Latest / Inside Politics / How Albanese could use his huge majority to introduce major reform

Transcript

How Albanese could use his huge majority to introduce major reform · Inside Politics

• 0:00
  S1: From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
• 0:03
  S1: This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Friday, June 13th.
• 0:09
  S1: This week, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, gave a big
• 0:11
  S1: speech at the National Press Club in Canberra and used
• 0:14
  S1: it to dangle the prospect of economic reform. During its
• 0:18
  S1: first term, the Albanese government was criticised for not being
• 0:21
  S1: bold enough in its agenda. So is the PM signalling
• 0:25
  S1: he will use his huge majority to institute major reform?
• 0:28
  S1: What would a daring economic reform agenda look like? And
• 0:31
  S1: are Australians even ready for it? Plus, we discuss the
• 0:35
  S1: hardening of the government's stance on Israel after it imposed
• 0:38
  S1: sanctions on two Israeli ministers. Here to discuss all this,
• 0:43
  S1: today we have our chief political correspondent, Paul Satchell, as
• 0:46
  S1: well as our special guest star, senior economics correspondent Shane Wright. Welcome, gentlemen.
• 0:52
  S2: I want to see special guest star in the paper
• 0:54
  S2: as my byline from now on. That's it. Thank you. Jackie.
• 0:57
  S1: Well, as we as we've previously discussed, you're the Heather
• 1:00
  S1: Locklear of this podcast, which people who ever watched Melrose
• 1:06
  S1: Place will understand. No one else does it.
• 1:08
  S2: Know what that makes Paul circle?
• 1:09
  S3: What's what's the reference there? In what way are they similar?
• 1:12
  S1: Heather Locklear used to be the special guest star that
• 1:15
  S1: was her billing on Melrose Place, which was a very
• 1:17
  S1: popular show in the 1990s. Paul.
• 1:20
  S3: I'm aware of the show. Um, less convinced by Shayne's specialness.
• 1:24
  S3: But let's get stuck into the questions.
• 1:27
  S1: Well, let's let's test it out. Let's let's test that theory. Um, Paul,
• 1:30
  S1: the Prime Minister gave a speech at the National Press
• 1:32
  S1: Club this week. It was his first major agenda setting
• 1:35
  S1: speech since his landslide victory in May. What did he say?
• 1:39
  S1: In summary.
• 1:40
  S3: It was his second Press Club speech. In the space
• 1:43
  S3: of only a couple of months. He did one during
• 1:44
  S3: the election campaign, maybe even less than a couple of months,
• 1:47
  S3: which is quite rare to do press club speeches in
• 1:49
  S3: such quick succession.
• 1:51
  S4: Well, thanks very much. It's great to be back at
• 1:53
  S4: the National Press Club.
• 1:55
  S3: I think he had a couple of big themes, Aims.
• 1:57
  S3: A big, kind of grander theme was this idea from
• 2:01
  S3: him that a stable majority Labour government that sticks to
• 2:05
  S3: its commitments, that governs with a level of maturity that
• 2:11
  S3: avoids populism, is an Australian antidote to what we're seeing
• 2:16
  S3: in other parts of the world, where there are more
• 2:19
  S3: frazzled kind of political environments. He's made a virtue of
• 2:22
  S3: respecting the free press of, yeah, this, this idea that
• 2:25
  S3: he is governing for all people. And he really kind of,
• 2:30
  S3: you know, got stuck into that argument, which we heard
• 2:32
  S3: a little bit of pre-campaign.
• 2:34
  S1: He's sort of making a virtue of the contrast between
• 2:36
  S1: him and a certain other administration that's currently firing rubber
• 2:40
  S1: bullets at journalists on the streets of Adelaide.
• 2:42
  S3: Exactly. And took a pretty striking step of making an
• 2:45
  S3: official complaint, diplomatic complaint to US officials about that channel
• 2:49
  S3: nine journalist who was hit with a rubber bullet, which was,
• 2:52
  S3: you know, not an action he needed to take. He
• 2:54
  S3: also called Lauren Tomassi the Tomasi, the journalist. He kind
• 2:56
  S3: of went above and beyond, which, as you say, is
• 2:59
  S3: a signal to the US administration that we're not that
• 3:01
  S3: pleased with what we're seeing. And that's quite a bold
• 3:04
  S3: thing to do, given the Prime Minister might be about
• 3:06
  S3: to meet the president next week at a G7 summit
• 3:09
  S3: on the sidelines, which has not actually been locked in
• 3:11
  S3: but is widely expected.
