Latest / Inside Politics / Tim Wilson accused the treasurer of pouring fuel on the inflation flames – is he right?

Transcript

Tim Wilson accused the treasurer of pouring fuel on the inflation flames – is he right? · Inside Politics

0:02
S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and you're listening to Inside Politics from
0:05
S1: The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today we are
0:08
S1: joined by podcast favourite Shane Reisch, who's going to talk
0:11
S1: about the economy and how the rubber really is hitting
0:14
S1: the road in terms of the government's economic narrative. And
0:17
S1: later we're going to talk about the security threat to
0:18
S1: the Prime Minister at the Lodge in Canberra and what
0:21
S1: that tells us about social cohesion. So welcome chief economics
0:25
S1: correspondent Shane Reisch, who joins us from Canberra. And of course,
0:27
S1: as ever, our chief political correspondent Paul Chuckle. And for
0:31
S1: those of you who can't see them and who are listening,
0:34
S1: they're sort of snuggled together very sweetly in the Canberra studio.
0:37
S2: I just want to point out, Paul, that I got
0:39
S2: called Podcast Favourite. You didn't. So we'll just keep that
0:42
S2: in mind for the rest of the show.
0:44
S3: Way too close for comfort in this little, little studio
0:46
S3: we're in.
0:47
S1: Paul is sort of furniture. I take him completely for granted.
0:51
S3: That's right.
0:51
S2: I'm the special guest. You just remember that.
0:54
S1: Shane, on this podcast. If it bleeds, it leads. So
0:57
S1: let's start with the bad news about the economy. This
1:00
S1: week we had some not so great inflation figures out.
1:03
S1: And there's also reports which struck doom into my heart
1:07
S1: that there might be an interest rate rise right before
1:09
S1: the government hands down its federal budget in May. What
1:13
S1: is happening in the economy, if it's possible to summarize,
1:15
S1: and how is Treasurer Jim Chalmers spinning the situation?
1:19
S2: Well, we can start with the spin first, which is
1:21
S2: it's not my fault, it's what's going on. The private
1:25
S2: sector has certainly lifted and certainly lifted in the second
1:28
S2: half of last year. We can see that from AI
1:32
S2: to household consumption. Yes, our listeners, our listeners out there
1:36
S2: are contributing to inflation, despite what some people might say.
1:39
S2: They are spending, they have money and they are spending.
1:42
S2: You can actually see that. Like this week we saw
1:45
S2: Qantas record another one point. I think about $1.5 billion profit.
1:50
S2: People are spending money flying around for instance. You can
1:54
S2: see it in consumption stuff. So Chalmers argument is look,
1:58
S2: it's really what's going on in the private sector, however,
2:02
S2: there is a fair whack of government spending because the
2:05
S2: government is running a deficit, so there's extra money coming
2:07
S2: in from the from the government side. There's also the
2:10
S2: extra spending by the states. In Sydney, for instance. The
2:13
S2: metro continues on. You've still got a lot of work
2:17
S2: going on in Brisbane and in Perth and in Melbourne,
2:21
S2: plus just a general assistance. So that is what's going on.
2:25
S2: Reserve Bank will look at the inflation figures we got
2:28
S2: this week. They are monthly. So they this is still new.
2:31
S2: There's a lot of noise still in them. And the
2:33
S2: reserve Bank has said repeatedly we don't really trust the
2:37
S2: monthly figures quite yet. So the monthly figure shows right.
2:41
S2: There was a big there was a lift in prices
2:43
S2: in January, whether it's seasonal or not. That's one of
2:47
S2: the problems, whether this is just what happens at the
2:49
S2: start of the year, but over.
2:51
S1: Sorry to interrupt, but over the over the course of
2:53
S1: the year, the figure is unchanged at 3.8%. But it's
2:56
S1: just that month to month. It ticked up a little bit.
2:59
S2: Yeah that's right. But there was also some revisions back
3:02
S2: through the last 12 months. So it always makes it problematic.
3:06
S2: Clearly there's like for instance, the price of kids shoes
3:10
S2: went through the roof in January, which seems a bit weird.
