Latest / Inside Politics / Bill Shorten on his random, oblique reference in the Epstein files

Transcript

Bill Shorten on his random, oblique reference in the Epstein files · Inside Politics

• 0:00
  S1: Hello and welcome to Inside Politics. Today on the pod,
• 0:03
  S1: we celebrate the return of our very special guest star,
• 0:06
  S1: former Opposition leader Bill shorten, who is now the vice
• 0:09
  S1: chancellor of the University of Canberra. Of course, and he's
• 0:12
  S1: joining us from the Parliament House studio, along with chief
• 0:14
  S1: political correspondent Paul Chuckle. As usual. Welcome, gentlemen.
• 0:19
  S2: Good morning. Is it too late to say Happy New Year?
• 0:22
  S1: Probably no, because we haven't seen you yet, so we'll
• 0:25
  S1: make a special rule.
• 0:26
  S2: Although I was in Woolies on Sunday and I noticed
• 0:28
  S2: the first Easter eggs appearing, so I found that vaguely disturbing.
• 0:32
  S1: Yeah.
• 0:32
  S2: That's you.
• 0:32
  S1: Going. That's. Yeah.
• 0:33
  S3: Hot cross buns are like January 1st. It's sacrilegious.
• 0:37
  S2: One long Easter.
• 0:38
  S1: Easter is my favourite holiday, so I welcome I welcome
• 0:40
  S1: it some beginning in February. Now, Bill, this is a
• 0:44
  S1: very serendipitous moment to have you on the podcast. And
• 0:46
  S1: I'm going to say the following very carefully, because you
• 0:49
  S1: have obliquely and I stress obliquely come up in the
• 0:52
  S1: Epstein files this week. Now to I want to clarify
• 0:56
  S1: very quickly. And it is a serious business so we
• 0:58
  S1: won't joke about it. But. But. So there was another
• 1:01
  S1: massive tranche of millions of files from the Epstein so-called
• 1:04
  S1: Epstein files, released this week by the US Department of Justice. Strangely,
• 1:08
  S1: one of those files seemed to show a text message
• 1:11
  S1: exchange between Steve Bannon, who, of course, is the far
• 1:14
  S1: right former strategist for Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign,
• 1:18
  S1: and the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And Epstein liked to keep
• 1:21
  S1: abreast of international events and international elections. And the message
• 1:26
  S1: exchange takes place just after the 2019 Australian election, which
• 1:29
  S1: you sort of famously lost to Scott Morrison, where you
• 1:32
  S1: were contesting as opposition leader. And it has Bannon boasting
• 1:36
  S1: to Epstein that he quotes, had Clive Palmer do the
• 1:40
  S1: $60 million anti-China and climate change ads during that campaign. Bill,
• 1:45
  S1: what was he talking about?
• 1:47
  S2: Well, I got a phone call from an enterprising journalist
• 1:50
  S2: from your own masthead about this on Sunday, and my
• 1:53
  S2: first reaction is, this is wild. Two days after the
• 1:58
  S2: 2019 election. Olmert. Bannon is, you know, on his sort
• 2:02
  S2: of permanent email link to that creep. Epstein and Bannon's
• 2:09
  S2: taking credit for the election outcome because he said he
• 2:12
  S2: helped advise Clive Palmer, who notoriously spent $83 million in
• 2:18
  S2: the election, most of which was in the last two weeks,
• 2:20
  S2: most of which was creating a mythical Chinese invasion, saying
• 2:25
  S2: that climate change isn't real and some unflattering analysis of me,
• 2:30
  S2: which did hurt us. It was one of the reasons
• 2:31
  S2: we didn't win the election. It wasn't the only one,
• 2:34
  S2: but wow. So you've got Bannon boasting to Epstein about,
• 2:40
  S2: you know, this international sort of right wing role in
• 2:44
  S2: our Palmer dollars to interfere in Australian democracy.
• 2:49
  S1: And had you just to give us some context, had
• 2:51
  S1: you any idea that Bannon was in touch with Clive
• 2:55
  S1: Palmer or that Steve Bannon was at all interested in
• 2:57
  S1: the 2019 election campaign, which you were contesting.
• 3:01
  S2: I came right out of the blue. I had I
• 3:03
  S2: had no idea that our reform agenda had resonated to Bannon.
• 3:08
  S1: Mhm. Mhm. It's it was quite it was really extraordinary.
