Mamamia Out Loud: When Your Co-Host Earns Twice As Much As You

You're listening to a Mamma Mia podcast.

Mamma Mia acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters that this podcast is recorded on.

Mamma Mia Out Loud!

Hello and welcome to Mamma Mia Out Loud.

It's what women are talking about on Monday the 3rd of April.

I am Holly Wainwright.

I'm Claire Murphy and I'm filling in for the freshly wed Jesse Stevens.

I'm Mia Friedman and I am officially Jesse's mother-in-law

as of 72 hours ago.

Cute.

The Out Loud is a desperate for some details from Friday, Mia, so come on.

I know we're going to record a special show about it on Wednesday when Jesse's back with us,

but spill a few beans.

Along with the days that I gave birth to my children, it was the best day of my life.

Really?

The wedding was Friday afternoon and the reception was Friday evening.

I just couldn't really speak on Saturday and I wasn't even hungover.

I had like three drinks, but they didn't sort of even do anything.

That was over eight hours.

I think someone gave me a beer on the dance floor at about midnight.

I don't know.

But I just felt full, like hit by a truck on Saturday, not in a bad way,

but just in a sensory, completely overloaded way.

I regained my power of speech by Sunday and just processing it all.

It was not without drama of which we will speak more on Wednesday.

The weather was perfect.

It was bizarre.

It was like the weather was just like showing off.

It was this magical day, not a cloud in the sky.

And we had a wet weather plan, but it wouldn't have been amazing.

And it wasn't even just the day.

It was the sort of the lead up and the day before and, you know,

Luca and his best men stayed at our house the night before and all the boys,

you know, with Jason and Luca's brother Remy and a couple of his mates

and his uncle had a beautiful dinner the night before.

And Coco and I went over and had dinner with Jesse and Claire

and Andy, her bridesmaid and Stevens.

So the girls and boys split up and it looked the whole thing.

It was magic, magic, whole, you were there.

It was absolutely heaven.

And the thing is, is every time I looked over at Mia

and I was sitting on Mia's table, but a bit further down from her,

you were smiling, you were laughing, you looked so happy.

You looked so in the moment.

And so did Jesse and Luca.

Like they really did.

And all Brent kept saying to me was the speeches were amazing.

The speeches were.

And I'm like, well, of course they were.

We know how to do that shit.

And you guys, it was so good.

I can't wait for the out loudest here all about it properly on Wednesday.

But I had the most magical day.

It was.

We did get some sneaky peeks of the dress shots,

which we're all just hanging for.

Let's be honest.

Thank you for all your love.

We really felt it on the day and in the days after.

And while we're going to let Jesse fill you in on all the wedding details,

in the meantime, if you want to see the full album of photos from the wedding,

there is a link in the show notes.

On today's show, what happens when you find out your job share best mate

earns about twice as much as you do?

Kate Landbrook knows and my mate Gwyneth's trial has wrapped up eight days

of memification glory.

So has the whole I've lost half a day's skiing trial been good or bad for

Bran Gwyneth?

But first.

Okay, folks, there's a lot happening in the world of politics right now,

both here at home in Australia and overseas.

But first, let's focus on our own shores for a moment.

In case you're not aware, the Liberals are not having a good time.

And we're talking about pretty much across the entire country.

So if you're not aware, obviously, Labor won the federal election in 2022.

But if you want to do a quick round the ground, so in 2020,

both Queensland and the Northern Territory remained Labor governments.

In 2021, WA also remained Labor.

In 2022, South Australia switched to Labor.

Victoria's remained Labor as has the ACT.

And then the New South Wales election was just over a week ago,

where the Liberal Party lost and it's now a minority government for Labor.

So the only state or territory in Australia right now that is not a

Labor government is Tasmania.

There's also been a by-election this past weekend,

which saw some pretty record-breaking results.

It was in Aston, which is in a part of Melbourne.

Now, Melbourne is traditionally a Labor stronghold.

So if you look at the sort of political map of Melbourne,

most of the electorates will be held by Labor, some independence.

But this particular seat of Aston's been held by a Liberal for 30 odd years.

And the chances of an incumbent government,

so a government that is currently sitting winning a by-election

from its opposition is so small.

It barely ever happens, hasn't happened in more than 100 years, right?

So what's going on?

So Labor now holds this seat of Aston,

and pretty much the entirety of Melbourne is now Labor held.