3:15
S2: And you go, yep, kid shoes went up. Item it's
3:18
S2: not a significant item, but it's part of it. And
3:21
S2: like the price of red meat. Red meat, beef prices
3:25
S2: are running at around 1,011%. That is not because you,
3:28
S2: me and Paul are racing out for a steak every
3:30
S2: second night. It's because of Donald Trump. The pull from
3:34
S2: the US for for red meat is so strong at
3:38
S2: the moment. And anyone who's driven into the hinterlands, like
3:43
S2: anyone who's driven between Sydney and Melbourne over the last
3:45
S2: 3 or 4 months, will have gone, oh my goodness,
3:47
S2: it's a bit dry out there. Yeah, we can see that.
3:51
S2: You can see there's some drought conditions developing and drought
3:54
S2: conditions are bad news in terms of inflation. So that's
3:58
S2: what's going on.
3:59
S1: Maybe we need to have a beef reserve. Like there's
4:00
S1: a gas reserve to keep some Australian beef in Australia.
4:03
S2: But I think you should. You should put some cows
4:05
S2: out the back of your place in Sydney. I think
4:08
S2: they'd love it there.
4:09
S3: One nation's next policy drawing in Gina Rinehart's new cattle farm.
4:14
S1: I'm all for it, Paul. I'm sort of interested. There's
4:17
S1: the the statistics which which show a sort of mixed picture.
4:20
S1: And then there's what people actually feel. And there's so
4:24
S1: many things that feed into the perception people have about
4:26
S1: how expensive their lives are, how difficult it is to
4:30
S1: manage a family budget. What is the sort of, you know,
4:33
S1: the line that the government's sort of walking here because
4:36
S1: on some assessments, wages have actually sort of gone up
4:39
S1: since the pandemic. The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, told us
4:42
S1: that in estimates recently. But it would be a silly
4:46
S1: politician who'd actually sort of say to Australian householders, like,
4:51
S1: you've actually got it pretty good. Stop complaining.
4:54
S3: Yeah, that would be a very unwise thing for any
4:56
S3: government to say. And you're right, this government has a
4:59
S3: strong argument to say that they've been the first government
5:02
S3: in a while that's got real wages going a little bit.
5:04
S3: They've had two straight years before last week's figures, which
5:08
S3: had real wages growth rising not by a huge amount,
5:12
S3: but rising, which is an objectively good thing, and bucking
5:16
S3: the trend of a lot of similar nations. But overall,
5:19
S3: the story really of the last of recent history, really
5:23
S3: since the GFC, is that living standards overall have been
5:27
S3: pretty flat and people have not got much richer. The
5:30
S3: middle class is finding it difficult to get by. There
5:33
S3: is a growing kind of working. Poor people are still
5:37
S3: getting richer at the top end, but there is a
5:39
S3: sense of dissatisfaction across the economy, and the productivity problem
5:42
S3: means that the country is not able to grow at
5:45
S3: the same rate as it used to, without inflation running hot.
5:49
S3: That's why we've seen persistent inflation and grocery prices and
5:52
S3: other things remaining higher for longer than we expected, because
5:55
S3: just when the private sector got going, as Shane mentioned,
5:59
S3: Inflation ticked up again, which meant that the rate cuts
6:02
S3: we saw last year, which we thought would persist, are
6:05
S3: now being reversed by one cut last month and maybe
6:08
S3: another one before the budget. So, yes, the government has
6:11
S3: a decent argument to say that through potentially through some
6:14
S3: of their IR changes, they got real wages growing. But
6:17
S3: the other element of their fiscal strategy has been to
6:19
S3: pump a fair bit of money in the economy and
6:22
S3: to stimulate private sector demand through rebates and other things,
6:25
S3: which keeps prices higher for longer.
6:26
S1: Yeah, Shane, I'm interested in your opinion that the Liberal
6:29
S1: Party has obviously changed its leadership in recent times, and
6:32
S1: Tim Wilson is now the Treasury spokesman who's replaced Ted O'Brien,
6:37
S1: who I guess, I mean, I would say probably didn't
6:39
S1: get a lot of cut through in his communication. Tim
6:42
S1: Wilson has freshened things up a little bit, I would say.
6:45
S1: And he's got some strong attack lines on the government.
6:49
S1: What what are those attack lines?
6:51
S2: He's the real Energizer bunny of in that space. Um,
6:56
S2: and Ted was a much more reserved and in focused,
7:00
S2: whereas Tim will go, Tim Wilson will go hard and
7:03
S2: go wild and go wide. Yeah. So so yeah, like
7:08
S2: labeling Jim Jim Chalmers as pirate Jim.
