Latest / The Morning Edition / CGT shemozzle, risk thrown around like 'fairy dust' and...a Teal party?

Transcript

CGT shemozzle, risk thrown around like 'fairy dust' and...a Teal party? · The Morning Edition

• 0:01
  S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and you're listening to Inside Politics from
• 0:04
  S1: the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
• 0:07
  S1: We are officially in week two of budget backlash, and
• 0:10
  S1: both sides seem pretty dug in. We're going to talk
• 0:13
  S1: about what movement, if any, there might be on the
• 0:15
  S1: CGT changes, which have been sort of the most controversial
• 0:18
  S1: part of the budget. And we're also going to talk
• 0:20
  S1: later about the tantalising prospect of the teal independents forming
• 0:24
  S1: a party, which was a possibility raised this week by
• 0:27
  S1: some of those independents. We have our chief political correspondent,
• 0:30
  S1: Paul Circle, joining us, as usual from the Canberra studio.
• 0:34
  S1: And in the Sydney studio with me this week, our very, very,
• 0:37
  S1: very special guest star, chief economics correspondent Shane Reich.
• 0:41
  S2: I heard it was your birthday. I had to come
• 0:43
  S2: and celebrate it in in the person I know.
• 0:46
  S1: I didn't expect you guys to put on this party,
• 0:48
  S1: but here we are. It is my birthday today, and
• 0:51
  S1: I cannot think of a better way to celebrate it
• 0:53
  S1: than by talking about CGT changes with you guys.
• 0:56
  S3: Paul, how are you actually celebrating it? Jack.
• 0:59
  S1: Uh, I have various dinners, lunches and I even had
• 1:02
  S1: a breakfast this morning of a celebratory nature, so I'm
• 1:06
  S1: very spoilt. Let's get straight into the backlash. It's gone
• 1:10
  S1: on for a while or two weeks now. Shane, can
• 1:13
  S1: you just summarize the main criticisms that business groups in
• 1:16
  S1: particular are making against the proposals in the budget?
• 1:19
  S2: Well, the first one is they don't want to pay
• 1:21
  S2: more tax. Let's let's be absolutely upfront because these changes
• 1:25
  S2: will increase tax on some businesses on a lot of businesses.
• 1:28
  S2: So we will put that to one side because there's
• 1:31
  S2: a vested interest behind every corner. The second one, which
• 1:35
  S2: goes to whether the changes particularly around CGT, will affect
• 1:41
  S2: business aspiration, particularly those at the small or at the
• 1:45
  S2: start up level. So that's a that's a major one.
• 1:48
  S2: Then there's another one, which is like, think of it
• 1:51
  S2: as a three horse race. This one's down the back,
• 1:53
  S2: but it will make fair progression pretty quickly. And this
• 1:55
  S2: is around trusts because of the government's decision to impose
• 1:59
  S2: a 30% minimum rate of tax on trust dispersals that
• 2:04
  S2: will get some credence not from the business community, but
• 2:07
  S2: from those who. The 2 million people who are using
• 2:10
  S2: trust at the moment that is going to come down
• 2:11
  S2: the track pretty soon.
• 2:13
  S1: Okay, so that's coming down the pike for us. Um, Paul,
• 2:16
  S1: the government did state in the budget papers that it
• 2:18
  S1: would would consult with particularly the tech startup community over
• 2:21
  S1: the effect of the CGT tax changes. What are they
• 2:25
  S1: going to make some exceptions. Are they going to fiddle
• 2:26
  S1: with it a little bit.
• 2:28
  S3: Yeah. The budget papers, as you say, did say in
• 2:31
  S3: to quote it it said that there would be consultation with, quote,
• 2:34
  S3: the tech and startup sector. So it didn't talk about
• 2:36
  S3: small business. It talked about broadly the innovative tech startup community,
• 2:41
  S3: because late in the budget process, after Shane Wright broke
• 2:44
  S3: a really good story on the CGT model that the
• 2:47
  S3: government would opt for, there was some concern from members
• 2:50
  S3: of the government that this model would hurt startups and
• 2:54
  S3: other businesses with low cost bases, small businesses as well.