So what is going on is the question, right?

The Liberals are not looking great,

and nobody can even really be sure exactly what it is,

because there seems to be many things.

The leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton,

was asked this on Inside as this past weekend.

And even he couldn't really come up with a reason

as to why the Liberals keep losing.

Have a listen to this.

The next election.

I'm not suggesting that.

I'm just asking whether you have an understanding

as to why you've gone backwards so far.

Well, our brand has suffered terribly in Victoria.

Why?

Well, people haven't voted for us at a state level.

And in the last 24 years, 21 of those years,

they voted for Labor instead of us.

So why is that?

You must have some idea.

Well, that's what we need to assess.

You don't know?

I think we need to do the analysis of Aston,

have an understanding of what people were motivated by,

what caused them to vote Labor for the first time.

I mean, for both major parties.

This is a problem, though.

If you're unable to put your finger on

why the Liberals are in such trouble in Victoria.

I mean, Labor's spent the last five weeks

throwing mud at us, at Rishina Campbell, at me,

at the Liberal Brand.

Well, they are effective campaigners.

And Daniel Andrews is ruthless at a state level.

And he demonstrated that at the most recent election.

So I think there are issues in relation to policy,

to personnel, issues in relation to our campaigning techniques.

So there's lots of different things, right?

We've looked at Victorian Liberals

turning up to an anti-trans rally.

We've had the Federal Liberals run a candidate

who is holding up an anti-trans platform.

We've had pork barreling.

We've had jobs for the boys.

There's been sexual assault accusations.

We've had power imbalance relationships.

A Prime Minister who did not end up looking great

towards the end there, Scott Morrison,

for the Liberals, you know,

known now as the PM who won't hold a hose.

We've now got an opposition leader

who won't have a stance on the voice to Parliament.

There's not enough gender diversity.

But these are all just like a multitude of reasons.

But no one can seem to really pinpoint

why they think any of that is a reason why Labor is winning.

So, Holly, what do you think is going on?

Look, I know. Just ask me.

I watched Insiders yesterday and I was like,

why won't David throw to me?

I've got all the answers on my couch.

No, actually, Nicky Savile was also on Insiders

and she said something very similar.

I think it's generally encouraging, right?

After last year's federal election,

Mia made this point and she got some rock thrown

out her head for saying it.

But she was saying how the teal wave had meant

that the Libs who were left in the Liberal Party

were on the right, definitely the right side of the party.

And what has definitely happened in this last year

in terms of the Libs trying to decide where they sit

is they're flirting with a kind of Sky News wedge issue model

of, you know, like, let's see what happens

if we poke this bear over here on trans issues.

If we don't take a decision, as you said, Murphy,

about the voice to Parliament until we've really, you know,

nailed down what the best way to drive that division is.

And people don't like it. And I think that that's actually

really encouraging. I mean, my political leanings

are probably quite well known to out louders,

but I don't mean that I think it's encouraging

because, oh, yay, everybody's voting Labour.

I think what's encouraging is that Australia,

at least so far, is refusing to go down the American road

of intense polarization.

And that's what, you know, if you do read certain newspapers

and you do watch things like Sky News after dark,

that's what they want to happen.

They want to drive these cultural issues.

They want to try and turn our politics into a real them and us.

And I think that the electorate is sending a very strong message

that that's not what they want.

They want more sensible, centrist stuff.

They're not buying into the idea that if you believe

in climate change, you're a crazy green lefty,

or that, you know, you want the economy to fall into the toilet.

They're not buying into the idea that the sky's going to fall

if we give voice to certain communities who haven't had voice before.

They don't really think the sky's going to fall

if we have a voice to Parliament.

I think that there's a lot of positive signs here

that Australians are saying,

we don't want to buy into all this fear mongering.

And Dutton doesn't quite know what to do

because that's what he thought was going to happen.

Do you think so, Mia?

While Claire was talking, and then while you were talking,

I was listening wrapped to what you were both saying.

And I'd forgotten that I'd said that last year,

thanks for pointing out, but I said something smart

and got rocks thrown at me for it.

But while you were talking, I was trying to think of a liberal politician,

and the only one I could think of was Peter Dutton.

