Latest / Inside Politics / Best of 2024: What does Australia's shift on Palestinian statehood mean?

Transcript

Best of 2024: What does Australia's shift on Palestinian statehood mean? · Inside Politics

0:02
S1: Hi there. I'm Jacqueline Maley, the host of Inside Politics,
0:06
S1: The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald's weekly politics podcast.
0:09
S1: We're bringing you the best episodes of 2024 before we
0:12
S1: return in early February for the election year. In this episode,
0:18
S1: which aired in April, we take you to the moment
0:20
S1: Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong signalled the start of a
0:23
S1: shift of Australia's position on the question of Palestinian statehood
0:27
S1: in the wake of the Israel-hamas War. Since then, Australia
0:31
S1: has changed its stance, voting for the first time in
0:34
S1: more than 20 years for a United Nations resolution that
0:37
S1: demanded Israel end its presence in the occupied Palestinian territories.
0:42
S1: We're releasing this episode, which features foreign affairs correspondent Matthew
0:47
S1: Nott and chief political correspondent David Crowe, on January 3rd.
0:56
S1: Welcome to the podcast, Matt and David.
0:59
S2: Hi, Jackie.
1:00
S3: Good day. Jackie.
1:01
S1: So first of all, Matt, for those of us who
1:03
S1: weren't paying close attention this week, can you just brief
1:05
S1: us on what the foreign minister said in her speech?
1:08
S2: Yeah, so I was here at this event, which was
1:11
S2: at the Australian National University, which has been having a
1:14
S2: big national security conference in Canberra with lots of experts
1:19
S2: from around the world talking about big strategic issues. And
1:22
S2: Penny Wong was giving the key speech on Tuesday night.
1:26
S4: Well, we're coming to the end of our second year
1:28
S4: in government, and tonight I want to take account of
1:30
S4: these first two years where we started and where we
1:34
S4: are now. But mostly, I'd like to give you my perspective.
1:38
S2: Now, we would have expected, given all the things going
1:40
S2: on in the world that she would mention, perhaps touch
1:43
S2: on the war in Gaza. But the key component of
1:47
S2: her speech, the thing she spent most of her time
1:49
S2: talking about, was this question of a two state solution,
1:53
S2: and in particular, recognition of Palestinian statehood.
1:58
S4: We need to build the pathway to a peace that
2:00
S4: is enduring. And just because the simple truth is that
2:05
S4: a secure and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians
2:09
S4: will only come with a two state solution recognition of
2:14
S4: each other's right to exist.
2:18
S2: Now, this in Australia hasn't been a big part of
2:21
S2: the debate since the war broke out, but she really
2:24
S2: put this up in lights in her speech by saying
2:28
S2: that a two state solution is the only way to
2:31
S2: end the cycle of violence here, and specifically saying that
2:35
S2: the international community is considering the question of Palestinian statehood
2:39
S2: as a way to build momentum towards that two state solution.
2:43
S2: She didn't commit the government to doing anything on this,
2:48
S2: but she very notably put this up as something she
2:52
S2: wanted people to be talking about.
2:53
S1: Now, David, talk us through whether or not this is
2:55
S1: actually a significant shift in Australia's Australia support or Australia's
2:59
S1: stance on Palestine because for people who are not, again,
3:02
S1: following this really closely, Palestinian statehood is recognised by some countries,
3:07
S1: but Australia is not one of those countries. We sort
3:10
S1: of say that there should be a two state solution,
3:13
S1: but at the moment we don't recognise Palestine as a state.
3:16
S1: Is that right? So is this a shift?
3:17
S3: I don't think it's a significant shift, or at least
3:20
S3: not a shift just yet. It was a speech to
3:25
S3: provoke a debate and to start a discussion. The Australian
3:28
S3: position is that Australia supports a two state solution, which
3:33
S3: means statehood for Palestine in a settlement with Israel at
3:37
S3: some point in the future. And now this is an
3:40
S3: outcome that's eluded all sides for three decades. And there's
3:45
S3: a lot of blame to go around about why that's happened.
3:47
S3: But that's the fact. And really, what Penny Wong was
3:50
S3: doing was making a couple of arguments about why you
3:54
S3: might recognise Palestinian statehood. If it was getting you to
4:00
S3: the outcome of a peaceful resolution and a two state solution.