7:11
S4: We've had pirate Jim, Jim Chalmers out there pouring debt, uh,
7:16
S4: fuel debt, petrol on the inflation fire. Uh, and it's
7:20
S4: catching up with the government as their excuses.
7:22
S2: No longer like you can see the MAGA connection. They're
7:26
S2: trying to come up with a pithy couple of words
7:30
S2: to belittle your opposition. I don't like Ted O'Brien was
7:33
S2: kept going about Jim Ryan never took off.
7:37
S1: Sadly for him. Never really made.
7:38
S2: It. Made it. I'm not sure. I'm not convinced by pirate.
7:40
S1: He's trying. He's broadening that fire metaphor because he's talking
7:43
S1: about bonfire. Like, we've got to see what kind of
7:45
S1: bonfire we inherit from the government, you know, when they
7:48
S1: next win government in terms of the.
7:49
S3: Budget, the the inflation fire, which he says Jim, Jim
7:52
S3: Chalmers is pouring debt fuel onto.
7:55
S1: Yes. Yeah, there's a lot that's going on.
7:57
S2: There is a lot of effort going on. And it's
7:59
S2: interesting because we are two months out from a budget
8:02
S2: and ultimately, as a government, budgets are such a pivotal
8:07
S2: political event because you you can control and change the narrative.
8:11
S2: You can do it badly. AKA 2014, for instance.
8:15
S5: Great to be here and congratulations on your first budget.
8:18
S5: We need to say that too. Well thank you. Now
8:20
S5: you've just delivered that budget. It's a budget with a
8:22
S5: new tax, with levies, with co-payments. Is it liberating for
8:26
S5: a politician to decide? Election promises don't matter.
8:30
S6: Well, I don't accept that question. The biggest and most
8:33
S6: significant promise we made was to fix the budget and
8:37
S6: strengthen the Australian economy. And we will. And this budget
8:40
S6: does that.
8:41
S5: But you say.
8:42
S2: Or you can do it. Say the Howard the Howard budgets,
8:46
S2: the Keating budgets, where you you were able to get
8:48
S2: real change in the direction of the, of the general
8:52
S2: public debate. So Tim Wilson, you can see he's trying
8:55
S2: to get ahead of that. He doesn't have a policy position,
8:58
S2: although he has, like he has gone, leant really heavily
9:02
S2: into the top marginal rate at $0.47. 40, 45% is
9:06
S2: too high. So you can see he's setting some markers
9:11
S2: for where he wants to go.
9:13
S1: That's that's an interesting one because I mean, he's on
9:15
S1: a unity ticket there with some unlikely candidates because Bill Kelty,
9:19
S1: who is a, you know, labor and union legend, saying
9:22
S1: that income taxes are too high and that young people
9:24
S1: are missing out. We've got Paul Keating saying that. I
9:27
S1: think we've got Ken Henry, the former Treasury head, saying
9:29
S1: that now, too, that incomes are taxed too highly and
9:33
S1: perhaps wealth not enough. But then Tim Wilson was on
9:36
S1: radio this morning and he sort of dodged the question
9:39
S1: a little bit and said, you know, we'll always work
9:41
S1: towards tax cuts.
9:42
S4: At the start of this term. They said that all
9:44
S4: their spending pouring, all that debt petrol on the inflation
9:48
S4: fire wouldn't be inflationary. It clearly has been. So we're
9:52
S4: going to obviously have a plan to the lead up
9:54
S4: to the next election. But if I can achieve income
9:57
S4: tax cuts I'll always work towards it.
10:00
S1: Paul, what's going on here? Are they going to promise
10:02
S1: tax cuts? And if not, then how would they justify that?
10:06
S1: And if they do, how would they pay for it?
10:08
S3: Well, we're so far away from the next election, and
10:10
S3: Tim Wilson has just got in and has put nothing
10:12
S3: to shadow cabinet. So something for all the upside of
10:17
S3: the Wilson experiment that Shane's just outlined. The risk for
10:21
S3: him is that because he's so full of ideas and
10:23
S3: zeal that he goes out ahead of Angus Taylor, who
10:26
S3: will want to have a lot of control on the
10:27
S3: economic policy making side, given his interest in economics and
10:31
S3: his time as shadow treasurer, which was not hugely successful.