And if you'd have asked me a year ago,

I would have been able to name a few, you know,

Julie Bishop, Josh Freidenberg for two,

who were two, I believe, outstanding politicians

and very good people,

both of which were purged from the party

by either the Teals or by the riot.

I believe Tony Abbott's still there.

Peter Dutton is known for his more extreme views

and no matter what they've tried to do

with a really concerted campaign to humanize him

and he areas with his family and he's actually a lovely guy.

And maybe he is actually a lovely guy,

but he's very much known for being pretty far to the right

within that party.

What worries me though,

and I'm a little bit further to the right than Holly,

I would consider myself a centrist, very much a centrist,

but centre-left, you know, very much progressive socially,

but what worries me is that a good democracy needs two strong parties

and that's how it functions at its best.

No matter who's in power, you need a good opposition

and by good I don't mean someone that's tearing them down

and everything, but everyone needs to be held accountable,

like all politicians need to be held accountable.

The Liberal Party have an absolute crisis on their hands

in terms of their brand.

Peter Dutton identified it.

When you look at the Labor Party,

name some Labor politicians,

Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, of course Albo,

there's a number of them that you can think of

because that brand is bigger than just one person.

So look, it's not an unusual situation for a political party to be in

after they've lost an election.

They do tend to be out in the wilderness for a while

until then, as you say, they're trying to work out who they are,

what their brand is, they don't know yet.

You know, will Peter Dutton be going to the next election?

I can't see how he could.

He's kind of a placeholder.

Well, that's the question then.

If you can't name another Liberal MP right now,

is it okay for Dutton to stay in as leader

as he said over the weekend?

He thinks he's the right person for the job

if there literally just is no better option

to replace him with at this point.

Someone will put their hand up.

Someone always does in the end, but I think you're right.

I think the soul searching is going on about, like,

who are we and what are we going to be?

And I think that the encouraging sign is that Australia seems

to be saying what we don't want you to be is Trump.

Speaking of whom, Claire Murphy, is he going to prison?

The world's media has descended on lower Manhattan.

The focus right now is on the office

of the Manhattan District Attorney.

Now, just a few steps away from here is where Trump's aides

and Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and current antagonist,

have been testifying to a grand jury.

Is Trump going to prison?

This is a really good question.

And this is a question I cannot answer for you today.

But what I can tell you is you probably already know

that he was indicted last week.

Now, what does that mean?

There's a lot of Americanese jargon, legal jargon,

that's being used right now,

which we don't use here in Australia.

So it might be a little bit confusing.

So a grand jury, not a prosecutor,

has indicted Donald Trump on charges.

Charges that we don't know the details of at this point

because they're currently sealed.

The only thing we do know is that there are charges

that are going to be laid against Trump

and that they refer to hush money

that was allegedly paid to Stormy Daniels,

the porn star, and another woman all the way back in 2006

before Trump was president.

He was still on the apprentice at this stage.

But that hush money was paid allegedly to stop Stormy Daniels

from talking about his affair,

which would impact his 2016 election chances.

So that money needed to be declared through the tax department

as aiding his campaign, which was not done.

Isn't it funny how I've just blanked all of this out of my mind?

I used to be so obsessed with Trump

and now it's like I run a mile from any headline.

It's funny how quickly he dropped out of our brains.

Well, I actually made a concerted effort

because I became so consumed and I was so distressed

for so many years, and then I was like,

how much time in my life have I lost to this idiot of a man?

And I just refused.

Like, I'm just not engaging this time around.

I'd forgotten that the affair was in 2006,

but the money was paid when he was running for president

in 2016.

Correct.

So that is also accompanied by potential other charges

that still include tax fraud.

So we're looking at maybe, charge, and I say maybe

because we don't know what these charges are yet,

maybe in relation to benefits that he paid his employees

that were not declared.

So there are some people who claim

that they were paid in cars or apartments

and none of this was declared.

So this is all potentially part of this case,

but the grandeur he's been hearing from witnesses,

including Mark Cohen, who was Trump's former fixer

back in the day, who was the one who admitted

that he paid the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels

back in the day to stop her from talking about the affair.

So they've heard from a lot of witnesses

and they've decided to indict him.

Now, this is unprecedented.

Indict means charge, right?

Yes.

So indict means they're actually going to charge him.

They've come up with charges that they believe,

but we don't know whether these charges are going to be misdemeanors

or actual like long jail time kind of charges.

So we have no idea whether he's facing a potential

long jail term at this stage.