• 2:58
  S3: And so because of that concern that was raised, there
• 3:00
  S3: was this line put into the budget that there would
• 3:02
  S3: be consultation. But as time has gone on, the government
• 3:05
  S3: has shifted from talking about just the tech and start
• 3:08
  S3: up community. And on Monday, the Prime Minister did a
• 3:10
  S3: press conference in his courtyard where he was quite snippy
• 3:13
  S3: at a question about a narrow exemption for tech firms.
• 3:16
  S3: And he said, no, no, we've never said that. We're
• 3:19
  S3: talking to a much wider group of peak bodies. And
• 3:22
  S3: as this week has gone on, it's become clear also
• 3:25
  S3: due to the lobbying from Labour backbenchers who are quite
• 3:27
  S3: worried about the broader backlash, that these exemptions could be
• 3:31
  S3: wider and we might see the existing concessions for smaller
• 3:34
  S3: businesses who don't have to pay much CGT at all
• 3:37
  S3: expanded significantly.
• 3:39
  S1: So this is confusing, though, because Jim Chalmers also said
• 3:41
  S1: this week that once you, like, use a distortion of
• 3:45
  S1: the market to fix another distortion of the market, then
• 3:48
  S1: things get really distorted. I'm paraphrasing. Tell us.
• 3:51
  S2: What distortionary squared I think you're going for.
• 3:53
  S1: And tell us. Tell us what what those Chalmers comments
• 3:56
  S1: were and what what he was trying to say.
• 3:58
  S2: Well, this is in relation to the idea that it
• 4:00
  S2: should only be um CGT should only be. Changes should
• 4:05
  S2: be only apply to the property market. Now within Treasury
• 4:09
  S2: and within most tax literatures, as soon as you try
• 4:12
  S2: and carve out things you are going to cause problems.
• 4:16
  S2: And that is the Treasury House view saying, look, if
• 4:19
  S2: you're going to do it and Treasury does support this,
• 4:22
  S2: Treasury does say, right, we've made we made a stuff
• 4:24
  S2: up back in 1999 with the CGT concession that was introduced.
• 4:28
  S2: We've got to repair it in some way. Don't. The
• 4:33
  S2: more exclusions you have, the more problems you create. And
• 4:36
  S2: I'll give you exhibit A is the GST. So the
• 4:40
  S2: GST was introduced to get it through the Parliament. Howard
• 4:43
  S2: had to John Howard had to exclude fresh food. So
• 4:46
  S2: fresh food, the finance sector, health and education were excluded.
• 4:51
  S2: Guess which areas have had the fastest growth in spending
• 4:54
  S2: since the introduction of the GST? The ones without GST.
• 4:58
  S2: And so the GST is weighs more heavily on other
• 5:02
  S2: parts of the economy as the economy has changed. That's
• 5:05
  S2: one of their exhibits saying if you go down this
• 5:08
  S2: path of excluding certain sectors or certain certain investments, you
• 5:13
  S2: are going to create the same problems that you're trying
• 5:16
  S2: to solve by getting rid of the concession to begin with.
• 5:19
  S1: Okay. But on the other side of that argument, and Paul,
• 5:21
  S1: you might want to weigh on weigh in on this.
• 5:24
  S1: The government is, you know, the sort of underlying ethos
• 5:26
  S1: of the budget is that we want to tax some,
• 5:28
  S1: you know, capital fairly compared to labor. So people who
• 5:32
  S1: are just wage slaves earning income tax should be taxed
• 5:36
  S1: at a sort of broadly equal rate to people who
• 5:38
  S1: can make income off assets and capital. Right. But the
• 5:41
  S1: other argument is, well, those people making income off assets
• 5:44
  S1: and capital are the risk takers. They're the innovators. They're
• 5:47
  S1: the entrepreneurs. They're the people who are creating jobs and
• 5:49
  S1: movement and productivity in the economy. And if you if
• 5:53
  S1: you get rid of this sort of tax incentive for them,
• 5:55
  S1: then you're going to cut all that off. Talk to
• 5:57
  S1: me about that and who's sort of making that argument.