10:34
S3: But Wilson needs to guard against the sense, particularly among
10:37
S3: his colleagues, that because he believes he is the the sharpest,
10:43
S3: both policy mind and political campaigner, that he's just not
10:46
S3: making his own waves and he's actually going through a
10:48
S3: consultative process that brings his colleagues along. So he's signalling
10:52
S3: on income tax cuts, aligning himself with a lot of economists,
10:56
S3: plus Kelty and Paul Keating, who thinks that the top
10:59
S3: marginal rate is too high and cuts in to to
11:02
S3: a lower income level, which is, by OECD standards quite
11:05
S3: a low rate of income tax for the top marginal
11:07
S3: rate to kick in. Tim Wilson is someone who understands
11:11
S3: that we're in a period of politics where grabbing attention matters.
11:16
S3: Ted O'Brien, his predecessor, and Angus Taylor as well, made
11:20
S3: some admirable speeches about debt and deficits. But we don't
11:24
S3: live in a time where the Liberal Party can rest
11:26
S3: on its laurels and assume the community shares its views
11:30
S3: on debt and deficits. Those arguments don't have as much
11:32
S3: cut through as they used to. They are behind in
11:35
S3: most surveys on economic management, which is a huge reversal.
11:39
S3: Wilson understands that you need to be in people's faces.
11:42
S3: You need to be able to pin blame on the government.
11:45
S3: You need to saturate the media market. So he might
11:48
S3: make make some mistakes. And arguably he did in one
11:50
S3: of his first days in an interview with us on
11:52
S3: the dual mandate, which he disagrees with our interpretation of
11:55
S3: what he said. But we were right. Yeah. you tell
11:58
S3: him that. But. But what he will do, he might
12:00
S3: make some stumbles along the way. And who knows? Chalmers
12:03
S3: is also incredibly wily politician. But what Wilson will do
12:07
S3: is elevate his arguments, make them in every place possible. And,
12:12
S3: as Shane says, act like an Energizer bunny.
12:14
S2: Yeah, he's interesting because like, having somebody who, like, he
12:19
S2: has written like when he was the member for Goldstein
12:24
S2: before he lost the seat and before he won it back,
12:27
S2: he wrote around housing. And because he could recognize that
12:30
S2: housing and housing affordability was a problem, the policy solutions
12:35
S2: in that space gets you to where we are, for instance,
12:39
S2: on capital gains tax and the concession that's affecting which
12:42
S2: we're about to talk about. Yeah. Where so you've mentioned
12:46
S2: like Bill Kelty and Ken Henry talking about yes, we
12:49
S2: have to reduce the top marginal rate, but you do
12:51
S2: have to pay for it somehow. And that means changing
12:55
S2: the tax mix. Yeah. Since the Ken Henry tax report.
12:59
S2: So that's 16 years ago. Now, the options in that
13:03
S2: space that have come out have not been changing the
13:07
S2: tax mix. They've only just been about oh, we've got
13:09
S2: to reduce or change a tax, Henry. And we go
13:13
S2: back to GST reform under Howard-costello. And we go back
13:17
S2: to where Keating really kicked it off, where he changed
13:20
S2: the tax system in 1985. They were big tax mix changes. Yeah.
13:25
S2: And that's what delivers you reform. That's what helps the
13:28
S2: economy not just one off things. And you can see
13:31
S2: the the Liberal Party is in danger of already getting
13:34
S2: caught saying right. We will cherry pick a little bit.
13:37
S2: It's holistic. That's the problem.
13:38
S3: Well Ted O'Brien last term went out. I was talking
13:41
S3: to a liberal about this just yesterday actually, he boxed
13:44
S3: in Sussan Ley because in one of his first weeks
13:46
S3: as shadow treasurer, I didn't know this at the time
13:48
S3: until yesterday, he made a declaration that the Liberal Party
13:51
S3: would not support any tax rises, no matter what in
13:54
S3: any context, which meant that the leader had to back
13:57
S3: him in and say, yep, no tax can be contemplated
14:00
S3: even if it's part of a broader package. So that
14:02
S3: kind of boxed them in and didn't even allow them
14:04
S3: to explore any tax rises, which could.
14:07
S1: Offset you into making budget cuts, basically, if you're going
14:09
S1: to pay for anything.