And there's now a lot of negotiation going on.

I imagine so.

There's a lot of discussions between lawyers

and we did see though that the district attorney in New York

has said on social media that they've contacted Trump's attorney

to coordinate his surrender to the Manhattan DA's office

for arraignment on a Supreme Court indictment.

Now arraignment just means he's going to be front in court.

That is going to happen Tuesday afternoon,

which is Wednesday morning hour time.

So he at some stage has to hand himself into authorities

between now and then.

We presume it's going to be overnight for us Wednesday.

He'll hand himself in and he'll go through the usual process.

He'll have his mugshot taken.

He'll be fingerprinted.

He'll go through all of those steps that anyone else

in that situation does, but the difference is

no former US president has ever been faced with criminal charges.

So for example, Donald Trump has a secret service contingency with him.

They will need to be with him through this whole process.

Will they be with him if he's held in a cell?

Will they be with him when he stands in court?

There's lots of things they have to consider when it comes to all of this.

Commentators keep saying it is uncharted waters

because no former president has been charged with a crime

and no presidential candidate has been charged with a crime.

And remember, Donald Trump announced that he was running for the next election

whenever that is 2024, I think.

So he's just using all of this to fundraise.

He's just, you know, all over social media

and blasting all his email lists.

Well, it's funny you say that because this is the video he released just recently

in response to everything that's happening.

Have a listen.

It would be really great if you could contribute to our campaign.

You know how to do it.

No president in the history of our country has been subjected to such vicious

and disgusting attacks.

They can't buy me and they can't control me.

And that scares them beyond belief.

That is what is going to play right into the hands of his followers

because they believe that he is above the government.

They believe that he is the truth speaker, right?

So his followers are going to buy right into that.

Well, and also they believe it's a witch hunt.

The commentary is interesting because I saw a lot of people from the left

being very excited about this.

That seems a bit misguided to me because as you're saying,

this just plays enormously into all the people who already believe

that Trump has been done wrong, that he was robbed of a victory

that was truly his, that they're the victims here.

This really seems to play into that.

And I've also heard commentary of people saying,

yes, Trump has broken the law several times,

but really this isn't the thing he should be indicted for.

He should be about encouraging electoral fraud during the election

and so on and so forth.

Well, to be fair, he's still facing a whole bunch of potential charges

on all of those other things too.

This is just one of the many, many, many lawsuits

that Trump is potentially about to face.

So I guess what people who aren't intricately invested want to know

or is this good or bad, is he still going to run for president

and is it damaging his chances?

So to sum that up, he is not out of the running

to become president in 2024.

This does not affect his campaign at this point.

If he's found guilty, that is a whole other kettle of fish,

but we don't even know what he's being charged with at this point.

Will he go to jail? We do not know,

because we don't know what the charges are at this point.

But as far as whether it will help his campaign or hinder it,

I would say that as you mentioned, Holly,

it's probably going to help to a certain point.

But all we can hope is that the way that America voted Trump out

at the last election, that sentiment is continuing.

And that this is just another thing that we go through with Trump

and wonder if he is like water off a duck's back,

whether he actually will, anything will stick to this man

when it comes to his dealings, his business dealings.

Anyway, his popularity is up.

Oh, it's depressing.

And we will make...

...Mama Mia Out Loud!

...great again. Thank you. Thank you very much.

What do you do if you find out that the person that you sit beside,

who does the same job as you, is paid almost twice as much?

What action is the Albanese Labour government taking to help

close the gender pay gap?

Of course, all of us in this place agree that Australian women

deserve fair and safe working conditions.

They deserve equal opportunity

and equal remuneration for their efforts.

Well, if you're a woman and the person you're sitting next to is a man,

if you're in the media, it seems, commercial media,

you probably shrug and say, well, that's the way it is, until you really don't.

So, last week, Kate Lambrouk was all over every news source

because of a comment she made on the project about a period of time

when she was hosting her very famous Kate and Husey breakfast show in Melbourne.

This is what she said.

Husey and I, who did a radio show together for 18 years,

had never, ever discussed what we got paid.

And then the second-last job we did together,

it turned out he was getting paid 40% more than I was.

Now, in show business, we know that someone's got a higher profile

and someone's got whatever, and all of that's fine.

But this was the Husey and Kate show that we had made together.