• 3:13
  S1: Yeah. Okay. So he also had an economic agenda. He
• 3:16
  S1: sort of turned to the economic agenda, obviously during the
• 3:19
  S1: Prime Minister's first term in government. There was a lot
• 3:22
  S1: of criticism that their agenda wasn't bold enough, particularly on
• 3:25
  S1: the economic front. Did we hear something different about Albo 2.0, Shane.
• 3:31
  S2: We did like Albo one or the original elbow. The
• 3:34
  S2: government's focus was on inflation and making sure unemployment didn't
• 3:38
  S2: go through the roof as the war on inflation continued.
• 3:42
  S2: And in that case, Albanese did effectively say mission accomplished.
• 3:47
  S2: With inflation at 2.4, the unemployment rate is at 4.1.
• 3:52
  S2: About a million people have got jobs the last three years.
• 3:55
  S2: So on that front. Yep. But you know, us economic nerds,
• 3:59
  S2: we want more. We are the Oliver twists of politics
• 4:02
  S2: saying we want more in terms, particularly around productivity.
• 4:06
  S4: We want to build an economy where growth, wages and
• 4:09
  S4: productivity all rise together.
• 4:12
  S2: And this is where he got into his surprising announcement
• 4:17
  S2: that he has told Jim Chalmers hold a summit. We
• 4:22
  S2: love summits, roundtables, whatever, whatever term you want to use
• 4:27
  S2: to talk about productivity. In August.
• 4:29
  S3: They called it a roundtable. We called it a summit
• 4:31
  S3: because it sounded more important, I think.
• 4:33
  S2: Yeah, I don't know where it ranks. I think this
• 4:36
  S2: is part of the reason for Australia's productivity malaise is
• 4:38
  S2: the fact that we're debating the nomenclature.
• 4:42
  S1: We should have. We should have a whole podcast on
• 4:44
  S1: summits versus roundtables. And what's the difference between the two?
• 4:48
  S1: We hear a lot about productivity, Shane, because economists and
• 4:52
  S1: people like yourself love to talk about it. It sends
• 4:55
  S1: most of the rest of the population to sleep. But
• 4:58
  S1: you guys seem to think it's really important. And we
• 5:00
  S1: hear a lot about how productivity growth is low in
• 5:02
  S1: this country. What does productivity mean as an economic term,
• 5:05
  S1: and why do we care if productivity growth is low?
• 5:08
  S2: Easy definition inputs versus outputs. So we'll use Paul Satchell
• 5:13
  S2: as an example. Okay. What it does not mean is
• 5:18
  S2: Paul Satchell working longer and longer hours and producing more stories.
• 5:23
  S2: It is Paul Circle, same like he he does work long.
• 5:27
  S2: So let's say he works a ten hour day producing
• 5:31
  S2: more output or even better output within his ten hour day.
• 5:36
  S2: And it's how he does it. This is why we
• 5:38
  S2: talk about productivity. So our world is built on productivity.
• 5:45
  S1: So so why does Australia have low productivity growth in
• 5:47
  S1: comparison to other countries?
• 5:49
  S2: We don't in comparison to other countries bar one country.
• 5:52
  S2: And this this has been one of the great. It's
• 5:55
  S2: one of the great economic conundrums of the last 20
• 5:58
  S2: years is that productivity has been slowing across the world.
• 6:03
  S2: And in the last 3 or 4 years, there's been
• 6:05
  S2: a real big lift in the United States. Part of
• 6:07
  S2: that is due to measurement. They don't measure productivity quite
• 6:10
  S2: the way everybody else does. But something has gone on
• 6:14
  S2: in the United States. A lot of people think it's
• 6:16
  S2: due to artificial intelligence. Part of it is the fact
• 6:18
  S2: that all these people have dropped out of the jobs
• 6:21
  S2: market in low productivity areas.