• 3:12
  S1: Palmer initially we should say came out and said that
• 3:15
  S1: he'd never spoken to Bannon. So you know he had
• 3:17
  S1: no idea where this had come from. And it must
• 3:19
  S1: be untrue. And then we had Palmer came come out
• 3:22
  S1: a day later and say, oh, actually, I do recall
• 3:25
  S1: that there was a phone call from Steve Bannon which
• 3:27
  S1: which I got at 3 a.m. it was short, and
• 3:30
  S1: he just basically congratulated me on what a wonderful campaign
• 3:33
  S1: I was running. And then we hung up. What did
• 3:36
  S1: you make of that clarification?
• 3:38
  S2: Just a footnote. Like, you know, Clive would know where
• 3:41
  S2: every dollar he spends is, and he would certainly remember
• 3:43
  S2: everyone who's ever insulted him. But he was very emphatic.
• 3:47
  S2: He sent out his media minder to say it was
• 3:52
  S2: BS and it was not true. That was the Monday
• 3:56
  S2: or Tuesday position, but within 24 hours, Palmer has miraculously
• 4:00
  S2: remembered a phone conversation. So, like on the Tuesday, zero
• 4:05
  S2: never happened. Nada. Nothing to see here. And then by
• 4:09
  S2: the next day he says, oh, that's right, I did
• 4:10
  S2: get a call. What I would say to you and
• 4:13
  S2: to anyone listening is if you got a 3 a.m.
• 4:16
  S2: phone call from Steve Bannon, would you forget that? Because
• 4:19
  S2: apparently poor old Clive forgot it. So that's why I'm
• 4:23
  S2: really not sure. And there's more questions here than answers
• 4:25
  S2: that I can see.
• 4:27
  S1: Um, maybe it just sort of melded into his dreamscape,
• 4:30
  S1: you know, when things happen to you and you're not
• 4:31
  S1: sure if they're a dream or if they were real, but,
• 4:34
  S1: I mean, I guess Clive Palmer really contradicted himself, as
• 4:38
  S1: you say, within, within the course of 24 hours. And
• 4:41
  S1: one version was the truth and one version wasn't. Or
• 4:43
  S1: maybe neither versions were the exact truth. We don't know.
• 4:47
  S2: He did also say in the interview that no, it
• 4:49
  S2: wasn't Steve Bannon, but he had a lot to do
• 4:51
  S2: with Mathias Cormann and Mathias Cormann, nicknamed the muscle from Brussels,
• 4:57
  S2: came in from Brussels, where he's helping look after the OECD.
• 5:00
  S2: Or maybe he's in Paris and he said Palmer's not right.
• 5:03
  S2: So there's, uh, there's a lot of shaky memory here.
• 5:06
  S3: Well, Palmer's first statement from the media minder, given to
• 5:11
  S3: the news given to our newspaper, just did the call.
• 5:15
  S3: I didn't deny that there was any contact. I think
• 5:16
  S3: it was just along the lines of this is this
• 5:18
  S3: is made up. Nothing to see here. And then Palmer,
• 5:21
  S3: when he's speaking at length, perhaps explained what was meant
• 5:24
  S3: by that.
• 5:24
  S2: I don't think that comment.
• 5:25
  S3: Was necessarily.
• 5:26
  S2: Palmer's first comment was there was no direct communication.
• 5:29
  S3: Was it that direct the first time?
• 5:31
  S2: My recollection was.
• 5:32
  S1: His wording was quite careful. He said he'd never spoken
• 5:35
  S1: to him, I think. And I remember.
• 5:37
  S3: Thinking, well.
• 5:37
  S1: That doesn't mean that they haven't communicated with each.
• 5:39
  S2: Other. Yeah. That's right.
• 5:40
  S3: What do you think the if there was a more
• 5:43
  S3: substantial link? Let's say that there is more to this
• 5:45
  S3: than Clive Palmer's letting on. The broader context of the
• 5:48
  S3: communication with Epstein and Bannon. And for listeners knowledge, Steve
• 5:51
  S3: Bannon is someone who spends a lot of time in
• 5:53
  S3: Europe drumming up fundraising and interest in right wing populist
• 5:58
  S3: movements across Eastern Europe. He's been linked with reform in
• 6:02
  S3: the UK, and he's boasting to Epstein about how he's
• 6:06
  S3: creating these online communities across the world to kind of
• 6:10
  S3: create political tension in democracies and to give fuel to
• 6:14
  S3: right wing populist movements. Is that was that your sense
• 6:18
  S3: of looking back? If there was a link between the
• 6:21
  S3: Palmer campaign and Bannon, was your sense at the time
• 6:24
  S3: that there was interference, that there were outside forces at play,
• 6:28
  S3: or is that fanciful?
• 6:29
  S2: I don't want to. I'm very conscious that, you know,
• 6:33
  S2: the nation has moved on, and by 2022, you know,
• 6:37
  S2: Morrison had run out of any so-called miracles. Um, and
• 6:41
  S2: so that's happened. So I'm not toey about that at
• 6:45
  S2: the time. You know, we were advancing a pretty solid
• 6:48
  S2: tax reform agenda, amongst other things, and a climate agenda.