And then it changed our relationship when we talked about money.

That caused a storm.

It was all over every media outlet.

And then the next day, Kate posted a lengthier statement on Instagram

that didn't walk back what she said,

but explained something in particular.

It had a picture of her and Dave Huse together that she said was only taken half an hour before.

She said, last night on the Project TV,

something happened that has taken on a second life.

The topic of gender pay disparity came up,

and though I had personal experience of this professional inequity,

I initially wasn't going to share it.

I work in showbiz, you see, and I'm well paid,

and I love my work, and I have nothing to complain about.

So I didn't want to be all,

well, we lost half a day's skiing about it,

which is a reference, obviously, to Gwyneth Paltrow.

Then she did say what she said, which you just heard.

And then she says, because of time constraints

and not having planned what I was going to say,

some important things didn't get said.

That was that this is when we were doing drive on kiss

three years before I left to live in Italy.

So I didn't just leave him straight away after that.

Nor did I explain that when he found out,

Husey was mortified, properly shocked,

and immediately sought to rectify the situation.

I had already procured parity for myself, by the way,

but his instincts were so honorable,

he offered instantly to take a pay cut.

He also vowed that from that point on,

we would always negotiate together on the show

we'd built together, and we did the following year

when we moved to another network.

Anyway, today there's a couple of news stories in plan

that Hugh and I are estranged,

which is clearly the impression I gave on the project.

So now it's my turn to be mortified,

because my friend is hurt and I love my friend.

We're not estranged, we never have been.

And that's what she goes on to say,

that this photo was taken half an hour ago,

everybody go and see his comedy show, it's great.

She says, I love him, I love his wife.

What she said had really upset him,

and she was making good.

However, what she actually said

about how they'd been working together

for the best part of 20 years,

and for a lot of that time,

he was paid a lot more than her, still stands.

Claire Murphy, as someone who has worked

in commercial radio, were you shocked by this information?

No, not in the slightest.

When I was working in commercial radio,

yes, I got paid really well.

In certain jobs, not all jobs in commercial radio

pay very well, but when you're on a breakfast show,

you do get paid very well regardless

of what your colleagues are getting paid.

So it's not about not earning a liveable wage,

it really is just about how much you as a woman

earn in comparison to your male colleagues,

which we find time and time again, is out of balance,

and it's in favour of those male presenters over women.

This is something I've had conversations with women

who I've worked alongside in radio for decades.

One in particular said to me one day,

I know that my male colleagues are getting paid

$120,000 more than me,

and I don't know how to breach that gap.

When I was on a breakfast radio show in Adelaide,

I was sat down and told never to expect

to make the same amount of money that my male colleagues

are making because their profiles are bigger than mine,

which you have to do kind of accept,

because some people bring in more money via advertising revenue,

and I completely understand that too.

But the value of women in commercial radio, it's despicable.

I've had someone tell me we don't need women on breakfast radio.

I've had people tell me that women are only there

to serve as an alternate discussion point to men.

The value of women in that industry is disgraceful.

Even Jackie Yeoh, who is on one of the most successful

commercial radio shows of all time in this country,

was getting paid less than her male colleague.

And it was only on her male colleague, Carl Sanderlands,

to say out loud that I will take some of my money

and give it to Jackie Yeoh for them to even consider

paying her the same amount of money.

The conversations had in these offices with these executives

who are all of a very similar ilk,

and that is a conversation for another time.

I could tell you now, the women in radio are not invited up

into the corporate helicopter rides.

It's just the industry itself cares very little about women.

And we've just seen it happen to Sarah McGillfrey

on Nova in Sydney.

She was on that show for 10 years, never given naming rights,

and then unceremoniously shuffled off to be replaced

by somebody else.

But I'm going to jump in there,

and I can't believe that I'm defending commercial radio.

I agree with a lot of what you said, Claire,

in terms of, I've heard commercial radio executives say,

repeatedly, no one wants to hear women talking.

And there is no breakfast show around the country

that I'm aware of with just women.

There's always usually a ratio of two blokes to every woman.

And in some, there's like, there's one woman and three blokes.

And that's always the ratio,

because that's always been the idea, which is hilarious.

There's no women because Hamish and Andy said a precedent

that every single radio station has tried to copy ever since.

What about Carrie and Tommy?

So, Carrie Bickmore and Tommy Little have an afternoon radio show.