• 6:00
  S3: Yeah. Jack, you're right to raise the underpinning issue here
• 6:03
  S3: that the government is trying to solve. We live in
• 6:05
  S3: a society where wage earners are getting smashed by inflation
• 6:09
  S3: and pretty low wage growth over a period of years,
• 6:11
  S3: and people who own assets in the share market, particularly
• 6:14
  S3: the housing market, have got much richer over time. So
• 6:16
  S3: we live in a more unequal society and a centre
• 6:19
  S3: left government is trying to fix that. What they say
• 6:21
  S3: is that the 1999 changes that John Howard made to
• 6:24
  S3: create quite a generous discount on CGT pushed a lot
• 6:27
  S3: of people unintendedly into the housing market, and we've created
• 6:31
  S3: a huge property price boom. They're trying to solve that.
• 6:33
  S3: So they're saying that that generous discount should be removed
• 6:37
  S3: not just from the housing market, but on all assets
• 6:40
  S3: after they've made those changes. Critics, including in the business sector,
• 6:43
  S3: some Labour backbenchers, former labor advisers, Matt Coleman from the CBA,
• 6:49
  S3: various economists, quite a large group and growing group of
• 6:52
  S3: people have said, if you're trying to undistort that, to
• 6:56
  S3: push people away from the housing market into other assets
• 6:59
  S3: that are actually productive, which would be a great thing
• 7:01
  S3: for the Australian economy. Why have you also removed that
• 7:04
  S3: generous discount for those other productive assets. Why not narrow
• 7:08
  S3: it just to the housing market? Now Chalmers comes back
• 7:11
  S3: and says that will create another distortion and we don't
• 7:13
  S3: want that. And the new CGT model, he says, will
• 7:17
  S3: work for some businesses and not others. So there will
• 7:20
  S3: be a skewing. But the argument is that it would
• 7:23
  S3: not be as significant a skewing away back into productive
• 7:26
  S3: assets as if you just retain the 50%. And so
• 7:29
  S3: there's now this debate about whether you can split productive
• 7:33
  S3: assets out. If the government did so, it would be
• 7:35
  S3: a very significant back down. They're not considering it at
• 7:39
  S3: this stage, but we'll see how the debate plays out.
• 7:41
  S2: I don't know how you can come up with a
• 7:44
  S2: definition of productive assets.
• 7:45
  S1: I was going to say, what does that even mean?
• 7:46
  S1: You don't know until after the fact, right? Whether or
• 7:48
  S1: not it's a productive asset.
• 7:50
  S2: And this goes back to.
• 7:50
  S3: But but it's but it's, it's you want to stimulate,
• 7:53
  S3: you want to incentivise people putting their money into businesses
• 7:56
  S3: that could become productive to increase the likelihood they take
• 8:00
  S3: the risk to do so. And if you have a
• 8:02
  S3: lower if you have a much higher capital gains tax potential, the.
• 8:06
  S3: The idea is, and various economists have made this point,
• 8:09
  S3: that fewer people will be willing to take that risk.
• 8:11
  S2: But risk gets thrown around like it's fairy dust. I'll
• 8:14
  S2: put risk on everything. It's not an economic concept in
• 8:18
  S2: that regards.
• 8:19
  S1: Like, what do you mean?
• 8:20
  S2: Well, just say, oh, I'm a I'm a let's say,
• 8:23
  S2: I don't know. I'm not a, I'm not a widget maker,
• 8:25
  S2: but let's say I'm a financial startup and I'm whatever
• 8:29
  S2: I come up with is going to be change the
• 8:31
  S2: world and make the world.