• 6:52
  S2: I was aware that there was vested interests who were
• 6:55
  S2: deeply unhappy, but there were things probably we could have
• 6:57
  S2: done differently in our campaign. So I don't put it
• 6:59
  S2: all at Palmer's campaign, but in the last couple of weeks,
• 7:02
  S2: just dumping tens of millions of dollars in advertising, it
• 7:06
  S2: was a bigger spend than Woolworths and Coles, you know,
• 7:09
  S2: so it got to have an impact on perhaps less
• 7:11
  S2: engaged voters. But the broader picture is I was aware
• 7:15
  S2: during the campaign that, for instance, on some of the
• 7:18
  S2: anti-abortion stuff, that there were algorithms pumping out interest in
• 7:26
  S2: complete misinformation, which said that I and labor was supporting
• 7:30
  S2: third trimester abortions, which wasn't our policy. But I remember
• 7:34
  S2: seeing some of those ads pop up and we, you know,
• 7:36
  S2: I think there were algorithms and I think the alt
• 7:40
  S2: right were much better organised in the digital world than labor.
• 7:45
  S2: I think we were probably naive about the digital campaign
• 7:49
  S2: and that subcurrent of sort of right wing populist misinformation.
• 7:54
  S1: Right. So are you talking about sort of bots that
• 7:56
  S1: will pick up someone's interest via the algorithm on their
• 7:59
  S1: use of social media and basically spew content at them,
• 8:02
  S1: which is misinformation or disinformation based on what they think
• 8:05
  S1: their interests are and thereby sort of skew their vote. Yeah.
• 8:09
  S3: And there was the death, the death tax subterranean campaign.
• 8:12
  S2: Yeah. I mean, Palmer's that China was going to build
• 8:15
  S2: a secret air base in Australia. Mhm. Like, you know,
• 8:19
  S2: that idea disappeared about what, 6:01 p.m. on the Saturday
• 8:24
  S2: night when the polls closed.
• 8:26
  S1: And yeah. And it was also a lot of as
• 8:29
  S1: you say, it was a real ad hominem attack on you.
• 8:32
  S1: I mean it was really, really personalised attack, which you
• 8:34
  S1: don't often see in sort of mainstream political advertising so much.
• 8:39
  S1: I mean, if, as you say, it was, you know,
• 8:41
  S1: a few elections ago now, the Australian public made its decision.
• 8:44
  S1: Even the Labor Party review said that it was probably
• 8:47
  S1: a pivotal factor or it was a factor in the
• 8:50
  S1: election loss, but it wasn't the only factor. So putting
• 8:53
  S1: those things to one side, what can we learn from
• 8:56
  S1: this rather disturbing sort of revelation that this foreign, foreign
• 9:00
  S1: person who, let's face it, is not what you would
• 9:03
  S1: call a good faith actor and is certainly not an Australian.
• 9:06
  S2: I mean, it's not an Australian citizen and he's boasting
• 9:09
  S2: about influencing Australian election results. Um, I think the first
• 9:14
  S2: point I'd make, and it's a broader point than just
• 9:16
  S2: the 2019 election, but 2019, I think is some proof
• 9:19
  S2: of it, is that Australians have essentially had a holiday
• 9:23
  S2: from history, really since the Cold War. And we've tended
• 9:27
  S2: to believe that our distance the Pacific, the Indian Ocean,
• 9:30
  S2: that somehow what goes on in America or happens in
• 9:33
  S2: other places can't happen here. That is wrong. Mhm. I
• 9:37
  S2: know in the last term the government, which I was
• 9:39
  S2: a member of, did propose electoral reforms to stop that
• 9:43
  S2: American style big billionaires just buying outcomes. Um. you know,
• 9:49
  S2: under the guise of freedom of speech. I mean, when
• 9:51
  S2: it's $83 million, no one else. Who else can compete
• 9:54
  S2: with that? Yeah. To find out that they were working
• 9:56
  S2: hand in glove.
• 9:56
  S3: Well, the political parties.
• 9:57
  S2: Can be political.
• 9:58
  S3: Parties can compete with 83 million. Pardon? The major parties
• 10:01
  S3: can compete with the 83 million.
• 10:03
  S2: No. Well that's right. When you added their 83 on
• 10:05
  S2: top of the Liberal spend for Morrison. Um, I suppose
• 10:09
  S2: you know, I've got a sense of humor about it
• 10:11
  S2: all now. Um, I must have really upset some people
• 10:14
  S2: to spend that much money to want to stop us. But,
• 10:17
  S2: you know, the truth eventually comes out in these things.