• 6:24
  S3: It's such a shame that productivity, the word puts people
• 6:27
  S3: to sleep because in the long run, and this is
• 6:29
  S3: just a truism of economics, incomes and prosperity does not
• 6:34
  S3: grow over time unless you do things more efficiently. So
• 6:36
  S3: it is fundamentally the most important thing.
• 6:38
  S2: He wants to change the economic language.
• 6:40
  S3: Well, I think the economist should get in a room
• 6:41
  S3: with some ad guys and come up with a better
• 6:44
  S3: way of.
• 6:44
  S1: Explaining why we need a jazzier term.
• 6:46
  S2: Jazz hands for.
• 6:47
  S1: Productivity like that.
• 6:48
  S3: Because it affects how our politicians.
• 6:49
  S1: We flagged that for another podcast. So anyway, we've got
• 6:52
  S1: this problem with productivity growth, which turns out is a
• 6:54
  S1: bit of a global problem. If we want to improve
• 6:56
  S1: living standards and improve our lives, then we need to
• 6:59
  S1: look at it. The Prime Minister has pledged a dreaded
• 7:02
  S1: roundtable or an economic summit. I mean, what is the
• 7:06
  S1: point of these summits? Paul, doesn't Treasury already have modelling
• 7:10
  S1: and the Productivity Commission, for that matter, on every single
• 7:12
  S1: possible economic reform or tax change that we could possibly
• 7:17
  S1: want to make? These things often feel quite performative and
• 7:20
  S1: a little bit unnecessary. Am I being too cynical?
• 7:22
  S3: No, there has, but you're right. There has been a
• 7:24
  S3: litany of reviews and examinations from different departments and the
• 7:27
  S3: Productivity Commission over the years. So a lot of the
• 7:29
  S3: ideas are known. And this was the other big takeout
• 7:32
  S3: from the speech. The speech notes were dropped out on
• 7:35
  S3: the Monday from the Prime Minister's office, and there was
• 7:37
  S3: just a small segment of the speech, and that really
• 7:39
  S3: focused on how the government would be super focused on
• 7:42
  S3: delivering its commitments. And it was not really contemplating going further.
• 7:47
  S3: It was going to be a government that was orderly
• 7:49
  S3: and wasn't going to shift beyond the guardrails that had
• 7:51
  S3: set for itself. But then in the speech, Albanese gave
• 7:54
  S3: at least an implicit acknowledgment that more can be done
• 7:56
  S3: on the economy, that the election commitments are important and,
• 8:00
  S3: in his view, bold. But more can be done to
• 8:02
  S3: grow the place. And there might be a greater emphasis
• 8:05
  S3: in this government on growth because there is now space
• 8:08
  S3: to focus on growth, given the inflation crisis has been
• 8:11
  S3: put to bed or hopefully put to bed.
• 8:14
  S4: This work is already underway, including our National Productivity Fund
• 8:18
  S4: incentivizing state and territory governments to drive efficiencies in construction.
• 8:24
  S3: And so, yes, there are a bunch of ideas out there.
• 8:27
  S3: A lot of those ideas, particularly those raised by dryer
• 8:31
  S3: economists and our friends in some of the more dryer,
• 8:34
  S3: conservative parts of the media are heavily focused on lowering
• 8:39
  S3: taxes and making the IR system more flexible, which is
• 8:43
  S3: another way of saying giving workers relatively fewer rights. They
• 8:48
  S3: are not easy to prosecute on the left side of politics.
• 8:51
  S1: Well, and also the the prime minister specifically kind of
• 8:53
  S1: ruled that out. I mean, he said that workers getting
• 8:55
  S1: a fair crack, in his words, is not something that
• 8:57
  S1: we will abandon.
• 8:58
  S4: I'm a Labor prime minister and I support penalty rates.
• 9:02
  S4: I'm a Labor prime minister and I support real wages increasing.