4:04
S4: Now there are those who always claim recognition is rewarding
4:08
S4: an enemy. This is wrong. First, because Israel's own security
4:13
S4: depends on a two state solution. But of course.
4:17
S3: She put a lot of caveats on what she was.
4:19
S4: Saying, because there is no role for Hamas in a
4:22
S4: future Palestinian state. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has
4:27
S4: the explicit intent of the destruction of the state of
4:31
S4: Israel and the Jewish people. And we should acknowledge Hamas
4:37
S4: rains terror also on the Palestinian people in Gaza. It
4:41
S4: has long been understood that any future Palestinian state cannot
4:46
S4: be in a position to threaten Israel's security and will
4:48
S4: need a reformed Palestinian Authority, recognizing she started.
4:53
S3: The debate without necessarily having a specific solution, and certainly
4:59
S3: nothing like a specific policy decision that she was outlining,
5:03
S3: because there is no such policy decision at federal cabinet
5:06
S3: level to change the Australian position.
5:09
S2: Also, this issue has been building for a long time.
5:12
S2: We're focused on the war in Gaza right now, but
5:14
S2: this has been playing out within inside the Labor Party
5:18
S2: for many years, decades even, really. And there has been
5:22
S2: a shift on this. Penny Wong has been an active
5:25
S2: player in this. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has been
5:28
S2: a very active player on this in terms of shifting
5:31
S2: Labor's position. The Labor Party policy platform says that they
5:35
S2: support recognition of a Palestinian state, and that this should
5:39
S2: be an important priority for a labor government. Labor is
5:43
S2: now in government. So it has been a question since
5:45
S2: they got in, would they enact the party platform? They've
5:49
S2: certainly been in no rush to do it. It's a
5:51
S2: tricky thing to pull off in practice, But for those
5:56
S2: in the labor movement and the Labor Party, there's a
5:58
S2: lot of history to this. Yep.
6:00
S1: And as we know, Wong and Albanese are both of
6:03
S1: the labor left, as you just alluded to, which tends
6:05
S1: to be very pro-Palestine. So there might be a bit
6:07
S1: of internal pressure, which is certainly what the opposition is saying,
6:10
S1: which we'll come to later. But Matt, can you just
6:13
S1: sort of speculate, perhaps on why Wong would do this now,
6:17
S1: apart from the reasons you've just presented about a growing pressure?
6:21
S1: I mean, there's stuff happening at the UN level, isn't there?
6:23
S2: Yes. And this was a curious factor for me. Having
6:27
S2: followed this and written about this was exactly why now?
6:31
S2: Because I don't think Penny Wong was just doing this
6:34
S2: for no reason, or because she had a speech to give.
6:36
S2: She could have spoken about many things in her speech.
6:38
S2: She very deliberately chose to speak about this. So this
6:42
S2: is coming up at the UN. As Penny Wong said,
6:45
S2: political leaders around the world are speaking about this exact
6:49
S2: question of recognition of Palestine. Palestine has had a long
6:54
S2: standing request to become a member state at the United Nations.
6:58
S2: That is going to come up before the UN Security
7:01
S2: Council this month. Australia is not a member of that council,
7:07
S2: but then the expectation is that this issue will at
7:10
S2: some point a bit down the track, come up for
7:12
S2: a vote in the United Nations General Assembly, and Australia
7:16
S2: would have to stake a position on it. We could
7:19
S2: always abstain. But people are that I speak to in
7:22
S2: this space are saying, keep an eye on that United
7:26
S2: Nations timeline, because that would be the time we would
7:28
S2: really have to declare our view on this. Yeah.
7:31
S3: Penny Wong's speech was in the context of comments from
7:35
S3: other countries in the same space. David Cameron, Foreign secretary
7:39
S3: of the United Kingdom, was talking in February about statehood
7:43
S3: for Palestine without putting the proviso that a two state
7:47
S3: solution had to come first. So Penny Wong is totally
7:50
S3: in line with what David Cameron, a conservative peer in
7:53
S3: the House of Lords was saying. And so I think
7:56
S3: that's that's important. Whether this actually affects anything is another matter.
8:02
S3: As somebody who's a close observer of this pointed out
8:04
S3: to me when I was writing on it, 138 countries
8:07
S3: recognize Palestine. Has that made Palestine a state? I mean,
8:12
S3: recognizing statehood for Palestine can work in theory. And there's
8:16
S3: an argument that some of this is a superficial debate,
8:19
S3: because you've got a war in Gaza at the moment,
8:21
S3: and that should be the priority. Mhm.