• 8:34
  S1: Yeah. You've got a great idea that you want to.
• 8:35
  S2: Except 90% of people who do come up with this
• 8:38
  S2: fails because it's not. It doesn't work.
• 8:39
  S1: Yes. So isn't that the point?
• 8:42
  S2: Well, that's the point. But I'm talking about the fact
• 8:44
  S2: that everyone says, oh, we'll stop the risk takers. I'll
• 8:46
  S2: give you like and we've people have talked, might have
• 8:49
  S2: heard about New Zealand talking about we are CGT free.
• 8:54
  S2: New Zealand is not a startup centre. It's got Hobbit town.
• 8:57
  S2: It's got some cows and it's got some sheep. And
• 9:00
  S2: a record number of people left New Zealand for Australia
• 9:03
  S2: last year. So the. And why? Why would you invest
• 9:08
  S2: in Sweden, which has much higher tax rates? All the scandies.
• 9:11
  S2: Why would I go to France? Much higher levels of
• 9:13
  S2: taxation as well. Taxation is important at the marginal level,
• 9:18
  S2: but there are other factors that mean why do people
• 9:21
  S2: why are people entrepreneurs? Is it just the tax system?
• 9:25
  S2: I think it was Warren Buffett who once said, look,
• 9:27
  S2: if you think you don't want to come up with.
• 9:29
  S2: Go ahead with this great idea because you're going to
• 9:31
  S2: pay too much tax. Just give it to me. I'll
• 9:34
  S2: make the money anyway.
• 9:35
  S1: Right.
• 9:36
  S2: And Warren Buffett, fourth most fourth richest person in the world,
• 9:39
  S2: has some idea of what's going on in that space.
• 9:41
  S1: I hear what you're saying that people who and, you know,
• 9:44
  S1: Paul Keating made this comment in his statement that he issued,
• 9:47
  S1: which he reported that basically, you know, the the beating
• 9:50
  S1: heart of an entrepreneur will, will, will continue to kind
• 9:53
  S1: of be excited by risk and opportunity and will innovate
• 9:56
  S1: no matter, no matter what kind of like a creative,
• 9:59
  S1: any kind of creative person. But then there are certain
• 10:02
  S1: cultures and environments and democracies where Innovation, risk taking and
• 10:09
  S1: entrepreneurship has thrived. I'm thinking particularly the United States, and
• 10:13
  S1: that is in part because of the government and regulatory environment. Right.
• 10:17
  S2: But that's your you've just talked about Silicon Valley. If
• 10:21
  S2: I'm living in Michigan or Ohio and you look at
• 10:27
  S2: what's innovation doing there, I this will go. And this
• 10:30
  S2: is really into Paul's country where we're talking about like
• 10:33
  S2: the division between capital and labor. One of the reasons
• 10:36
  S2: I think that is driving the support for One Nation independence, angry,
• 10:42
  S2: angry people have looked and said innovation. You talk about
• 10:46
  S2: your productivity, you talk about your high tech. I can't
• 10:49
  S2: feed the kids. I my life is going backwards. And
• 10:52
  S2: so it's not for me. This is all tied up together.
• 10:55
  S2: And I think both sides of politics understand this quite well. Yeah.
• 11:00
  S2: And they're coming at it, this solution in two different ways. Well,
• 11:04
  S2: we don't know what the full solution is from the opposition,
• 11:06
  S2: but I know they're thinking we've got to come up
• 11:08
  S2: with something to talk to these voters.
• 11:10
  S1: Joe Hockey, you know, for all his sins, which we've
• 11:13
  S1: discussed before on this podcast with the 2014 political Sins. Yeah.
• 11:17
  S1: Didn't go down too well.
• 11:19
  S3: Um, he might be a great man.