• 10:20
  S2: But the the bigger point is that we're not immune
• 10:22
  S2: to what happens in America. We think it doesn't happen here.
• 10:25
  S2: It does.
• 10:26
  S1: Well, what kinds of things are you talking about? Are
• 10:28
  S1: you talking about the.
• 10:29
  S2: For instance, policy, like the big tech bros? You know,
• 10:32
  S2: the fact is that, uh, the Esafety commissioner has been
• 10:35
  S2: so personally attacked by Elon Musk related interests. You look
• 10:39
  S2: at the way that big tech companies really don't see
• 10:42
  S2: themselves as bound by sovereign laws. That's, uh, that's business,
• 10:47
  S2: they would say, but it's still undermining our system. You
• 10:50
  S2: have a look at some of the Americans coming out
• 10:52
  S2: to visit Peter Dutton's campaign, which was just a matter
• 10:55
  S2: of record. So I think that when we talk about elections,
• 11:01
  S2: whilst we've got some safeguards in place, I do think
• 11:04
  S2: that we need to be a lot better at funding
• 11:07
  S2: our efforts to tackle misinformation and disinformation through the internet.
• 11:11
  S3: I think it's just worth noting on the obscene files,
• 11:14
  S3: just given the level of secrecy and intrigue around the
• 11:17
  S3: whole story, it's easy to quickly believe the the conspiratorial
• 11:22
  S3: element to what what we learn about or what we've
• 11:25
  S3: seen in some of these texts. It could be the
• 11:27
  S3: case that Bannon had very limited contact with Palmer, wanted
• 11:30
  S3: to boost his influence to Epstein, and claim that he
• 11:33
  S3: was having this role in intriguing election results, and that
• 11:36
  S3: there's not much in this. I mean, he does have
• 11:37
  S3: a very regular podcast, Steve Bannon. He's not shy in
• 11:41
  S3: coming forwards about his role in populist movements in Europe.
• 11:43
  S3: He does now have the ability to refute Palmer's claim
• 11:47
  S3: and say, I actually had a significant role in that election,
• 11:50
  S3: and he hasn't done that yet. So this could this
• 11:52
  S3: could be nothing, or it could be something.
• 11:54
  S1: I don't think it's nothing. I mean, why why would.
• 11:57
  S2: Why would Epstein.
• 11:58
  S1: Have obscure thing to to write to Epstein, who presumably
• 12:02
  S1: doesn't know a lot about Clive Palmer.
• 12:04
  S3: Because there was.
• 12:06
  S2: This to the facts. We do know Palmer spent $83 million,
• 12:09
  S2: much of it in the last two weeks, that had
• 12:10
  S2: an impact. There's no doubt that Palmer and the liberals
• 12:14
  S2: were talking a lot. There's no doubt now that Palmer
• 12:17
  S2: and Bannon had at least one conversation, which Palmer has
• 12:21
  S2: now recollected. And there's no doubt that Bannon boasted to Epstein,
• 12:25
  S2: we don't know if Bannon was just being a sort
• 12:28
  S2: of Foghorn Leghorn conservative, taking credit for everything from Kazakhstan to,
• 12:33
  S2: you know, the polling booths in western Sydney. But they
• 12:37
  S2: are facts. And so let's reduce it to what I
• 12:40
  S2: think is the the factual issue, You, Bannon says to Epstein.
• 12:45
  S2: I'm the man. I help with these ads, Palmer says. No,
• 12:49
  S2: I and Matthias are the men. He didn't help. I
• 12:52
  S2: don't know, but it does highlight our vulnerability to big money. And,
• 12:58
  S2: you know, vested interests overseas.
• 13:00
  S3: Yeah, totally. I mean, the texts were sent days after
• 13:03
  S3: the result, where there was this incredible upset when a
• 13:05
  S3: left wing Australian leader has been beaten by a conservative
• 13:08
  S3: with with with the help of this really interesting kind
• 13:11
  S3: of subterranean online campaign. So Bannon might be just trying
• 13:14
  S3: to shoehorn himself into something.
• 13:16
  S2: It's a legitimate explanation, but I'd like to hear what
• 13:19
  S2: Bannon has to say, because he's been called out as
• 13:22
  S2: a just an empty vessel, being a blowhard, boasting to
• 13:25
  S2: mates on emails or that's.
• 13:28
  S3: Well, there's more to it. We need to hear. We
• 13:29
  S3: need to hear from Bannon.
• 13:30
  S1: It's extraordinary. The whole story is extraordinary. But I don't
• 13:33
  S1: I think we've always got to remember that there are other.
• 13:35
  S2: Victims and there.