8:23
S1: Matt, I just want you to tell us about the
8:25
S1: reaction to this statement, because the opposition leader in particular
8:27
S1: was very critical wasn't he.
8:29
S2: Yes. Peter Dutton has been incredibly critical of this reality.
8:33
S5: Makes the Foreign Minister's remarks last night utterly illogical, ill
8:36
S5: timed and indeed inappropriate. It is the most reckless act
8:40
S5: of a foreign minister I've seen in my 22 years
8:43
S5: in the parliament.
8:44
S2: He thinks the government isn't doing enough to tackle the
8:48
S2: problem with anti-Semitism. There very strong comments, particularly as David says,
8:53
S2: Penny Wong's comments are not that out of line with
8:56
S2: even what we're hearing out of America. I just wanted
8:59
S2: to add to what David was saying there in terms
9:01
S2: of a bit of a reality check. The Prime Minister
9:04
S2: was out saying that the whole world supports a two
9:09
S2: state solution.
9:10
S6: We have said very clearly that we want a two
9:14
S6: state solution, and we've said very clearly as well, we're
9:18
S6: working with like minded partners as well to say that
9:23
S6: Hamas has no role in a future Palestinian state.
9:28
S2: And in theory, pretty much everyone in the world does,
9:31
S2: except right now, it seems the Israelis and the Palestinians,
9:34
S2: who are the people who matter most here and would
9:36
S2: have to live with these two states. Polling makes this
9:40
S2: very clear. It's very clear when I was on the
9:43
S2: ground there that there's incredibly little goodwill between these two sides.
9:48
S2: The leadership of the groups, Benjamin Netanyahu has in practice
9:54
S2: opposed a two state solution throughout his career and maneuvered
9:57
S2: to make sure it doesn't happen. Hamas has basically committed
10:01
S2: to the destruction of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority is very,
10:06
S2: very weak and hasn't seriously engaged with peace negotiations in
10:11
S2: several decades. People say the conditions on the ground aren't
10:15
S2: there for anything to happen. It doesn't really matter what
10:18
S2: David Cameron or Penny Wong or even Joe Biden think
10:21
S2: about this. If Israelis and Palestinians can't get on the
10:25
S2: same page.
10:26
S1: So that's the international sort of audience for Penny Wong's remarks.
10:29
S1: I just want to talk really quickly about the sort
10:31
S1: of more internal audience, if you like. So what what
10:35
S1: what is the Labor Party doing in terms of its internals? So,
10:39
S1: you know, it's obviously giving a nod to some of
10:41
S1: the branch members who are particularly pro-Palestine. And there's also
10:45
S1: sort of the worry, perhaps, of Muslim constituents in some
10:48
S1: of the South west Sydney electorates which Labour holds. David,
10:53
S1: do you want to talk to that?
10:54
S3: I think it's a real concern within labor, in the
10:58
S3: sense that they've got communities that are in their electorates
11:01
S3: and they listen to those communities. They listen to communities
11:04
S3: who say, look, how can you stand silent while this
11:08
S3: death and destruction is being visited upon Palestinian people in Gaza?
11:12
S3: And as the conflict has gone on, those calls have
11:16
S3: got louder. And Labour can't ignore that. And it doesn't
11:20
S3: ignore that. I mean, but I think Penny Wong wasn't
11:22
S3: necessarily coming to this debate with her speech this week
11:25
S3: from a position of great strength. I mean, there's still
11:28
S3: criticism of her for, for instance, suspending, um, aid funding
11:33
S3: for the UN organisation in Gaza because of the accusations
11:37
S3: that it's some of its members were complicit in the
11:40
S3: Hamas killings. Then the government said, well, we'll decide our
11:45
S3: policy once we get the full report on what happened
11:48
S3: there and then before waiting for the full report, they
11:51
S3: resumed funding. So there wasn't a total consistency there in
11:55
S3: what the government was doing and people noticed that. So
11:59
S3: there's still this frustration within the Labour ranks about how
12:02
S3: this is being managed. And that, I think, helps explain
12:06
S3: why Penny Wong was sending this message.
12:08
S2: Domestic politics does come into foreign policy, but it was
12:12
S2: noticeable in Penny Wong's speech, given to a very, I'd say,
12:16
S2: quite elite audience of, you know, foreign policy, national security thinkers.