• 9:06
  S1: So they obviously made some air reforms in their first
• 9:09
  S1: term that businesses didn't like, that they didn't really talk
• 9:12
  S1: about at all to the general public before the election,
• 9:15
  S1: but they nonetheless rushed through. I'm interested in your take
• 9:19
  S1: because the treasurer separately, but perhaps relatedly, the government is
• 9:23
  S1: also trying to push through these reforms on superannuation balances
• 9:27
  S1: above $3 million, which will affect very few people. But
• 9:30
  S1: there has been like a substantial pushback to these reforms
• 9:33
  S1: and various arguments against them. So Treasurer Jim Chalmers said
• 9:37
  S1: this week that the fact that there's been so much
• 9:40
  S1: opposition to the super tax changes doesn't augur well for bigger,
• 9:43
  S1: broader tax reform. And he said that while many people
• 9:47
  S1: sort of will say that they favor tax reform in
• 9:49
  S1: the general principle when it comes to the specific, they're
• 9:52
  S1: against it. So what do you think of that? And
• 9:55
  S1: I mean, what's the point of having a big economic
• 9:57
  S1: summit if everyone's going to be like, nope, don't like
• 9:59
  S1: that idiot. Nope, don't like that idea.
• 10:01
  S2: And he was exactly right, because history is well and
• 10:06
  S2: truly on his side. The Productivity Commission in 2017 put
• 10:10
  S2: out a really important report called Shifting the Dial, about
• 10:14
  S2: 140 150 ideas on how you could make the economy
• 10:18
  S2: more productive. One of them was introducing a carbon tax. Now,
• 10:23
  S2: we all know how that flies in this country, where
• 10:26
  S2: you have some very powerful vested interests. And one side
• 10:29
  S2: of politics went, oh my God, world is ending now
• 10:33
  S2: in the world of economics, putting a price on carbon absolute.
• 10:38
  S2: That's what you should be doing. But we have chosen
• 10:40
  S2: to take a more expensive, less efficient, less productive manner
• 10:44
  S2: in which to deal with climate change and reducing our emissions.
• 10:47
  S2: So when he talks about big reforms, Chalmers was there
• 10:52
  S2: next to Wayne Swan when the Henry tax reform paper
• 10:55
  S2: came out. And it says, right, let's put a special
• 10:58
  S2: tax in terms of resources. And we had billionaires on
• 11:03
  S2: the back of trucks saying, look, the people are coming
• 11:06
  S2: for you. In terms of the superannuation change. Some of
• 11:10
  S2: the some of the complaints about it are absolutely unhinged.
• 11:15
  S2: And we are talking we are talking about 80,000 people
• 11:18
  S2: who have more than $3 million in their super. And
• 11:22
  S2: you can have an argument about what this all means,
• 11:25
  S2: like in terms should it should have been explained better.
• 11:29
  S2: Is there an argument about taxing unrealized gains, which is
• 11:32
  S2: an aspect of this, although some of the opponents saying,
• 11:36
  S2: oh my God, they're coming for your unrealized gains, and
• 11:38
  S2: I say, well, you are already taxed.
• 11:40
  S1: They're already do.
• 11:41
  S2: Land tax and rates. That's unrealized gains that is being
• 11:44
  S2: taxed right now. But so his argument.
• 11:46
  S1: To tell.
• 11:47
  S2: Me this is a guy who has lived through what
• 11:50
  S2: happens when you come up with this. People talk about
• 11:52
  S2: the 1980s. There was some apparently, if you believe, some
• 11:56
  S2: economic historic revisionism, it was a kumbaya, bipartisan approach with
• 12:02
  S2: John Howard and Paul Keating sitting around a fire strumming
• 12:05
  S2: a guitar, saying, oh, I love your tax reform bollocks. Sorry.
• 12:09
  S2: Capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax were opposed by
• 12:13
  S2: the Liberal Party all through the 80s. And those two
• 12:17
  S2: taxes helped pay for Paul Keating's deep cuts in personal
• 12:20
  S2: income taxes, which was all that area. So every time
• 12:25
  S2: we get into something substantial, there are always vested interests
• 12:29
  S2: or people who have a different view.
• 12:31
  S1: It's always contentious, it's always difficult. And I suppose that's
• 12:33
  S1: what we're asking, and that's what we will have to
• 12:36
  S1: see whether or not the Albanese government is really up
• 12:38
  S1: for a fight because Paul Keating was, you know, John
• 12:41
  S1: Howard and Peter Costello were. So I guess we'll find out.