• 13:36
  S1: Are victims, young, young women and girls who are the
• 13:39
  S1: victims at the heart of this. And there have been
• 13:41
  S1: no consequences for any of the alleged perpetrators.
• 13:46
  S2: It's a shocking. I mean, the election is of interest
• 13:50
  S2: to us, but the reason why it's a story is
• 13:53
  S2: because of Epstein's gross and grotesque and illegal behavior.
• 13:56
  S1: Yeah. Which apparently has been completely sort of normalized amongst
• 14:01
  S1: the powerful men among whom he moves. Now, I just
• 14:04
  S1: want to get back to Australian politics because and back
• 14:06
  S1: to the 2019 election, where you advanced a very, what
• 14:10
  S1: shall we say, audacious, brave economic agenda and tax reform agenda,
• 14:15
  S1: which was obviously roundly rejected by voters.
• 14:18
  S2: Well, actually, yeah, 48.5 to 51.5.
• 14:22
  S1: Okay. All right. No. That's good. It's good to roundly.
• 14:25
  S2: Rejected what Dutton got.
• 14:29
  S1: You just couldn't resist that, could you? But I'm glad
• 14:32
  S1: you corrected me on the facts. It wasn't roundly rejected,
• 14:34
  S1: but it was rejected by voters. And now we have
• 14:37
  S1: reports and rumblings that Jim Chalmers, in the lead up
• 14:39
  S1: to the May budget might be looking at one of
• 14:42
  S1: those reforms again, which of course is the capital gains
• 14:45
  S1: tax discount. Basically, you get a 50% discount on any
• 14:49
  S1: capital gains tax due if you've held an asset for
• 14:52
  S1: more than 12 months and you're an Australian citizen. So
• 14:54
  S1: it's a very, very broad exemption or discount to the tax.
• 14:57
  S1: So you couldn't get it up in 2019 if Jim
• 15:00
  S1: Chalmers instituted it or tried to get it through in
• 15:03
  S1: this year's budget. Do you think it would get up
• 15:05
  S1: this time? Have things changed?
• 15:07
  S2: Well, what that what my policy was based on. I
• 15:11
  S2: don't know what Jim and Albo will do in the budget,
• 15:14
  S2: but what my policy was based on was this assumption
• 15:16
  S2: that in Australia, income is taxed too heavily, property is
• 15:21
  S2: taxed too lightly. We've got a situation where a plumber
• 15:25
  S2: or a teacher, or a nurse or a journalist or
• 15:27
  S2: anyone you know, you pay the increasing marginal rates of tax,
• 15:30
  S2: which can go up to $0.45 if you earn over
• 15:33
  S2: 200 K, but you could buy a building for 5 million.
• 15:38
  S2: It is worth 10 million when you sell it and
• 15:40
  S2: you only pay tax. You'll only pay 25% tax on
• 15:45
  S2: the profit, essentially, so you can make 5 million and
• 15:49
  S2: only pay 25% tax. But you could be a nurse
• 15:53
  S2: working night shift and charge of a ward. You could
• 15:55
  S2: be an air traffic controller. You're at the top marginal rate.
• 15:58
  S2: You're paying $0.45 on far smaller incomes. So we have
• 16:03
  S2: a system in Australia where it favours the acquisition of
• 16:07
  S2: property and punishes just working hard, which is what 13.5
• 16:11
  S2: billion people do. They go to work every day. So
• 16:14
  S2: that's the underpinning assumption that property shouldn't be taxed so
• 16:18
  S2: preferentially and income is taxed too heavily. Now how Jim
• 16:23
  S2: and Anthony and the rest of them cut the pie
• 16:26
  S2: I don't know, but it's a fair argument to make.
• 16:28
  S2: And I think that, you know, of course, you know,
• 16:32
  S2: the universe doesn't grant reruns. But I might have thought
• 16:34
  S2: occasionally how I would repitch the 2019 policy and be
• 16:38
  S2: on the assumption to 13.5 million income earners. You get
• 16:42
  S2: you have to pay your 10% GST. You've got to
• 16:44
  S2: pay your marginal rate of tax. If you're a student,
• 16:47
  S2: you've got to pay your HECS. You know, really the
• 16:51
  S2: dice is stacked against younger generations and people earning who
• 16:55
  S2: just have an income to rely on. Not as not
• 16:57
  S2: a not a revenue from property.
• 16:59
  S1: Hmm. So do you. I mean, just going back to
• 17:02
  S1: the question, do you think then that it's sort of
• 17:04
  S1: the circumstances have changed, and I'm talking in particular about
• 17:07
  S1: that issue of intergenerational equity and the feeling that a
• 17:10
  S1: lot of people have that their children are not going
• 17:12
  S1: to have the same benefits and the same playing field
• 17:15
  S1: that they had when they were coming up. And the big,
• 17:18
  S1: big problem of the housing crisis or the housing affordability crisis.