• 11:20
  S1: Yeah. No, I'm not saying I like Joe on a
• 11:24
  S1: personal level. I'm talking about the budget that he admitted
• 11:26
  S1: this week when he was at the National Press Club
• 11:29
  S1: was quite an unpopular budget, the 2014 budget. But he
• 11:32
  S1: did say that in a in an uncertain world where
• 11:35
  S1: you've got a lot of economic headwinds as the as
• 11:38
  S1: Jim Chalmers always talks about, the one thing that a
• 11:41
  S1: country like Australia, highly educated, you know, pretty successful country
• 11:45
  S1: can do to combat or to guard against all the
• 11:47
  S1: risk and all the problems in the world and all
• 11:48
  S1: the challenges is innovate. Like, you know, we can innovate to,
• 11:51
  S1: to work our way around climate change. We can innovate
• 11:54
  S1: to work our way around fossil fuel dependency. And if
• 11:57
  S1: we're cutting that off at the pass by not offering
• 11:59
  S1: tax incentives, then.
• 12:01
  S2: I would absolutely agree with you. Except that for the
• 12:04
  S2: last 26 years, we've had a 50% concession on capital gains.
• 12:09
  S2: And what's happened to productivity in this country. Right. It's
• 12:11
  S2: a good point. It has slowed. Like there is no
• 12:15
  S2: absolutely no doubt about that.
• 12:16
  S3: But the argument is that that 50% discount, along with
• 12:20
  S3: negative gearing, has shifted people into the housing column, which
• 12:23
  S3: is highly unproductive. And so the argument from people who
• 12:27
  S3: are criticizing the government's budget is to undistort that you
• 12:30
  S3: should remove it for the housing sector to try and
• 12:32
  S3: push people away. Instead, all assets are being taxed more.
• 12:35
  S2: Right. But this goes to the division between capital and labor,
• 12:39
  S2: which is should this and there are very good like economically,
• 12:42
  S2: there are very good arguments like Paul's touching on for
• 12:45
  S2: capital taxing capital slightly less than labor. But the problem
• 12:49
  S2: is that labor taxation is not going down either.
• 12:53
  S1: Well, this is the thing. And I mean, this is
• 12:56
  S1: the big, big hole, as I see it in this
• 12:58
  S1: in this argument or the narrative that the government is
• 13:00
  S1: trying to sell. It's like, if you're going to do
• 13:02
  S1: this to capital, then give us a tax break in
• 13:05
  S1: our income taxes, which they're not doing really, except for
• 13:07
  S1: the Watteau, Watteau, depending on which is $250, it's pretty marginal.
• 13:12
  S3: We landed on Wardo last week. That's our that's our house.
• 13:16
  S3: The house rules.
• 13:17
  S1: Okay. We've got a we've got an official pronunciation guide.
• 13:20
  S1: The working Australian tax offset, I believe, is the acronym
• 13:25
  S1: in case we've got. Now let's talk about the teals
• 13:27
  S1: because we had Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender front up
• 13:33
  S1: this week in Parliament and basically give a press conference
• 13:36
  S1: and hold out this prospect that they might form a
• 13:39
  S1: party with whichever teals are available and willing to hang
• 13:42
  S1: out with them in a party format. Paul, tell us
• 13:45
  S1: what happened.
• 13:46
  S3: Yeah, I'm actually looking at Allegra Spender speaking in the
• 13:48
  S3: Parliament right now on the tax bill. Um, so the
• 13:52
  S3: teals came in in 2022, cleaned up the Liberals in
• 13:54
  S3: the inner city. It was a great buzz around them
• 13:57
  S3: for at least a few years. And then leading up
• 13:59
  S3: to the last election, people might remember, which is quite
• 14:01
  S3: ironic given how dominant labor is now in the House.
