the particular, to

9:58

the individual, me and the individual only

10:00

36%. Sadly,

10:03

voters are often thinking about themselves

10:06

when they cast their vote rather than

10:08

at the higher, more general level. So

10:10

that is the challenge for selling it.

10:13

Indeed, and particularly at a time when

10:16

it's almost becoming a truck cost of living

10:18

crisis. But when people are under financial stress

10:20

and our polling keeps showing that more than

10:22

a majority of people say they're struggling, people

10:25

will be voting more

10:27

on their material needs than

10:30

more extrinsic values. So yeah, there

10:32

is a real challenge there. But

10:34

it's also, if the government

10:36

can't do it, you wonder what they're there

10:38

for because it is the big project.

10:41

And again, I don't

10:43

want to catastrophise where the government is because

10:45

I think that speech

10:47

was the beginning of a reset on this

10:50

where it's about what are we going to

10:52

build and how is that going to

10:54

work. And there is a different

10:56

conversation that comes out of that. And as

10:59

we'll see, as we go through some of

11:01

the numbers, new constituencies that are open to

11:03

some of those messages as well. Well, let's

11:05

jump ahead then to what

11:07

people thought of the future made in

11:09

Australia policy. You told respondents

11:12

that this would provide funding for

11:14

large scale renewable energy projects that

11:16

support the creation of local jobs.

11:19

What did people say about whether or

11:21

not they supported such a policy? This

11:23

is always the problem in reducing something

11:26

that's basically a fairly detailed

11:29

and substantial speech to a question

11:31

like this. And clearly,

11:33

there's a lot of people in the

11:35

middle who don't really engage, but it's

11:37

51 support, 18% opposition to that top

11:39

level proposition. I

11:45

think the most interesting thing in these

11:47

numbers is that green voters at 68

11:49

with basically no

11:51

one opposing are even more enthusiastic than labor

11:54

voters at 55%. We've also got 43%

11:58

of coalition voters. 46%

12:01

of independents liking what they're hearing.

12:03

Now, I think that

12:05

opens up a really interesting point that

12:07

if this is the climate play, you're

12:09

actually running something that the Greens –

12:13

well, Greens supporters, and you would

12:15

imagine the Greens reflecting that, will

12:17

lean in behind you rather

12:19

than some of the other points

12:25

of friction such as

12:28

even more ambitious targets, although we'll get to that in a

12:30

sec, people don't think we're going to meet the current ones,

12:33

or the specifics around the transition

12:35

away from fossil fuels. But this is

12:38

a program that you feel like the

12:40

broad progressive alliance and a fair crack

12:42

of the coalition will

12:46

lean into. 30%

12:48

neutral, I think that's around not

12:51

yet engaging in these discussions. Because

12:53

I know you wrote about it

12:55

over the last couple of weeks.