14:11
S3: Yeah.
14:12
S2: And if and Tim Wilson's got to this line saying, right,
14:15
S2: we'll just like catching up, say with the reporting by
14:19
S2: Nick McKenzie about how much has gone through to the CFMEU.
14:24
S2: And he says, oh, we'll save $15 billion. I'm sorry
14:27
S2: that $15 billion has gone.
14:29
S1: It's gone. It's in the pockets of various corrupt union officials.
14:32
S2: That's right. So you can't you can't you can't save
14:35
S2: the money.
14:36
S3: That's maybe that's a good talking point, not a good policy.
14:39
S1: They're all out there buying them flat screen TVs. Shane,
14:41
S1: you said the three magic words. Capital gains tax. We
14:44
S1: love capital gains tax.
14:45
S2: I could see your excitement when I mentioned those three words.
14:48
S1: I actually do find this stuff really interesting. So the
14:51
S1: government is edging closer to basically admitting that it's going
14:53
S1: to do something on the CGT discount of 50%, which is,
14:57
S1: you know, a tax look for investors in the federal budget.
15:01
S1: And it seems like they're going to do that perhaps
15:03
S1: in conjunction with some sort of income tax cut. So
15:06
S1: they're like, okay, we'll take from this area and we
15:09
S1: will give it back to more people and, you know,
15:11
S1: in a more judicious fashion. Or maybe that's how they'll
15:13
S1: spin it. You wrote a really interesting piece this week
15:16
S1: about the CGT tax and the discount as well. And
15:20
S1: I think what we lose sight of is that the
15:21
S1: discount was introduced for very good, sound economic reasons. Can
15:25
S1: you just tell us why the discount was introduced and
15:28
S1: by whom?
15:29
S2: Right. So 1985 your where down at the old Parliament
15:33
S2: House in Canberra. And Paul Keating is he's been boxed off.
15:37
S2: He can't introduce a consumption tax. But he says we've
15:40
S2: got to change the tax system. So the company tax
15:43
S2: rate is cut. The top marginal rate at the time
15:46
S2: was $0.60 in the dollar. And he got it under.
15:49
S2: He got it to 49 uh in that that move.
15:53
S2: But he said we've got to pay for it. So
15:54
S2: we're going to tax fringe benefits AKA you and I
15:58
S2: going out for a liquid lunch. Sorry, we're going to
16:01
S2: have to pay some tax on that. Uh, and capital gains,
16:04
S2: because at the time, higher income earners who owned assets,
16:08
S2: be they, they were largely shares, be they property, they
16:11
S2: were making big capital gains, not paying any tax on it.
16:15
S2: So I said, that's how we pay for it. The
16:17
S2: Liberal Party opposed the FBT and the CGT for the
16:21
S2: next ten years. But at the time the Keating said right.
16:25
S2: We understand if the if the value of your, your asset,
16:30
S2: your house, your shares goes up, it has to go
16:33
S2: up more than just inflation. We want to tax the
16:36
S2: extra real income that your that the extra profit that
16:39
S2: you're getting, the extra asset not just not the inflation.
16:42
S2: We really don't want to do that. So he it
16:44
S2: was it was convoluted but it understood. Like we are
16:47
S2: going to take into account what inflation is. Every year
16:51
S2: we get to 1999. The Ralph review of business taxation
16:55
S2: drops in this recommendation, which and it was unusual because
16:59
S2: this wasn't business taxation. It was right. Let's simplify that system.
17:03
S2: We'll just give it a straight 50% discount as opposed
17:07
S2: to whatever the inflation rate is. And that was introduced
17:11
S2: with the idea that this will encourage everyone you, me
17:14
S2: and Paul will race down. We'll phone our local stockbroker
17:17
S2: and we'll buy some shares.
17:19
S1: Yeah. So that's what I'm talking about.
17:20
S2: That was the.
17:20
S1: Idea that it would bring capital into markets, and it
17:24
S1: was sort of democratize that, like we would, you know,
17:26
S1: ordinary people would be able to go out and buy
17:28
S1: shares and there would be an influx of investment into
17:30
S1: the share market.
17:30
S2: Margaret Thatcher's shareholder democracy. That's the thought. Yeah, but but
17:38
S2: Acoss and a couple of other community organizations said Australians
17:41
S2: aren't going to do that, you silly silly billies. They're
17:44
S2: going to go buy property, which is exactly what they did.