• 17:23
  S1: Do you think in the current sort of circumstances, it'll
• 17:25
  S1: be easier to sell a.
• 17:27
  S2: I think so, yeah. So I mean, it depends what
• 17:29
  S2: the policy is. It depends how good the sales job is.
• 17:32
  S2: I get all of that. But like the demographics have
• 17:35
  S2: changed in the electorate by the time we get to
• 17:37
  S2: the next election, it'll have been the best part of
• 17:40
  S2: nine years since 2019. That's millions of new voters on
• 17:43
  S2: the rolls, millions of new voters on the roll, many
• 17:45
  S2: of whom are young, who don't have that property. There's
• 17:48
  S2: some sort of natural attrition. So I think the demographics
• 17:51
  S2: have changed. But even more than the demographics, the reality
• 17:54
  S2: is that maybe we needed to recalibrate our negative gearing
• 17:57
  S2: policy and say everyone could have a property, they could
• 18:00
  S2: negatively gear. But how is it fair that a young
• 18:03
  S2: couple are maybe holding down two jobs, are competing to
• 18:07
  S2: buy a house with someone who's this is their fifth
• 18:10
  S2: investment property and they're getting a taxpayer subsidy. So it's
• 18:14
  S2: a bit like in a in a height competition, the
• 18:17
  S2: investor gets a stool to stand on, which is called
• 18:20
  S2: taxpayer subsidy, which lets them compete against poor old, you know,
• 18:25
  S2: Tim and Fiona out in the outer burbs, who are
• 18:27
  S2: holding down two jobs and just want to get their
• 18:30
  S2: first house.
• 18:30
  S1: Yeah. Um, it's certainly some of those things, it would
• 18:34
  S1: seem to me, would be more easily argued in the
• 18:37
  S1: current situation. Paul, I want to ask you, what do
• 18:40
  S1: you think? I mean, if if Jim Chalmers was to
• 18:42
  S1: come up with some sort of tweak, particularly to the
• 18:44
  S1: CGT discount, would the liberals slash the nationals and who
• 18:48
  S1: knows whether they'll be together or apart by then? Um,
• 18:51
  S1: would they actually be able to mount an effective argument
• 18:54
  S1: against it?
• 18:55
  S3: Well, this was this came up in the early part
• 18:58
  S3: of the Dutton opposition. There was a group of backbenchers
• 19:01
  S3: led by Keith Wolahan, who lost his seat in the
• 19:04
  S3: eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The seat of Menzies used to
• 19:07
  S3: be a very safe Liberal seat. And this group of
• 19:09
  S3: younger Liberal backbenchers were keen for the Liberal Party to
• 19:12
  S3: to break from their tradition on protecting the property owner
• 19:16
  S3: class and to do a kind of radical policy, uh,
• 19:20
  S3: push that would align the Liberal Party with the group
• 19:22
  S3: of Australians who want to break into the housing market.
• 19:25
  S3: And Dutton became aware of this push. And him and
• 19:28
  S3: his people, including Michael Sukkar, who was the housing spokesperson
• 19:31
  S3: at the time, who was part of an older generation
• 19:33
  S3: of liberal conservative said, guys, we're not going anywhere near this.
• 19:37
  S3: We're in opposition. We're not going to take risk on
• 19:39
  S3: our policy set and we're not going near property tax breaks.
• 19:43
  S3: So the Liberal Party, I imagine, because it's in the
• 19:45
  S3: weak position that it's in, will take a reflexive opposition
• 19:48
  S3: to any change to the property tax settings. And they'll
• 19:52
  S3: see this as a new policy debate that will, you know,
• 19:56
  S3: allow the Liberal Party to cleave back to its natural home,
• 19:59
  S3: protecting the asset class. And it would be a big
• 20:01
  S3: economic fight for Susan Lee to take on. It's probably
• 20:04
  S3: shortsighted because they do actually need to talk to those voters,
• 20:06
  S3: but I suspect that's short.
• 20:07
  S2: Sighted because the greatest predictor of what is a liberal
• 20:12
  S2: voter now is if you were born before 1965, if
• 20:15
  S2: your Anglo-Australian, um, like, that's an okay cohort and lots
• 20:20
  S2: of my I know lots of people in that cohort,
• 20:22
  S2: but that's not enough.
• 20:23
  S1: Best friends are in that cohort.
• 20:24
  S2: Yeah, but but it's not enough people to win an election.