• 14:03
  S3: But there was a pretty not a likely chance, but
• 14:06
  S3: there was a lot of speculation about a hung parliament
• 14:09
  S3: before the last election, which would have given the teals
• 14:11
  S3: this balance of power in the House and given them
• 14:13
  S3: huge authority that obviously did not occur. And so they've
• 14:16
  S3: become a more marginal political outfit who can get up
• 14:19
  S3: and give a speech or release a white paper and
• 14:21
  S3: have interesting things to say, but are not right at
• 14:23
  S3: the core of decision making power. So Allegra Spender and
• 14:26
  S3: Zali Steggall, in particular, the member for Wentworth and what
• 14:29
  S3: Zali Steggall seat, Warringah, Warringah have? Yeah. Have been talking
• 14:33
  S3: for months now with David Pocock and others around the
• 14:36
  S3: teal movement about creating some sort of more formal party structure,
• 14:39
  S3: whether that is a formal party or a kind of
• 14:42
  S3: alliance where there's there still have levels of independence, but
• 14:45
  S3: work more closely together. Those conversations have been going on
• 14:49
  S3: for months. They've done research. They've got some names. There
• 14:51
  S3: was talk about, um, announcing this party in June. I
• 14:55
  S3: heard that plan was actually still on track until the
• 14:58
  S3: story broke on Sunday after David Pocock let it slip
• 15:01
  S3: a little bit on insiders. And then the day the
• 15:03
  S3: story stories were reported on Monday in Parliament, there seemed
• 15:08
  S3: to be splits in the teal movement. Allegra Spender and
• 15:09
  S3: Zali Steggall talked up the prospect. But others like Monique
• 15:12
  S3: Ryan in Melbourne, Kate Chaney in WA and some of
• 15:15
  S3: the others were a bit less keen because they are
• 15:17
  S3: more intent on protecting their independence. And I think there
• 15:21
  S3: are also some personal squabbles, squabbles between some of the
• 15:24
  S3: characters involved who may not be as keen on working
• 15:28
  S3: together as we thought.
• 15:29
  S1: So, I mean, this is what I find interesting about
• 15:31
  S1: this story is that, you know, the we always talk
• 15:33
  S1: about the coalition, the collapse and the coalition vote, and
• 15:36
  S1: there's so much concentration now, attention on One Nation rising
• 15:39
  S1: in the polls, which they've never been able to convert
• 15:42
  S1: into a lower House seat, right. Until recently. Meanwhile, the
• 15:46
  S1: teals basically have destroyed the coalition like well before One
• 15:50
  S1: Nation resurged, but they haven't been able to convert it
• 15:52
  S1: really into like political commensurate political influence in the parliament.
• 15:57
  S1: And so this is surely them trying to coalesce into
• 16:01
  S1: a party so they can maybe have a Senate, a
• 16:04
  S1: couple of Senate seats, so they can have a say
• 16:06
  S1: in legislation like the budget. You know, this budget is
• 16:09
  S1: kind of very controversial or probably not very well liked
• 16:13
  S1: in the seats of Warringah and Wentworth, but their local
• 16:17
  S1: MPs are not really able to have any influence on it.
• 16:21
  S2: Yeah, I'm just trying to work out like you get
• 16:24
  S2: to the issue of creating a party. Yeah, like we
• 16:28
  S2: don't see that often. Um, and whether like this is
• 16:32
  S2: what's intrigues me because and Paul's really a good spot
• 16:35
  S2: to talk about it, right? Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender,
• 16:40
  S2: two people don't make a party. Um, no, no, it's
• 16:45
  S2: just a phone call.
• 16:46
  S1: Have they gone out too early? Because it sounds like, actually,
• 16:48
  S1: they don't have enough people to make a party.