I don't know what they're both paid,

but I would hope that Carrie Bickmore

has paid more than Tommy Little,

because she is a lot more experienced.

She is a lot more famous.

She is a lot more successful.

She brings a lot more to that show in terms of her profile

than he does.

Now, that's not being sexist or reverse sexist or anything.

That's just a fact.

Now, I know this isn't always the case,

and that isn't always the reason, like, you know,

and we see it in commercial television as well

with Lisa Wilkinson and Carl Stephanovic and famously

when she left, when she asked for pay parity

and was refused it.

What when one person's just more famous than the other?

Aren't there some commercial realities that, you know,

it's up to the bosses who they want to pay?

Yeah, there definitely is.

And like I mentioned, there's an understanding that some people

will bring in more in ad revenue than others.

So it is a commercial decision,

and that's completely understandable.

But what is also left out is that oftentimes women

in these positions are not given the opportunity

to increase their profile because they're kept on as an other,

as a side bit.

They're never the main event.

They're never invited to come to the big table

because they're there as a support act.

So they're never given the opportunity to get to that point,

unless maybe they have a stint on TV or reality TV show,

something gives them that bump outside of the job

they already do.

There's not a lot of opportunity to grow that

within that business.

I want to know about the men, right?

Because Kyle and Jackie O, it's famous in media world

that he said early on they agreed they would negotiate together.

And that has probably been very, very good for Jackie O,

financially, that they would have to get paid the same.

What was interesting to me about what Kate Langbrook

posted the day after is clearly for Dave Hughes,

he was absolutely mortified at the idea that people would think

he was going to stand by and let this happen.

And I feel like as the tide is turning on this idea

that the men should earn more, that the cars get paid

more than the leases, for example,

there's nothing worse for a man's brand than for him

to be seen to not be supporting a woman.

And I want to know, do we think it is individually on them

to be in there saying, what are you paying, Carrie?

What are you paying, Kate?

What are you paying, Jackie?

Is she getting what I'm getting?

Do we think it should be on the blokes to make sure

that gender parity is a conversation?

I think that negotiating as a block is something that

the first cast to do it was the cast of Friends.

Because they weren't all equal on that show.

Courtney Cox came into that show, A Star.

And then after certain seasons,

it was clear that Jennifer Aniston was a star.

And early on, I think it was David Schwimmer's idea

to negotiate as a group.

And the power that that gave them,

the high tide lifts all boats.

And it meant that by the end,

I think they were all receiving something like $2 million

each per episode of that show.

So as soon as you negotiate as a block,

it's very powerful.

It's a good man.

It's a good person who says we deserve the same.

If you want to make out loud part of your routine

five days a week,

we release segments on Tuesdays and Thursdays

just for Mamma Mia subscribers.

To get full access, follow the link in the show notes.

And a big thank you to all our current subscribers.

Did you think it was cool to collide with a celebrity?

Absolutely not.

That is not who I am. No.

I think you have to keep in mind

when you're the victim of a crash,

that your psychology is not necessarily

thinking about the person who perpetrated it.

Just when you thought Gwyneth Paltrow

could not become more iconic,

the phrase...

Well, I lost half a day of skiing.

...has entered the Lexicon

as perhaps the most Gwyneth thing

that has ever happened to Gwyneth.

Of course, we're talking about the Trial of the Century,

which lasted a glorious two weeks,

better than any reality show.

You've ever watched,

because it was all documented on court TV.

In case you missed it,

I'll give you a brief rundown

of what the trial was actually about,

because some people thought Gwyneth was on trial for skiing,

which it was slightly more complicated,

although that was pretty much what she was on trial for.

Back in February 2016, cast your mind back.

Gwyneth Paltrow was vacationing with her family

at the Deer Valley Resort in Park City, Utah.

Terry Sanderson, a 76-year-old retired optimist.

Optimist?

He was naturally an optometrist.

He's a retired optimist?

He's all negative now.

That's how you have fraud and slip.

He is.

He's going to retire as optimist,

because he's fucking got his ass beaten in court.

He was at the resort at the same time as Gwyneth,

who was there with her family.

And in 2019, he filed a lawsuit accusing her

of having committed a ski and run.

According to him, he was skiing on the beginner slope

when he was hit from behind by Gwyneth.

He claimed that he suffered various physical and mental injuries

from the collision, like forebroken ribs and brain trauma.