12:21
S2: I'm not counting myself. I'm just a humble reporter. But
12:24
S2: that she did speak about the politics of this. She
12:26
S2: spoke about the Greens, and she said she thinks the
12:29
S2: Greens rhetoric on this has been really inflammatory. And they're
12:32
S2: adding to the tensions in the community, not making it better.
12:36
S2: She criticised the coalition as well and said they're not
12:40
S2: playing a productive role here. So she mentioned the two
12:43
S2: opposing parties and showed that she was trying to position
12:46
S2: Labour as being in the centre as the sensible force
12:49
S2: within these two extremes.
12:52
S1: So it was a very political speech in that sense.
12:54
S1: I mean, most people, I would say most Australians are
12:57
S1: somewhere in the middle on this and have probably quite
13:00
S1: a moderate line on it. And Wong is trying to
13:03
S1: present herself and the Labor Party as that.
13:06
S3: There is something that we can only sort of monitor
13:09
S3: over time, how the killing of the Australian aid worker
13:13
S3: in Gaza has shifted debate that has been described to
13:17
S3: me by some labor people as a turning point. And
13:21
S3: you can clearly see much greater frustration from Anthony Albanese
13:25
S3: and Penny Wong towards Israel as a result of that death.
13:28
S3: How does that play out in the public debate as well?
13:31
S1: Yeah, we're going to keep a watching brief on this. So, Nadia,
13:34
S1: will you come back and talk to us again?
13:35
S2: Of course, of course.
13:36
S1: Thank you for joining us and we'll see you again soon.
13:38
S2: No worries at all.
13:50
S7: Hi. Morning edition listeners, if you're looking for a series
13:54
S7: to binge over the break, I want to recommend Trial
13:56
S7: by Water. It's a podcast by some of my colleagues
13:59
S7: at The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. It's about
14:01
S7: a man, Robert Farquharson, who was convicted of murdering his
14:05
S7: three sons by driving them into a dam, and about
14:07
S7: the people who are now questioning that conviction. Trial by
14:11
S7: Water is a compelling and informative podcast series that will
14:14
S7: make you question the way our justice system operates, so
14:18
S7: please take a listen and recommend it to your friends. Thanks.
14:28
S1: And now we welcome Shane Wright, who has just sauntered
14:31
S1: into the Canberra studio to talk to us about Prime
14:35
S1: Minister Anthony Albanese, who has just unveiled a big agenda
14:38
S1: to get more stuff made in Australia. So he's given
14:41
S1: a speech on Thursday to this effect. Hasn't he, Shane?
14:44
S8: Yeah. This is interesting because you can see now, the
14:47
S8: way that the government is aligning, as David Crowe alludes to,
14:52
S8: often they're aligning the stars for the election next year.
14:56
S6: Only government can draw together the threads from across the
14:59
S6: economy and around our nation to anchor this reform and
15:04
S6: secure this growth. Today I announce that this year our
15:08
S6: government will create the Future Made in Australia Act. But
15:13
S6: this is.
15:13
S8: Really about May 14th, when Jim Chalmers will get up
15:17
S8: and deliver his third budget.
15:19
S6: In next month's budget and beyond. We'll be building on
15:23
S6: that foundation in this time of transformative opportunity. Our government
15:28
S6: will not be an observer or a spectator. We will
15:32
S6: be a participant, a partner, an investor, an enabler. We
15:37
S6: will be.
15:37
S8: So you can see the policy. Breadcrumbs. This is more
15:40
S8: like a loaf that have been strewn out and giving
15:44
S8: us an insight into what this government really thinks and
15:47
S8: their policy agenda.
15:48
S1: Okay. So David, tell us about this new future Made
15:51
S1: in Australia plan. It's about government serious government investment in
15:55
S1: manufacturing things locally. But why would we do that when
15:58
S1: other countries can do it more cheaply?
16:00
S3: Because the central assumption from Anthony Albanese and the people
16:04
S3: around him in federal cabinet is that we can actually
16:06
S3: make things here in an economic way and we can
16:10
S3: make it pay. Now, I reckon that is hugely contested,
16:13
S3: but it is their fundamental argument here with this policy.
16:17
S3: We don't know the full cost, but expect tax breaks,
16:21
S3: expect grants, expect loans backed by federal taxpayers to big
16:26
S3: projects that make things. And we're talking about developing critical minerals,
16:32
S3: turning Australian raw materials into batteries that we can make
16:35
S3: in Australia, making solar panels in Australia. Now, one background
16:42
S3: fact here is the government's been concerned for a while
16:46
S3: that we buy millions of solar cells. 99% of them
16:51
S3: are made overseas. Most of them are made in China.