12:57

This is actually – what

13:00

he's proposing is a

13:03

different way of looking at the role government plays

13:05

much more back to that idea

13:08

of investing behind specific industries and

13:10

clearly reacting to some

13:12

of the big investments occurring in

13:14

the US and Europe and parts

13:17

of Asia as well. So, it is a

13:19

bit of a different game. A lot of

13:22

the discourse after the speech is like, oh,

13:24

government is picking winners again. And it's –

13:26

I studied year 12 economics before the GFC

13:28

and then it was still in the end

13:31

of history type period

13:33

where there was a neoliberal, neoclassical

13:35

consensus since the 1980s that we

13:37

don't do industry policy anymore. But

13:40

then you drill down and you ask

13:42

people some questions that go to their

13:44

underlying view about whether or not the

13:46

government should have a role in the

13:48

economy. And

13:50

what did you find? You found people

13:52

were actually quite red hot on industry

13:54

policy. Well, the one that I love

13:56

is that 64% of people agree. a

14:00

mistake to allow the Australian car

14:02

industry to close, which people

14:04

remember Joe Hockey famously basically said, go

14:07

goodbye when he was treasurer because he

14:09

was just sick of government putting money

14:12

into them when he couldn't get his austerity budget

14:14

through. 70%

14:17

agree the pandemic shows we cannot be

14:19

wholly reliant on global supply chains. And

14:22

then some of the defence statements,

14:25

the market will make the best decisions and

14:27

governments should stay out of the way. Only

14:29

34% sign up to that. It's

14:32

not the government's job to support Australian businesses

14:34

that can't compete overseas. Only 37% sign up

14:36

to that. Now,

14:38

the negatives don't outweigh that. They're in

14:40

the mid to high 20s with a

14:43

lot of people not putting

14:45

a position. But the one that really

14:47

stood out to me here was on

14:49

those sort of economic, I won't call

14:51

them economic nationalism, but more that government

14:54

intervention. It's the over 55 that

14:56

on most measures are just leaning in behind

14:58

the coalition. 79% of those agree

15:01

the pandemic showed we cannot

15:03

wholly rely on global supply chains. 75%

15:07

of those older voters

15:09

agree it was a mistake to allow

15:11

the Australian car industry to close. This

15:13

is what you mean by new constituencies.

15:15

Labor's doing badly with the over 55,

15:18

but the over 55 are the ones that

15:20

are most responsive to this build it here mentality.