17:48
S2: And you can see it. And it's the way it
17:50
S2: interacts with negative gearing. As Saul Eslake, the preeminent economist,
17:54
S2: noted this week, a majority of people were positively geared,
17:58
S2: they made a profit from their rental properties after the
18:01
S2: CGT concession. The 50% is introduced. Their accountants say, hey,
18:07
S2: if you lose some money on your rental property, you're
18:10
S2: going to make it back far more because the capital gain,
18:15
S2: the tax advantaged capital gain you're going to get. So
18:18
S2: that's what that's exactly what happened.
18:20
S1: Yeah. I mean, broadly, I think there's agreement that the
18:23
S1: interaction of those two investment perks have pushed up property
18:27
S1: prices or certainly correlated with with an uptick in property prices.
18:31
S2: Property prices has one side. I just want to make
18:33
S2: this important point. It hurts first home buyers. Yeah, they
18:37
S2: are the ones who are competing against the investors. This
18:39
S2: is where the evidence from Ken Henry this week saying,
18:43
S2: here I am going up to Sydney with my kids.
18:45
S2: We're standing there at an auction and we're competing against investors.
18:50
S2: My kids could not buy their own home. The investor
18:53
S2: bought it. That's really where the rubber hits the road
18:56
S2: on this.
18:56
S1: I literally have been there, and I think a lot
18:58
S1: of people will have have had that experience or their
19:00
S1: kids will have had that experience. Paul. Most economists say
19:04
S1: even if they make these CGT changes in the federal budget,
19:06
S1: it won't make a huge difference to property prices, but
19:09
S1: it will make a difference to property prices. Do you
19:11
S1: think this is something that the government's going to be
19:13
S1: able to take over the line and argue if Jim Chalmers,
19:16
S1: who is a good communicator, sort of makes the argument? Well.
19:20
S3: I think it's totally open to Jim Chalmers to make
19:23
S3: a compelling case for why this change is needed. There
19:26
S3: is really strong consensus, Shane, don't you agree? The economist
19:30
S3: community across the business community. I mean, Jeff Wilson, the
19:34
S3: cousin of Tim Wilson who led the franking credits campaign,
19:36
S3: is open to change here. There is Matt Coleman, the
19:40
S3: head of Commonwealth Bank, on Wednesday night on 730. I mean,
19:44
S3: if the Liberal Party is reflex here to in a
19:48
S3: at a low point fight, this change is telling on
19:51
S3: where they're at. Tim Wilson is someone who for years,
19:53
S3: as you mentioned, Shane has been writing about the need
19:56
S3: to regenerate the dream of home ownership to create a
19:59
S3: voting constituency for the Liberal Party, because the idea has
20:02
S3: always been since Menzies that if you have a stake
20:04
S3: in the society, you become more conservative, you feel attached
20:07
S3: to the place and you vote liberal. If that cohort
20:11
S3: dies off because home ownership is so difficult, the Liberal
20:15
S3: Party may not receive those votes in future. So if
20:18
S3: there was a if there was a more kind of
20:21
S3: if there was a liberal party that was able to
20:22
S3: sit back and analyze this with a more rational mindset,
20:25
S3: I think you could get bipartisanship, but that's unlikely. And yes,
20:28
S3: it may not reduce house prices to an extent that
20:31
S3: radically makes home ownership easier, but it will tilt the
20:34
S3: balance in favor of first home buyers rather than investors,
20:38
S3: which is an objective which is an objectively good thing.
20:40
S3: And Australia's wealth stored in investment properties is the highest
20:45
S3: in the OECD outside of Luxembourg. Tiny country?
20:49
S1: Yeah. Even when you put sort of all the ins
20:51
S1: and outs of the economic arguments aside and most people
20:54
S1: won't be listening or paying much attention to the detail
20:57
S1: of that. My sense is that the vibe will be
21:00
S1: that the government is at least trying to do something,
21:02
S1: change some of the settings or a bunch of settings.
21:04
S1: I think Claire O'Neill said this week that they were
21:07
S1: going to pull all the levers, levers they could to
21:09
S1: address the home ownership equity disparity.