• 12:44
  S3: One very quick point to to counter that, Shane, there'll
• 12:47
  S3: be very few economists who you could find who have
• 12:49
  S3: been quoted, who say that Chalmers unrealized gains proposal is
• 12:52
  S3: real tax reform. They would say it's a it's a
• 12:55
  S3: real problem he's trying to fix on the concessions of
• 12:57
  S3: the super system. But I haven't heard anyone come out
• 13:00
  S3: and say it's a great way of doing it.
• 13:02
  S2: But I will push back again because this is the
• 13:04
  S2: argument between economists and financial planners. They are very distinctive differences.
• 13:11
  S2: And we've had economists who have looked at this who
• 13:13
  S2: don't understand how tax operates within superannuation. It is a
• 13:19
  S2: absolutely complex manner. And this is so but you're but
• 13:24
  S2: Paul's broader point, and I don't want to belittle because
• 13:26
  S2: he's got equal billing with me in this movie with
• 13:29
  S2: you today.
• 13:29
  S3: You're the special.
• 13:30
  S2: He's, he's he is so special is that.
• 13:33
  S1: I mean, I don't I don't want us to have
• 13:35
  S1: like a horrible argument, like a sort of bitter argument
• 13:38
  S1: about tax reform on this podcast. But but but um.
• 13:42
  S2: I but no.
• 13:44
  S3: But I'll take it offline.
• 13:45
  S2: Yeah, we'll take it offline. But no, this this goes
• 13:47
  S2: to that broader point that whenever you get into like
• 13:52
  S2: the super is interesting because we, the government has chosen
• 13:56
  S2: to take on the 80,000 wealthiest people in the country. Mhm.
• 14:01
  S2: When we took.
• 14:02
  S1: Their poor little easy targets.
• 14:03
  S2: As opposed to like when we're talking about more broader
• 14:06
  S2: productivity enhancements that there will be like and people keep
• 14:10
  S2: talking about what happens to AI. Will that be wiping
• 14:13
  S2: out jobs at the bottom end where you you'll have
• 14:16
  S2: the the 80,000 at the top whose jobs are very secure, saying, yes,
• 14:21
  S2: we should be doing this reform. And there are millions
• 14:24
  S2: down at the bottom saying, hold on, that's my job.
• 14:26
  S2: There is always going to be tension when you're going
• 14:28
  S2: to say, how are we going to be more efficient?
• 14:30
  S2: How is the economy going to improve? How are living
• 14:33
  S2: standards going to improve? Because Everyone from you. Me, like
• 14:37
  S2: none of us have the 3 million super. But we
• 14:39
  S2: all have a vested interest.
• 14:41
  S1: And almost by definition, the lower skilled jobs are going
• 14:44
  S1: to be the ones that are the most vulnerable.
• 14:46
  S5: That's right.
• 14:51
  S1: Paul, I just want to segue quickly to Foreign Affairs,
• 14:53
  S1: because this week, the Australian government did impose sanctions on
• 14:56
  S1: two senior Israeli ministers for their roles in human rights
• 14:59
  S1: abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank, not in Gaza.
• 15:03
  S1: It's quite a significant escalation in the Australian government's stance
• 15:07
  S1: on Israel Palestine. What does this signal, why is this
• 15:10
  S1: happening now? Why are they doing it now?
• 15:13
  S3: It is a big step and it places Australia right
• 15:15
  S3: at the centre of a pretty significant Western diplomatic move
• 15:19
  S3: that pits Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway and the UK.
• 15:24
  S3: Obviously Norway is not in the Five Eyes, but it's
• 15:26
  S3: all four of the Five Eyes security partners other than
• 15:28
  S3: the US pits them against the Trump administration, who has
• 15:31
  S3: come out and criticized this move. It's a bold step
• 15:34
  S3: to sanction members of the actual War Cabinet. This is
• 15:38
  S3: not sanctioning, you know, criminals in the country as Magnitsky
• 15:42
  S3: sanctions have previously been used for, for example, for Russians
• 15:46
  S3: who are involved in the war. War, who are Putin's oligarchs.
• 15:49
  S3: This is actual cabinet ministers. So it's a very significant step.
• 15:53
  S3: The criticism from the coalition and some of the Jewish
• 15:56
  S3: Israeli groups in Australia is that these Magnitsky laws should
• 15:59
  S3: only be used for, as I said, kind of criminals
• 16:01
  S3: who are linked to non democratically elected governments. The labor
• 16:05
  S3: government's argument is that these ministers are extremists. They not
• 16:09
  S3: only advocate for violence, but they actually use their power
• 16:12
  S3: in the government to help create violence, for example.