15:23

Exactly. They have lived in

15:26

a time when government did take more

15:28

active roles. The younger people are more

15:30

likely to say don't know, but

15:32

there is a clear certainty amongst

15:37

the vast majority of older voters that

15:40

this notion that government should just

15:42

be stripping away

15:45

all the regulation and just letting

15:48

the market do its business. You

15:51

look at those numbers and you say it's a failed project and

15:53

it is the first

15:55

time I think. I don't think, and

15:58

you might correct me. I think

16:00

in the last Labor government, there was that

16:02

kind of the Kimil

16:04

car plan. There was

16:06

a little bit of government intervention on a few

16:09

things. That was more trying to find ways of

16:11

keeping existing industries going. But if you're

16:13

going to pick a winner, surely you pick the winner that's

16:15

going to allow you to make the transition to save the

16:17

planet. I don't

16:19

think it's like you're tossing up whether we

16:21

should build mobile phones or Lego

16:24

blocks. This is actually the

16:27

game. Other

16:29

governments are recognising that. It's almost like it's

16:31

another Black Swan event. So pandemic changed the

16:33

way. We thought about

16:35

government in terms of public health

16:38

measures and supporting people. Maybe

16:40

the need for an energy transition is

16:42

the moment that we start rethinking the

16:45

orthodoxy that goes back to when you were

16:47

at uni and I was a young journalist,

16:49

which was that there is no role for

16:51

government except to fade into the background. A

16:55

raid against labours made in Australia

16:57

policy, which is very renewables heavy,

16:59

is the coalition's

17:01

nuclear fantasy, which had a bit

17:03

of a setback this fortnight

17:06

because Peter Dutton had to admit they're not

17:08

going to be releasing a policy on

17:11

this side of the budget, kicking

17:13

that can down the road. But

17:15

what did you find in terms

17:18

of whether Australians supported developing nuclear

17:20

power plants to generate electricity? So

17:23

there is majority support. It

17:26

almost mirrors support for made

17:29

in here or whatever we're calling it, the future

17:31

made in Australia policy, 52% support, 31% oppose, 17%

17:33

unsure. Again

17:39

slightly older skew, 55% support, but also 53%

17:42

younger. It's

17:44

kind of the mid. I still like to think of myself as

17:46

35 to 54. I'm a

17:48

proud Gen X. I squeeze

17:50

into the over 55 now, but I

17:52

was one of those people that was politicised

17:55

during the Cold War around nuclear and I

17:57

find it a really difficult issue to sort

17:59

of of enter with any thought that

18:01

we could be mislearning the

18:04

lessons from our past. But there

18:06

is majority support. He's got something

18:08

to work with here, particularly with

18:10

the disruption of renewables. So if

18:13

you look at those numbers where, particularly

18:15

in those regional areas where the renewable

18:17

infrastructure is going to be built out,

18:19

the idea that you could do it

18:22

in another way that isn't going to

18:24

interrupt your shoreline or your back paddock

18:26

has obvious appeal. The proposition

18:28

has not had its feet

18:31

held to the fire around cost or

18:33

viability or time frames. But

18:35

the idea that there is an alternate

18:38

technology, like whenever you poll on three

18:40

things, if there is a middle ground,

18:42

people tend to gravitate. So if you've got fossil fuels,

18:45

you've got sun and wind, and you've got

18:47

this other thing that other parts of the

18:49

world are using as part of their transition,

18:51

there is an unsurprising

18:54

settling of opinion

18:56

in there. And

18:58

just to ask myself the next question, that

19:01

is reinforced when you ask people around cost,

19:03

right? So the other key benchmark we

19:06

were asking this time was around what

19:09

people think is the cheapest source of

19:11

energy. And we asked it

19:13

in terms of cost, including infrastructure

19:15

and household price. The

19:18

most expensive people find is

19:20

renewables at 40%, nuclear

19:24

at 36%, fossil fuels and gas

19:27

at 24%. So the

19:30

public narrative is still that

19:32

renewable energies are more expensive

19:34

to build. And

19:37

I think part of that is linked to

19:39

the lived experience that has the

19:41

renewable grid rolls out, prices are

19:43

going up. And we know that's

19:45

for other reasons. Correlation, not co-eviation.

19:47

Indeed. But if we just go out or

19:50

people advocating for renewables just go out

19:53

and say cheaper, cleaner, like you lose them

19:55

at hell, you got to do the work

19:57

to explain what they're doing. why

20:00

a grid that's

20:03

powered by free

20:05

sources like sun, wind

20:08

and water is

20:10

going to be the long term cheaper and the work

20:12

just hasn't been done. Well, I think

20:14

that it's an easy line for the coalition to

20:16

say you were promised $275 cut

20:20

to power prices by 2025. But

20:22

it's true to say that power prices

20:24

would be even higher if we weren't

20:27

bringing all these renewables online because the

20:29

marginal cost is cheaper. It's just that

20:31

it is happening at the same time

20:33

that fossil fuel prices are

20:35

spiking. And if you look at

20:37

what is actually involved in nuclear,

20:39

which is to extend the life

20:41

of coal power plants, it's no

20:43

solution at all, really. So that is the

20:45

political challenge, though, because in a

20:48

way, the sin was to promise cheaper power

20:50

before the last election. And

20:52

I do say in this week's column, just

20:55

to go out there and say this is

20:57

great, everyone gets a pony is just as

20:59

dishonest as denying the

21:01

science or having a confected

21:04

fear campaign around attacks. Like

21:07

the real discussion that leadership involves is

21:09

saying this is really hard. Not that

21:11

this is easy, but this is hard.

21:13

Mazzucato, who's this sort of global sort of

21:16

policy rock star, was out talking to a

21:18

local labor cabinet about moonshots the other week.

21:20

And this is her idea that you organize

21:22

economies and societies around big, ambitious projects,

21:25

not because they're easy, but because they're

21:27

hard, which was that famous JFK quote

21:29

when he announced the space race.

21:31

Now, I don't have the answer to

21:34

this, but I just have an inkling

21:36

that there needs to be a

21:38

recast that every time you're talking about

21:40

renewable, you promise something that's great. It

21:43

just I think people smell a rat. They know

21:45

it's hard. They can see it's hard.

21:48

And maybe it's time for a bit

21:50

of honesty around that. Well, let's turn

21:52

to the reason that we're doing the

21:54

energy transition, which is to avoid catastrophic

21:56

global heating. Oh, that. You asked people,

21:58

you know, the the Albanese government committed

22:00

to reaching net zero emissions by 2050,

22:02

do people think we

22:05

were going to make it? No.

22:07

So two things here. One is that

22:10

the whole idea of basing a policy around

22:12

targets is the conversation starter. It's the entree.