21:13
S2: I Jack, I was going to say it goes to
21:14
S2: the intergenerational equity argument that that Chalmers and Albanese have
21:19
S2: been really, really leaning into. And I'm going like, if
21:23
S2: you look at polls and you can see, uh, younger
21:26
S2: people being interested in one nation, for instance, and then
21:30
S2: you've got a policy, even though it may not have
21:32
S2: a huge impact, you say, right, we're going to target,
21:36
S2: we're going to change CGT. There's no one under 35
21:39
S2: who's heavily invested in the Australian property market. As an investor,
21:43
S2: let's be absolutely blunt. Like the the politics of this
21:47
S2: is right. This is going to help you get into
21:50
S2: a home versus the older cohort and the majority of
21:54
S2: people with big asset holdings who were affected by CGT,
21:57
S2: are over the age of 65. Talk about intergenerational equity.
22:02
S2: This is an intergenerational fight as well.
22:04
S3: Having said I agree, Shane, having said what I just
22:06
S3: did about the liberals reflex to oppose this policy, you
22:08
S3: can understand their skepticism on a labor tax change because
22:12
S3: this government hasn't shown much appetite to date to do
22:15
S3: much on the supply side. So a Liberal party wants.
22:18
S3: They might be more open to capital gains if they
22:20
S3: can see a package which also does something on income
22:23
S3: tax cuts. It also does something on supply in housing
22:26
S3: that also includes spending restraint. And Jim Chalmers has a
22:29
S3: huge opportunity here to take on the Liberal Party in
22:33
S3: its low moment and say, we're going to cut back
22:35
S3: on the NDIS further, we're going to do actual restraint
22:37
S3: in this budget. We're going to do CGT, big stuff
22:40
S3: on housing supply. Imagine how.
22:43
S2: An income tax.
22:43
S3: Toss in an income tax cut. Imagine how powerful that
22:46
S3: would be in taking on Angus Taylor's new message on
22:48
S3: budget management. And in saying to voters open to one nation, hey,
22:52
S3: these guys are putting grievance. We are radically reshaping the economy,
22:57
S3: housing and budget management to help working class and younger
23:01
S3: Australians and and Gen X Australians who are feeling the
23:04
S3: pinch too. It's not just young Australians.
23:05
S2: Well that thinks he's just managed to get us into
23:08
S2: the discussion there.
23:09
S1: Younger Gen X, Gen X.
23:10
S2: The younger Gen-xers.
23:12
S1: Millennial.
23:13
S3: Well, not wealthy, older, older, older journalists who are still
23:16
S3: still benefiting from the rivers of gold of the golden
23:18
S3: days of this industry.
23:20
S1: Guys, just on another matter this week there was a
23:22
S1: security threat at the lodge, and the Prime Minister had
23:24
S1: to be evacuated on Tuesday night. Paul, can you tell
23:28
S1: us what happened exactly?
23:30
S3: Yes. At about 6 p.m. on Tuesday night, the Federal
23:33
S3: Police received a notification from a performing arts group called
23:38
S3: the Shenyan Group, which is associated with the Falun Gong
23:43
S3: Group in Out of China, which was established in the 90s.
23:46
S3: It's turned into a kind of transnational spiritual movement that
23:51
S3: includes a lot of Chinese dissidents. The Chinese government is
23:54
S3: highly suspicious of it. It tries to crack down on
23:57
S3: its operations in Western countries, including in a court case
24:00
S3: in Canberra where there are Chinese nationals who are accused
24:03
S3: of spying on this group in the national capital. So
24:07
S3: this group, Shen Yun, is holding a bunch of different
24:11
S3: dance shows in Canberra and Brisbane, and they received a
24:15
S3: message on Tuesday from an unknown party saying that the
24:21
S3: Prime Minister's residence at the lodge all around it was
24:25
S3: surrounded by explosive devices and if this event was to
24:30
S3: take place, they would be exploded in the Prime Minister
24:32
S3: would be harmed. So this was sent to the AFP.
24:35
S3: The Prime Minister was at the lodge. He left the
24:37
S3: lodge for a few hours and went to his parliamentary office.
24:40
S3: He returned at about 930 or 10, when it was
24:43
S3: determined by the AFP that there were no explosive devices around.