• 16:16
  S1: Inside.
• 16:17
  S3: The inside it and create it through the funding, through
• 16:19
  S3: the provision of arms to violent settlers in the West
• 16:22
  S3: Bank and and crime in in the West Bank against
• 16:26
  S3: Palestinians has been growing. But even though the legal basis
• 16:30
  S3: for these moves was about Israeli settler violence. This is
• 16:33
  S3: kind of inextricably linked. And Penny Wong is open about
• 16:36
  S3: this with what's going on in Gaza. The Australian government
• 16:39
  S3: is fed up and believes that the Israelis are no
• 16:41
  S3: longer listening, and that a step like this was necessary.
• 16:44
  S1: Okay, so they just they've reached a tipping point with
• 16:46
  S1: with the whole issue, and they want to push back
• 16:48
  S1: harder than they previously have.
• 16:50
  S3: And I would also just add, yes, I think that's right.
• 16:53
  S3: But also the political environment in Australia is pretty radically
• 16:56
  S3: changed because they've had a commanding election win. The debate
• 16:59
  S3: around anti-Semitism locally has subsided, even though it's still a
• 17:02
  S3: real problem. And Peter Dutton, who was extremely vocal and
• 17:06
  S3: focused on this issue, is no longer in Parliament.
• 17:10
  S1: Sure. And yet we continue to see these sort of
• 17:12
  S1: horrific images, particularly from Gaza, as you say, on our
• 17:15
  S1: TVs every night.
• 17:16
  S3: Yeah. They're shocking.
• 17:17
  S1: We heard later in the week that the Trump administration
• 17:21
  S1: will be reviewing Aukus Scott Morrison's great achievement, part of
• 17:26
  S1: which was the justification for his Order of Australia. Does
• 17:31
  S1: that put the orcas multibillion dollar deal in doubt, or
• 17:34
  S1: is this just sort of something that the Trump administration
• 17:37
  S1: will tick off on?
• 17:38
  S3: Well, the orcas critics who will never miss an opportunity
• 17:42
  S3: to stick their head up and talk about how much
• 17:44
  S3: they hate orcas such as Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Carr,
• 17:47
  S3: and I'm sure more will come out as the day
• 17:48
  S3: rolls on. A quick.
• 17:50
  S1: Orcas, haters.
• 17:51
  S3: Orcas, haters, haters gonna hate orcas. They would have you
• 17:55
  S3: believe that this is the kind of death knell of orcas,
• 17:58
  S3: that this review was an inevitability because the deal was
• 18:02
  S3: bad from the get go and doesn't work for Australia,
• 18:04
  S3: doesn't work for the US. They don't they don't have
• 18:07
  S3: the shipbuilding capacity and that this will lead to, you know,
• 18:11
  S3: a death spiral for the project. But there have been
• 18:13
  S3: other experts quoted today and speaking to political and defence
• 18:16
  S3: sources today, there's also a lot of caution on that side.
• 18:20
  S3: And in the government there is a view that this
• 18:22
  S3: is a review to to put pressure on Australia to
• 18:27
  S3: speed things up, to show more vociferous public support for
• 18:31
  S3: the US's role in Asia and for the role that
• 18:33
  S3: Aukus will play in combating China. There is a view
• 18:36
  S3: among US officials that Australia is kind of hush hush
• 18:39
  S3: about the true intentions of Aukus, and that is something
• 18:42
  S3: that displeases Elbridge Colby, who's the US defence undersecretary, who's
• 18:47
  S3: leading this and who has been an aukus sceptic in
• 18:49
  S3: the past, although he's become a bit more positive of late,
• 18:52
  S3: and that this is effectively leverage and Aukus will continue.
• 18:55
  S1: Is there going to be a little bit of like,
• 18:57
  S1: I don't know, I don't want to call it blackmail
• 18:59
  S1: because that's too strong, but a little bit of subtle
• 19:02
  S1: pressure saying, you know, they obviously want us to increase
• 19:05
  S1: our defence spending. They want everybody to increase their defence spending.