And he originally sought $3.1 million US in damages.

That was reduced to $300,000,

so he was only allowed to sue for that much.

And then she countersued.

Instead of just settling to make it all go away,

she said, I'm going to sue you back, Terry Anderson.

You retired optimist for $1,

which is another iconic thing that Taylor Swift did

when she was suing someone for physical sexual assault.

Gwyneth claimed that he was actually the one that crashed into her

and that he was being opportunistic trying to sue her.

Imagine that.

Well, I was going to say spoiler alert,

but then I remembered it's not actually a show.

It was actually a trial.

She won.

She was found not liable,

and she was awarded her symbolic $1.

And of course, as she left,

she put her hand on Terry Anderson's shoulder

and said, I wish you well.

Her exact words, I wish you well.

Very kind of her.

I said, thank you, dear.

Before leaving the court, Claire,

what are your thoughts?

Do you think this was good or bad for her brand?

Can I just say I am not really just nor am I overly patriotic,

but God bless America.

I love that they film courtrooms

and allow us inside the machinations of court proceedings

because we don't do that here and it's fascinating to watch.

And so when you see Gwyneth wandering in her outfits

and you see her take to the actual stand,

like actual Gwyneth Paltrow is on the stand,

actually saying what she thought happened that day

and she's having to recreate the sound of Terry Anderson

running into her on the ski slopes.

Oh, I missed that.

What was the sound?

I can't do it.

You have to listen to Gwyneth do it.

Honestly, she was like,

I thought I was being sexually assaulted.

Oh yeah, that was awful.

Because he made some noises.

Like grunting noises.

And so like grunting noises,

which is obviously sexual assault is not funny.

I'm not laughing at that,

but just watching actual Gwyneth Paltrow

like recreate these moments from the ski slopes

all while looking just impeccably put together

and the way that her face moved

during these conversations too,

like she just looked in charge, in control.

Absolutely sure of what happened that day.

There was like no one second guessing her.

No, but also really bored.

Oh yeah, 100% she was bored.

She was like, oh my God, this guy is obsessed with me.

He won't leave this just be.

He should never have been here in the first place.

And so she was just like,

guys, this is actually what happened on the ski slopes.

And yes, she uttered that iconic phrase,

did it inconvenience her?

Yes, it did.

Well, I lost a half day of skiing,

which is now the internet's way

of talking about any minor inconvenience

that has ever beset them.

I love it.

The thing that I find amazing about this

is I got to watch Gwyneth become even more iconic

than she is.

Obviously she'd come off the back of a very bad week

with her whole, I don't eat food.

And I consume all my calories through IV.

That's right.

And everyone was hating her.

See, this trial has made me forget all of that.

I know.

But this is what's so weird.

And I'd love to know what Mia thinks about the strategy here

because halfway through this trial,

I was thinking this is the worst idea in the world.

Why the hell is she taking this to trial?

Because it made her look ridiculous, privileged,

basically turned her into even more of a joke.

And I thought it was going to be terrible for her.

And I was like, Gwyneth's done.

Goop's going to have to fold.

But actually by the end of it,

the opposite was true.

Lots of people were saying that they changed their mind

about Gwyneth.

That they felt like she was kind of in on the joke almost

and that she was laughing with it.

And it was something that they hadn't considered before.

But surely Mia, as a business person who has a massive empire

that needs people to like Gwyneth

or at least be interested in Gwyneth to want to buy her stuff.

This was a big risk, right?

A really big risk.

That's what I thought at first.

And that's why I also, when we talked about it on the show last week,

even on the first day of the trial, I'm like, oh,

she's telling the truth.

Like she really is telling the truth because if she wasn't

and she was found to be demonstrably not telling the truth,

he could have had a witness who was, you know,

they could have had someone who was going over on a chairlift

and took a photo.

Like she didn't.

Something could have come out.

Although I suppose she probably had to know

what his evidence was before they were in court.

She was clearly telling the truth because had she not been,

the damage to her brand would have been catastrophic.

As it was, searches for group are up something like two and a half thousand percent.

Everything she was wearing is on sale on the website.

She is an actor, remember?

So she was not going to be easily rattled.

She knew what she wanted to say and how she wanted to say it,

which is something that I think if you're not an actor,

you can sometimes come across in a way that you're not aware of,

but acting their whole point is that they're very aware of how they're coming across

and they do it very deliberately.