• 16:51
  S3: It's it's a bit murky to me. Like, I've been
• 16:52
  S3: trying to figure this out as well. I. I think
• 16:57
  S3: that some of the statements that were put out about
• 17:00
  S3: not wanting to join a party immediately were Trickily carefully worded,
• 17:04
  S3: I should say, not trickily to give these MPs like Monique,
• 17:08
  S3: Ryan and others some time to talk to their communities
• 17:11
  S3: about this prospect because the stories were written before these
• 17:14
  S3: guys wanted to go out publicly. And so the really organic,
• 17:19
  S3: strong link these MPs have to their volunteer networks, which
• 17:22
  S3: is quite extraordinary. They've built up these amazing networks in
• 17:24
  S3: their communities. They didn't. Those MPs would not want those
• 17:29
  S3: hard working volunteers who are poor, major party politics to
• 17:32
  S3: look at their MP and camera and think what? She's
• 17:34
  S3: joining a party without consulting us. So I think they
• 17:37
  S3: want to go back. Have a think about it. Allegra
• 17:39
  S3: Spender and Zali Steggall are still of the view that
• 17:41
  S3: this will coalesce over time, and that some of the
• 17:44
  S3: others who have expressed some doubt will come into the
• 17:46
  S3: tent eventually. And yeah, to your point on the Senate,
• 17:49
  S3: that is one of the key drivers is to get
• 17:51
  S3: Senate representation where it's easier to have a balance of
• 17:54
  S3: power position, and you need a party to do that also.
• 17:57
  S3: The funding disclosure laws that Don Farrell and Labor brought
• 17:59
  S3: in last year make it more attractive to start a
• 18:01
  S3: party structure. But I think actually Allegra Spender in particular
• 18:04
  S3: is key key driving, um, motivator is that she sees
• 18:09
  S3: the rise of one nation. She sees anti-establishment sentiment growing.
• 18:13
  S3: And she's of the view that the that all these
• 18:16
  S3: teal MPs need to unify to create a more centralized message,
• 18:20
  S3: split up portfolios, advocate on policy as one to become
• 18:24
  S3: more powerful and to cement their status as a as
• 18:28
  S3: a group that can wield influence. And my, my personal
• 18:31
  S3: like very much opinionated view is that I think she's,
• 18:33
  S3: I think she's right. And I think she's the she's
• 18:35
  S3: on the right. She's on the right track.
• 18:37
  S2: The other thing is whether you can pull in some
• 18:40
  S2: Liberal MPs or Liberals who are on the left of
• 18:43
  S2: the party who. There's so few of them like they.
• 18:46
  S2: They are they're not quite the Tasmanian tiger level. Uh, but, uh,
• 18:51
  S2: they'd be on the, they are very much on the
• 18:52
  S2: very endangered list at the moment. So you can see
• 18:55
  S2: why you'd, this may be for them. It may be something.
• 19:00
  S1: And it's like if you build it, they will come
• 19:01
  S1: sort of thing. I mean, the broader story surely is
• 19:04
  S1: the collapse of the centre right, which, you know, the
• 19:06
  S1: coalition seems to have abandoned that ground entirely. And the
• 19:09
  S1: teals have naturally sort of in that space. And now
• 19:13
  S1: they're like they see a vacuum. They see an opportunity.
• 19:16
  S1: Politics is all about opportunity and timing, right?
• 19:19
  S3: Yeah.
• 19:20
  S1: Um, we're going to be really interested to see what
• 19:22
  S1: happens there. Um, we've got Zali Steggall on the pod
• 19:25
  S1: in a few weeks time actually. So hopefully there'll be
• 19:27
  S1: a few more developments. And um, it's been a really
• 19:31
  S1: fun birthday podcast for me.
• 19:32
  S2: You've looked, I think you've d aged while you've been
• 19:35
  S2: sitting here.
• 19:36
  S1: So the effect that you guys have on me, I'm relaxed.
• 19:39
  S1: I'm having fun. It's been really fun. Thanks so much guys.
• 19:43
  S3: Thanks, Shane. Thanks, Jack.
• 19:44
  S2: Always a pleasure, guys.
• 19:49
  S1: You can read all of our political news on our website,
• 19:51
  S1: ca.com.au and sm.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong.
• 19:57
  S1: Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are
• 20:00
  S1: overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before you go,
• 20:04
  S1: please follow Inside Politics on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. I'm
• 20:08
  S1: Jacqueline Maley, thank you for listening.