16:55
S3: There's one country in the world economy that basically controls
16:58
S3: the supply of this, and so it becomes a matter
17:00
S3: of economic sovereignty and national security. Mhm. That becomes an
17:04
S3: argument for using state power to make sure we can
17:08
S3: make that as well. But I'm not sure that it's
17:10
S3: going to be economically viable. But that's the intention.
17:13
S1: So there's the economics of it versus the national security angle.
17:17
S1: Because I suppose there is always the risk that China
17:21
S1: will turn off the tap for these really essential materials
17:23
S1: like solar panels. Shane, the Prime Minister, sort of put
17:26
S1: it in different language. He said that it's not about
17:28
S1: old fashioned protectionism or isolationism, but this kind of way
17:31
S1: of doing business is the new competition.
17:34
S6: We need this change in thinking and approach, because the
17:38
S6: global economic circumstances are changing in ways far more profound
17:43
S6: than the consequences of the pandemic or conflict alone. This
17:48
S6: decade marks a fundamental shift in the way nations are
17:52
S6: structuring their economies. What do you think?
17:56
S8: Oh, it's more new, new protection rather than old fashioned.
18:00
S8: But it is interesting. We've we've seen and we've lived
18:05
S8: through this in terms of what happened through the pandemic,
18:08
S8: and we've lived through it with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
18:12
S8: What how the the global supply chain has become now
18:18
S8: victim to the fact that the politics of the world
18:22
S8: are changing when you've got a China, when you've got India,
18:26
S8: which is effectively defying the UN sanctions on Russian oil
18:31
S8: and is doing things like that, and you've got Russia,
18:34
S8: you've got these big threats and changes to the the
18:39
S8: Western liberal economic construct of the past 30 to 40 years,
18:44
S8: when we've seen this huge expanse in economic global chains
18:50
S8: and real liberalism in terms of trade, in terms of
18:55
S8: the movement of people, the movement of cash. It's unraveling.
18:58
S8: And the pandemic has really highlighted this. And Crowe is
19:01
S8: right in this way. The government has made this decision
19:04
S8: we have to follow, because the United States is sucking
19:09
S8: the air and money out of the world as part
19:12
S8: of its its Inflation Reduction Act and its Chips act.
19:15
S8: The Europeans are going down the same path because they've
19:19
S8: been hit by the problems about in terms of linkages
19:23
S8: to Russia with their gas supply. Yeah, they are living
19:26
S8: the problems that these things create, and the intersection of
19:31
S8: politics and economics is right in front of us. As
19:35
S8: Albanese gets up to speak.
19:36
S1: Yeah. So it's about it's about sort of self-reliance, I
19:39
S1: suppose you could say. Or the Prime Minister might say
19:41
S1: it's about self-reliance. Just talk us through quickly the stuff
19:46
S1: that the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, which you
19:48
S1: just mentioned, Shane, what is that? And Anthony Albanese did
19:52
S1: specifically mention that vast amount of money that Biden has
19:55
S1: pumped into the US economy in his speech on Thursday,
19:58
S1: didn't he? Yeah.
20:00
S8: So he talked about the IRA and the Chips act,
20:03
S8: which are two separate acts. The IRA, which really is
20:08
S8: effectively trying to build solar, wind EVs and get. And
20:15
S8: effectively decarbonising the American economy. Now, it has been spectacularly
20:20
S8: successful in terms of what it's set out to do.
20:22
S8: The cost of it is on. It was set out
20:25
S8: at about 390 billion USD when they first announced it.
20:29
S8: It's probably on track for 800 billion because it's uncapped.
20:33
S8: But for instance, in the final, the third quarter of
20:38
S8: last year, $64 billion was invested by American companies into
20:44
S8: clean energy and transportation. A 42% increase over the same
20:48
S8: quarter of the previous year. There is a reason US
20:52
S8: unemployment is as low as it is and why wages
20:55
S8: are growing. This act has supercharged the American economy and
20:59
S8: Biden is unapologetic about that. The Chips act, which is
21:04
S8: all about getting semiconductors, being, manufacturing, being brought back into
21:08
S8: the US, the Nvidia company, which has gone hell and
21:12
S8: high water into the manufacturing of AI semiconductors. It's it's
21:19
S8: now valued more as a company than the entire Australian economy. Yeah,
21:24
S8: because there is so much activity going on. So you
21:27
S8: can see that's the economics there's which intersects with the environment,
21:31
S8: which then intersects with the we can't rely on China.