24:47
S1: Thankfully, the threat ended up being an empty threat from
24:50
S1: what we can tell, they said. But they did mean
24:52
S1: it was pretty violent language. They said. These people who
24:54
S1: made the threat said that blood will flow and the
24:56
S1: building would be blown into ruins, and there were large
24:58
S1: quantities of nitroglycerine planted around the official residence. Prime Minister
25:03
S1: Anthony Albanese said afterwards, you know, this is one of
25:05
S1: the reasons why we need to take the temperature down
25:07
S1: or we need to sort of not run so hot
25:09
S1: with our political debate.
25:10
S7: I think it's just a reminder. Take every opportunity to
25:15
S7: tell people, turn the heat down for goodness sake. Like,
25:18
S7: you know, we can't take these things for granted. Turn
25:21
S7: it down.
25:22
S1: The AFP investigated 950 politically motivated threats in the financial
25:27
S1: year ending July 2025, which is a 63% increase on
25:31
S1: the combined total of the previous four years. So, I mean,
25:34
S1: what are sort of what's ASIO and the AFP commissioner
25:38
S1: saying about these kinds of threats and how, you know,
25:41
S1: how we can counter them or what what they tell
25:43
S1: us about social cohesion?
25:45
S3: Um, well, there was a you recall the very often
25:49
S3: repeated comments from Mike Burgess, the ASIO head, just after
25:53
S3: the October 7th massacres in 2023, where he said in
25:56
S3: a warning to our politicians that words matter and that
26:00
S3: rhetoric often leads to real world violence. And you're seeing
26:03
S3: this trend around the world.
26:05
S8: Every one of us has a role to play protecting
26:07
S8: our social cohesion. Our words matter. Our decisions matter. Our
26:12
S8: actions matter. In an age of unprecedented or an age
26:16
S8: with unprecedented avenues for communication, I fear we're losing our
26:21
S8: ability to converse. Or at least.
26:23
S3: And just on the politics surrounding this threat. The Prime
26:26
S3: Minister in the days afterwards, and his own ministers repeated
26:30
S3: the comments that he's been making for years now to
26:32
S3: take the temperature down. He uses this in relation to
26:36
S3: the Greens and pro-Palestinian protesters who use the term globalize
26:40
S3: the intifada. He equally uses it when he talks about
26:43
S3: One nation and some of the rhetoric, particularly from the
26:46
S3: Dutton opposition. And it's an admirable attempt by the Prime
26:50
S3: Minister to say we need to maintain the centre ground.
26:52
S3: The radical fringes need to watch their language. But I
26:55
S3: do question his use of that term in this context,
26:58
S3: because this threat doesn't appear to have come from an
27:01
S3: Australian based actor or anyone channelling those views. But there
27:06
S3: is a really heightened sense in our politics at the
27:09
S3: moment that it is becoming more caustic. Even this week
27:13
S3: we're seeing mainstream politicians like, well, political figures like Josh
27:17
S3: Frydenberg and others at a conference in Sydney talk about
27:20
S3: a discriminatory migration program. Julian Hill, a labor left minister,
27:25
S3: this week talked about some of the problems with multiculturalism
27:28
S3: and quite a thoughtful critique, so that new conversation around
27:32
S3: race and migration is leading to some pretty sharp remarks,
27:35
S3: which is what is leading the Prime Minister and others
27:37
S3: to take threats like this much more seriously, and to
27:40
S3: react to them as if they could be real, because
27:43
S3: there is worry that they will become real.
27:45
S1: Um, fellas, sorry to end on that rather grim note,
27:48
S1: but thank you both very much for joining us. And
27:51
S1: Shane in particular, because as you know, you are a favourite, Paul,
27:54
S1: you're also a favorite, but just different. Different, okay.
27:57
S2: Don't pander to him. Don't pander to him. I'm the
28:00
S2: special guest star.
28:01
S1: Equally equally adored, but just in a different way, right?
28:04
S3: I'm not. I'm not insecure.
28:06
S1: No.
28:07
S3: I actually really am.
28:09
S1: All good journalists are insecure. Okay, see you guys.
28:12
S2: Cheers.
28:13
S3: Bye.
28:18
S1: You can read all of our political news on our
28:20
S1: websites theage.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Kai
28:27
S1: Wong with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is
28:30
S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
28:34
S1: and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, follow Inside Politics and
28:39
S1: leave us a review on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley.
28:43
S1: Thank you for listening.