It seemed like she was having a bit of a laugh, a wink.

Like she said, well, I did lose half a day of skiing,

but I don't know if she was being ironic or just trying to be truthful.

And to be fair, the whole thing was farcical because when he was asked about his injuries,

he said, I have been prevented from enjoying wine tasting to the same degree that I used to

because my sense of taste is affected by my head injury.

So like the whole thing.

And also, I think it would have been different if the person she'd have crashed into

was a worker on the minimum wage.

You know what I mean?

I think that then the optics of the whole thing would have been different.

The vibe of it would have been different.

But the fact that it was quite clear that this wealthy retired ophthalmologist,

whatever he was, was having a lend.

He was trying to go for $3 million.

You know, and I think that that probably also gave Gwyneth a little bit of sympathy.

Do we feel like we're being set up for a massive like spec savers at here?

Because the guy was a bloody optometrist.

And the whole deal about should have gone to spec savers like legitimately.

I feel like I'm being set up in some massive ridiculous promo right now.

I've got a recommendation before we go.

I have a feeling we've all been watching the same thing this weekend

when we haven't been at weddings, Mia.

And that is Wellmania on Netflix.

Okay, let's get a lot of drinks into us.

You're my pick.

Leave is going to be a judge on a very cool new cooking show.

I've got to go to Australia for the weekend.

Welcome home.

Horrible cholesterol levels, insane blood pressure.

I can't pass you.

It's the first step to get a green card.

I'm going to get so well that I'm going to smash that stupid medical.

I'm going to get back to New York and I'm going to be the best TV judge

of the world's ever seen.

Watch me.

If you're not watching Wellmania, a very top line summary.

There's a book that I actually love this book.

It's quite a few years old now.

Wellmania by an Australian journalist called Bridget Delaney.

And her book was nonfiction.

And it was kind of about her doing all these extreme wellness trends,

just as that whole wellness cult was really taking off.

She did the fast that Malcolm Turnbull famously did before he became

Prime Minister.

She went on yoga retreat.

She did all these different things.

And she documented it in a sort of nonfiction journalist way.

And it has been adapted and fictionalized for Netflix into a much

tighter kind of story arc about a woman played by Celeste Barba of

massive Instagram fame who is told she needs to clean up her health

urgently to get this job that she's dreaming of.

So she starts trying all these things.

I didn't know whether or not I'd enjoy it because sometimes when

you love a book and then you know it's been fictionalized,

you're a bit like, oh, but it's really fun.

Like it's really, really fun.

Are you enjoying it, Mia?

I know you're watching it too.

Yeah, I finished it.

It's a really easy watch.

I really understand the idea now of a star vehicle.

That's what it's been called.

So it's like everyone knew that Celeste Barba was such a big talent

and she's a comedian and an actor and obviously has this massive

following on Instagram.

They wanted to write a show around her.

So they sort of combined the physicality of her comedy with this idea

of a poking fun at the wellness industry and Bridget Delaney's

book turned it into the show.

And it's just really easy.

It's just a funny thing to watch.

I'm binged at like in one weekend, loved it.

Can we just like do a shout out to Miranda Otto's character?

Just so funny, hilarious.

She plays Kimby Levine.

I won't tell you any more, but it's like...

It's very much Esther Parrell.

It's very Esther Parrell.

And I just loved it.

But there's so many great Aussie actors in this.

And also too, the guy who plays Isaac, is it Alexander Hodge?

Oh, ladies.

He is hot with a capital H.

I'm enjoying some of the female gaze of this, actually, I have to say.

Well, Mia is on Netflix.

It's all there now.

You can binge it.

And while we're going to let Jesse fill you in on all the wedding details,

in the meantime, if you want to see the full album of photos from the wedding,

there is a link in the show notes.

Thank you for listening to Mama Mia Out Loud today.

This episode is produced by Tulissa Bazaz with audio production by Lea Porges

and assistant production from Susanna Makin.

And thank you to Claire Murphy for filling in for our Jesse today.

Thank you, Murphy.

Thanks, ladies.

Love you.

Bye.

Bye.

Shout out to any Mama Mia subscribers listening.

If you love the show and want to support us as well,

subscribing to Mama Mia is the very best way to do so.

There is a link in the episode description.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.