22:14

It's not the main course. The main course

22:16

is actually building the stuff. But

22:19

even in terms of the entree, we've

22:21

got 38% of people saying it's

22:23

likely we're going to meet this target,

22:25

50% saying it's not. That's

22:28

improved a little bit since we asked at last

22:31

towards the end of last year where it was

22:33

31% very likely and 57% very

22:35

unlikely. So

22:39

it's been about an eight,

22:41

10-point shift around. I'm

22:43

just seeing if there's any standouts here.

22:46

Regional less likely to think they're going to reach

22:48

the target. And I'll just have a look at

22:51

our age. Yeah. Older

22:53

people much more likely to think we won't

22:55

reach the target. The

22:57

young god love and think we're going to get there anyway. 54%

23:01

think we're going to make it as opposed

23:03

to just 23% of us older folk. So

23:08

are people just a little calmer because

23:10

we have a government with an ambitious

23:12

target or what do you think is going

23:14

on? I think they're seeing stuff being done. There's

23:17

no doubt that things are happening, right?

23:19

And we in the city don't see

23:21

it as much as folk in the

23:23

country. There are big areas where there

23:25

are big solar farms being built. There

23:27

are the start of big long-term discussions

23:29

about the big offshore wind and onshore

23:31

wind which is actually going to build

23:33

the capacity to sort of drive the

23:35

transition. One in three

23:37

homes now have rooftop solar. We're

23:40

talking about bringing EVs into the grid.

23:42

So it's all kind of happening. And

23:44

it's gone, I think, from being this

23:48

hypothetical argument about are we going to go? Are

23:50

we going to do it? We're actually on the

23:52

journey now. And it's just, I

23:54

think, a little bit more honesty about

23:56

what's involved in that journey will I

23:59

think... 55% think we're going to do it. open up new possibilities

24:01

as we saw the other week with the

24:03

future Made in Australia to change

24:05

talking about the way we address this

24:07

big challenge because I think most

24:10

people that put a climate t-shirt back

24:12

in the early 2000s is kind of

24:14

fully moth-ridden now and it probably doesn't

24:16

fit. I don't mind doesn't anymore. So

24:19

to sum up, we need more honesty

24:21

and it's going to take hard work

24:24

selling the energy transition but Made

24:26

in Australia is not bad as

24:29

a badge for what they're trying to achieve.

24:31

I think it's definitely better

24:34

than what we've been getting over the last 18

24:36

months to two years.

24:38

So yeah, more power to their pen.

24:40

It's just now putting that into practice

24:42

because the longer you let

24:44

this stuff drift, I think the more

24:46

it's hard to bring it back. One

24:49

final thought, you know, and we get this

24:51

all the time, the other challenge with all

24:53

this is that we've got a time of

24:55

really low trust in government, low trust in

24:57

the businesses which are driving the investment and

25:00

low trust in most sources

25:02

of information. So that is the

25:04

gumbo where this conversation is trying

25:06

to be had through and it

25:08

just creates a higher degree of

25:10

difficulty and I think a

25:13

perverse incentive to dumb things down

25:15

rather than to treat people intelligently.

25:17

But you know, it's

25:20

a low bar. It can only rise. Well,

25:22

I look forward to seeing you here every

25:24

fortnight between now and 2050, Peter. Hopefully

25:27

Canberra is not waterfront by then.

25:30

Thank you so much for joining us. Pleasure, Paul. This

25:35

episode was produced by Miles Herbert,

25:37

Alison Chan and Karishma Luceria. The

25:40

executive producer was Miles Martignoni and

25:42

I'm Paul Karp. We'll

25:45

have another episode of Australian Politics on

25:47

Saturday. Thanks for listening and see you

25:49

next time. Bye.

26:03

Namashkaraam, my name is Mayad. I'm a tour

26:05

leader with Explore. Come, follow me for a

26:08

break fast you will never forget. Namaste,

26:11

because you are going to make

26:14

an incredible masala dosa under the

26:16

watchful eye of my mom. Kia

26:18

vata mam. Each home adds

26:20

their special touches. But

26:22

not everyone gets to join in a traditional family

26:25

meal. You will if you

26:27

explore. For global adventures,

26:29

search exploreworldwide.com. And don't just

26:31

travel, explore.