• 19:09
  S1: Will there be some sort of quid pro quo there
• 19:11
  S1: like we'll continue with Aukus, we'll honour Aukus, but you
• 19:13
  S1: need to increase your defence spending as a as a
• 19:17
  S1: percentage of GDP.
• 19:18
  S2: I think you're right. Using the term blackmail. Have a
• 19:21
  S2: look at, have a look at what Trump has done with.
• 19:23
  S1: I mean that's how Trump rolls. Let's not let's not.
• 19:25
  S2: No no no I don't want to give gave. Like
• 19:28
  S2: the Pew Research Center, that report that came out this
• 19:31
  S2: week showing Australians are just behind Sweden in thinking that
• 19:35
  S2: Donald Trump is dumb, dangerous and dishonest. The number of
• 19:38
  S2: Australians who think he is dishonest is in the 80% mark.
• 19:43
  S2: Like but to the blackmail argument. Look at how he
• 19:48
  S2: has dealt with from Greenland to Ukraine to, uh, broader Europe.
• 19:56
  S2: It's sorry. It is blackmail we are seeing being played out.
• 20:00
  S2: And in terms of the language around Trump, I think
• 20:02
  S2: what we are seeing playing out is historically astonishing. And
• 20:08
  S2: I think to to say, oh no, we can't go
• 20:11
  S2: that far. No. Let's go. Let's go hard.
• 20:14
  S1: Let's go hard. You're absolutely right. And in fact, we
• 20:16
  S1: saw it even in his dealings with Elon Musk this
• 20:18
  S1: week as Jonathan Swan, former Sydney Morning Herald journalist, now
• 20:22
  S1: New York Times journalist, said, you know, his his threat to,
• 20:25
  S1: to Elon Musk was like very sort of what did
• 20:28
  S1: he say? It was like nice companies. He got there
• 20:31
  S1: be shame if something happened to them.
• 20:33
  S2: Exactly.
• 20:34
  S1: It's very standover tactics. It's very mafioso.
• 20:37
  S3: The push for Australia and other allies to increase defence
• 20:39
  S3: spending did predate the Trump administration, like the Biden administration
• 20:42
  S3: was also trying to get the other nations defences up
• 20:46
  S3: to reduce reliance on the US. I'm not going to
• 20:48
  S3: defend the way Trump does diplomacy, but I think the
• 20:51
  S3: Americans have some right to tell their allies, hey, we
• 20:54
  S3: spend a truckload around the country helping you defend yourselves.
• 20:57
  S3: You can do a bit more yourself.
• 20:58
  S1: Yeah. And it's also their argument with with NATO. And
• 21:01
  S1: there is a there is a very strong argument with NATO,
• 21:03
  S1: as you say. It's just that the tactics and the pressure. Gentlemen,
• 21:07
  S1: fascinating as ever. Thanks for bringing the fun into productivity.
• 21:12
  S2: Well, this is why I'm a special guest.
• 21:14
  S1: Star, because.
• 21:14
  S2: I can do that. Let's let's be honest about productivity.
• 21:18
  S1: You are. We'll have you back on very soon. Paul,
• 21:22
  S1: we won't be seeing you next week because you're going
• 21:24
  S1: on holiday, which is selfish, but we'll see you.
• 21:26
  S3: I might be reading your book, Jackie, because I bought
• 21:27
  S3: it the other day and it was signed by the author,
• 21:29
  S3: and the woman at reading said, oh, is she your colleague?
• 21:32
  S3: I wish you'd write more. It was a brilliant book.
• 21:34
  S1: There you go. Oh, that that that's really nice.
• 21:35
  S2: That's a call for Jackie to be more productive.
• 21:39
  S1: Yeah, I'll get to it. Today's episode was produced by
• 21:46
  S1: Julia Carr Katzel, with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our
• 21:50
  S1: executive producer is Tami Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our
• 21:53
  S1: head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon
• 21:56
  S1: as they drop, follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or
• 22:00
  S1: anywhere else you listen to your podcasts. To stay up
• 22:03
  S1: to date with all the political news and exclusives, visit
• 22:05
  S1: The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald websites to support
• 22:08
  S1: our journalism. Subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au.
• 22:16
  S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you for listening.