• 20:28
  S1: No. And it's certainly not enough people to kind of
• 20:30
  S1: form a broad coalition in the small sense of like,
• 20:33
  S1: you know, there are many, many cohorts within Australia that
• 20:36
  S1: we will fight for.
• 20:38
  S3: Bill, your mentor, one of your mentors, Bill Kelty, has
• 20:41
  S3: said since 2019 that one of the key lessons was
• 20:43
  S3: if you do tweak the tax breaks, it makes sense
• 20:47
  S3: to offset what you're effectively taking from the community with
• 20:51
  S3: income tax cuts. And that's a kind of grand bargain
• 20:53
  S3: you can do.
• 20:54
  S2: Is if you're going to go down the path of
• 20:57
  S2: tackling property tax reform, uh, property capital taxes, you should
• 21:03
  S2: hand back that in income tax cuts. Otherwise it just
• 21:07
  S2: looks like a money grab.
• 21:08
  S3: And they could do that by expanding the small tax
• 21:11
  S3: cut they announced before.
• 21:12
  S2: There's a million ways. But just if I had my time,
• 21:15
  S2: if I had my time again in 2019, one thing
• 21:17
  S2: I would do other than watch Clive Palmer carefully, uh,
• 21:20
  S2: is any of the money we were taking out of
• 21:23
  S2: reforming capital gains discount? Reforming some of the other taxes
• 21:27
  S2: is hand it back in income tax cuts. Um, but anyway,
• 21:30
  S2: that's advice from the lofty, lofty heights of academia. My
• 21:34
  S2: former colleagues no doubt, will have you know, they'll they'll
• 21:37
  S2: take their own counsel.
• 21:38
  S3: How do you think the PM would be thinking about
• 21:42
  S3: this change politically? I mean, he's totally ascendant Liberal Party
• 21:45
  S3: just blowing itself up. But he did have a difficult summer,
• 21:48
  S3: and it proved that he can get into get into
• 21:51
  S3: a poor polling situation more quickly than he would have realized,
• 21:54
  S3: perhaps after that big win. How do you think he'd
• 21:56
  S3: be calculating the risk of going down this path?
• 22:00
  S2: I don't know if they're considering it. You know.
• 22:02
  S3: I know that they are. So I'll tell you.
• 22:04
  S2: Okay. Uh, well, you'd be looking at all the pros
• 22:08
  S2: and cons. You'd be weighing up the national interest to
• 22:11
  S2: be weighing up the impact on productivity. You'd be weighing
• 22:13
  S2: up what creates makes a fairer system for people to
• 22:16
  S2: work harder. I mean, that would be the test you'd apply.
• 22:19
  S2: What incentive in anything you do. And it's got to
• 22:21
  S2: be part of a big strategy is productivity. How do
• 22:24
  S2: you reward people for working harder in Australia? So you're
• 22:27
  S2: buying more houses isn't working harder. That's just using money
• 22:31
  S2: to make more money. Sure. That's that's legitimate. What you
• 22:34
  S2: want to do is tell your nurses on the night shift,
• 22:37
  S2: tell your team leaders, you know, in the, um, in businesses,
• 22:42
  S2: your your foremen, supervisors at warehouses tell your tradies you
• 22:46
  S2: work harder, you're going to keep more of what you earn.
• 22:49
  S1: Mhm. It seems to me they're going to have to
• 22:50
  S1: have some sort of budget trimming sort of policies as well,
• 22:53
  S1: because otherwise they won't be able to pay for.
• 22:55
  S2: Well the big issues, the big issues inflation. So they're
• 22:57
  S2: going to cut right.
• 22:58
  S1: That's right. So they're going to have to cut as well.
• 23:00
  S1: But that's maybe a discussion for another podcast. Um, do
• 23:03
  S1: you think in terms of the ructions within the Liberal
• 23:06
  S1: National Coalition at this moment of recording, do you think
• 23:11
  S1: that we're looking at a historic rearrangement of, you know,
• 23:14
  S1: the right wing of Australian politics? Can the liberals fight
• 23:18
  S1: their way out of this? I just want to go
• 23:19
  S1: to you both really quickly on that.
• 23:21
  S3: Well, in terms of if they do split in a
• 23:24
  S3: long term sense, you know, there are people in the
• 23:26
  S3: Liberal Party worried about a 1950s labour style moment where
• 23:31
  S3: the centre right fractures for a longer period of time
• 23:33
  S3: and that entrenches Labour dominance. I suspect that I suspect
• 23:35
  S3: the coalition will not be apart for that long. I
• 23:38
  S3: don't think it will be patched up this week. I mean,
• 23:39
  S3: the absurdity of the back and forth between Susan Lee
• 23:42
  S3: and David Littleproud is is slightly nauseating, and the squabbling
• 23:46
  S3: over process and party procedure is really difficult to follow.