21:35
S8: And Australia is the most exposed developed country in the
21:39
S8: world because we sell so much red earth and LNG
21:44
S8: to China. And we are you can see that the
21:48
S8: geopolitical risk that Australia is exposed to because of our
21:51
S8: financial dependence on China. Yeah.
21:53
S1: So, David, it's worked really well in the US. And
21:56
S1: obviously the Albanese government would like to get a bit
21:58
S1: of that action happening here. But is it actually viable
22:03
S1: that we would compete with the US on that scale?
22:05
S1: We don't have as much money. How much money will
22:07
S1: the Albanese government pour into this initiative.
22:10
S3: To be determined? But explicitly, Albanese says we won't go
22:14
S3: dollar for dollar against the Inflation Reduction Act in the
22:16
S3: United States. The way I see it is that Albanese
22:20
S3: is telling voters what he wants to do. The invoice
22:24
S3: is going to come later. We don't know how many
22:28
S3: measures will be revealed in full in the budget, but
22:31
S3: what we do know is that the remarks this week
22:34
S3: are the start of a process to unveil different things
22:37
S3: between now and May 14th. What concerns me, I think,
22:41
S3: is the oversight is yet to be revealed. How many
22:44
S3: checks and balances are there on who's going to get
22:46
S3: this money and the terms that they that they get
22:49
S3: it on. Because, you know, there's a lot of scope
22:52
S3: for things to go wrong when taxpayer money is thrown
22:55
S3: around like this.
22:56
S1: So it's a vision, but it's at the moment it's
22:58
S1: still quite a blurry vision. So Shane, this is all
23:01
S1: part of the government's broader economic agenda, which Treasurer Jim
23:04
S1: Chalmers also weighed in on this week with a with
23:06
S1: a speech about hardening up competition across the economy. Can
23:10
S1: you tell us a little bit about that just quickly.
23:12
S8: Yeah, this has been one of the more interesting and
23:15
S8: sleeper issues, because the idea of the the whole concept
23:19
S8: of competition as an economic driver has been disappearing for, well,
23:23
S8: since the GFC. Really? Uh, this government. Chalmers, he's got
23:28
S8: a competition minister in Andrew Lee, very active in, in
23:30
S8: this space because there's so much more evidence showing that
23:34
S8: countries with less competition, with higher market concentration aka Australia,
23:39
S8: with everything from retail to to airlines to banks. It's
23:44
S8: holding back productivity growth and that's one of the great issues.
23:48
S8: So you've actually seen this week Chalmers outline in terms
23:53
S8: of mergers and acquisitions, which is this is a law
23:56
S8: really the laws in this space have not changed for
23:58
S8: 50 years. The SEC had been looking for a lot
24:01
S8: of new powers to actually say, we're allowing too many
24:04
S8: businesses to merge, and that's dampening competition, that's hitting wages,
24:10
S8: that's hurting productivity. So they've outlined what they're going to do.
24:14
S8: As you'd expect, those sectors are there where companies want
24:18
S8: to merge and reduce competition, aren't so keen on it.
24:22
S1: They're very cross about it, aren't they?
24:23
S8: It's intriguing to see how this will play out, because
24:27
S8: it's not just mergers and how they're vetted. It's non-compete
24:33
S8: clauses facing employees. Like we've got a situation where a
24:38
S8: burger flipper can't go to a different franchise, or because
24:42
S8: they've effectively carved up and prevented competition. So they've got
24:46
S8: a competition review over the next two years. This is
24:49
S8: going to continue rolling out and cause some tension. That's
24:53
S8: probably been missing in the economic and political debate for
24:56
S8: some time. Mhm.
24:57
S1: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
24:59
S3: Cheers, Jackie. Cheers.
25:00
S1: Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Kai Wong
25:04
S1: and Rachel Clun, with technical assistance by Debbie Harrington. Our
25:08
S1: executive producer is Ruby Schwartz. Inside politics is a production
25:12
S1: of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you
25:14
S1: enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe
25:17
S1: to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support
25:20
S1: what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe.
25:25
S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, this is inside politics. Thanks for listening.