• 23:50
  S3: But there's a personality dispute at the heart of it
• 23:52
  S3: between the two leaders. They don't get along and they're
• 23:55
  S3: both boxed themselves in and would struggle to reconcile because
• 23:59
  S3: that will diminish their authority. So it won't be they
• 24:01
  S3: won't get back together in the next few weeks, I
• 24:03
  S3: don't think, but I suspect they'll patch it up before
• 24:05
  S3: the next election. But if it is a longer term
• 24:08
  S3: split bill, and given what One Nation is doing at
• 24:10
  S3: the moment, how do you see the centre right faring
• 24:13
  S3: for the next period?
• 24:15
  S2: Well, the right of Australian politics have split in the past.
• 24:18
  S2: Menzies only founded the Liberal Party just over 80 years ago.
• 24:23
  S2: It's Don Chipp and some of the liberals split in
• 24:26
  S2: the 70s. Um, political parties do split. That's the first thing.
• 24:31
  S2: So it's not unknown. The second thing is underestimate Pauline
• 24:34
  S2: Hanson and Barnaby Joyce at your peril.
• 24:36
  S1: Okay.
• 24:37
  S2: They are saying things which a lot of people just
• 24:40
  S2: agree with. Like. Like it or not, that's just what
• 24:43
  S2: it is. And they have a sense also that these
• 24:46
  S2: two are not going to change their convictions to suit
• 24:49
  S2: a particular issue. So, you know, I talk to old
• 24:52
  S2: members of my union who I used to organise in
• 24:55
  S2: the bush. They've always voted labor, but they're thinking about
• 24:59
  S2: other things, you know, whether or not that's wise, that's
• 25:01
  S2: up to them.
• 25:02
  S1: So what do they say is the appeal of one
• 25:04
  S1: nation if they're interested in one nation?
• 25:05
  S2: I think they just think that Hanson calls us as
• 25:08
  S2: it is. Now, the thing is, saying, everything that you
• 25:12
  S2: think in your head aloud isn't necessarily what people do.
• 25:15
  S2: And there's a good reason why we don't. Because you
• 25:16
  S2: then think about it. But without getting into who's right
• 25:19
  S2: and who's wrong, she has some appeal. So I think
• 25:21
  S2: the coalition need to be careful of that. You know,
• 25:24
  S2: I'm not going to predict the demise of the Liberal
• 25:26
  S2: Party or the National Party. But I would say this
• 25:30
  S2: is a serious issue. This is it's you know, if
• 25:33
  S2: it goes one way, it's sort of like an extinct
• 25:36
  S2: planet extinction level event for the coalition. So they need
• 25:40
  S2: they're going to need to get their act together quickly.
• 25:41
  S2: I would have thought. But the real challenge, I think,
• 25:44
  S2: for labor is that with the coalition being at, you know,
• 25:47
  S2: at sixes and sevens, we've got to be careful that
• 25:50
  S2: it's a good government needs a strong opposition. And one
• 25:54
  S2: of the anxieties I feel for some of my colleagues
• 25:57
  S2: is that what if the Liberal vote falls, that they
• 25:59
  S2: no longer come second in some of our safer seats,
• 26:02
  S2: and there's a sort of militia of third parties come together. So,
• 26:06
  S2: you know, I think it's what Australians want is stability
• 26:09
  S2: and focus on cost of living. Coalition disunity may be
• 26:13
  S2: good for some memes, and there were some pretty good
• 26:14
  S2: one liners in Parliament. But when you've got cost of
• 26:18
  S2: living interest rates, I think, um, a strong opposition is
• 26:22
  S2: necessary for a strong government.
• 26:23
  S1: Yeah, that's a very good point. And it's interesting to
• 26:25
  S1: note as well that there are perhaps hidden dangers for
• 26:29
  S1: Labour at a time when they really seem like they're
• 26:31
  S1: sort of untouchable. And Albanese seems like the luckiest man
• 26:34
  S1: in parliament. Guys, that's been so fascinating. Bill, we love
• 26:37
  S1: having you on. We hope you'll come on again soon.
• 26:40
  S1: And thanks a lot, Paul, and we'll talk to you soon, Bill.
• 26:43
  S3: See you guys.
• 26:44
  S2: Bye for now. Bye.
• 26:49
  S1: You can read all of our political news on our
• 26:51
  S1: websites theage.com.au or SMS. Today's episode was produced by Kai
• 26:59
  S1: Wong with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is
• 27:02
  S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
• 27:05
  S1: and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, please follow Inside Politics
• 27:10
  S1: and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify.
• 27:13
  S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.