Latest / Inside Politics / Best of 2025: Albanese meets with Trump next week. Anything could happen

Transcript

Best of 2025: Albanese meets with Trump next week. Anything could happen · Inside Politics

• 0:00
  S1: Hi, it's Jacqueline Maley here. Inside politics is on a
• 0:04
  S1: break over summer, and our dear chief political correspondent, Paul
• 0:07
  S1: Circle is probably off on a yoga retreat somewhere in Bali.
• 0:10
  S1: But we do return at the end of January for
• 0:12
  S1: another fun filled year of inside politics. In the meantime,
• 0:16
  S1: we're bringing you some old episodes from 2025, and we
• 0:19
  S1: cannot ignore the impact that Donald Trump had on domestic
• 0:22
  S1: politics last year. So for this episode, we return to
• 0:25
  S1: a point in time when most of the press pack
• 0:28
  S1: was obsessed with whether Anthony Albanese would meet with the
• 0:31
  S1: US president. It finally happened, and we recorded this episode
• 0:35
  S1: about a week before the meeting would take place. Paul
• 0:38
  S1: is joined by our special guest star and economics correspondent,
• 0:41
  S1: Shane Reisch, to forecast the details of the meeting before
• 0:44
  S1: they argue about Treasurer Jim Chalmers abandonment of superannuation reforms.
• 0:52
  S2: I'm still waiting for the music to come in for
• 0:54
  S2: my special guest appearance. I know.
• 0:56
  S1: I know, I've got it. I keep forgetting to push
• 0:58
  S1: the button. I do want to do a shout out
• 1:00
  S1: to Shane Wright's t shirt, which, if you're listening and
• 1:03
  S1: not watching, it's a Kate Bush tribute, which is which
• 1:07
  S1: would fetch a lot of good money in a vintage store.
• 1:10
  S1: No offence.
• 1:11
  S2: Well, she's she's no vintage star. She's she's live and
• 1:16
  S2: pumping it all out.
• 1:17
  S1: She is, she is.
• 1:18
  S3: I didn't realise my my comments to you in private.
• 1:21
  S3: Jack will make it into your intro. So I've got
• 1:23
  S3: to be a bit careful now going forward.
• 1:26
  S1: Oh, right. The pulling pants down thing. Should we. We can,
• 1:29
  S1: we can.
• 1:29
  S3: No, no, I'm just joking. That's fine. I stand.
• 1:32
  S1: By it. I thought it was very colorful phrasing. And
• 1:34
  S1: we'll get into what it really means later. Um, Paul,
• 1:37
  S1: when does the Prime Minister leave for Washington?
• 1:40
  S3: He leaves on Sunday, I believe, in the afternoon. And
• 1:43
  S3: it's a quick trip because he just spent, I think,
• 1:46
  S3: nearly ten days in New York longer. Yeah. Well, it
• 1:50
  S3: was about 3 or 4 days in London, maybe ten
• 1:52
  S3: days in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, uh,
• 1:55
  S3: which was about a fortnight ago. So he's all, uh,
• 2:00
  S3: jet lagged out and keen to do some domestic politics
• 2:03
  S3: ahead of even more summits at the end of this
• 2:06
  S3: month at Asean and APEC. So it's a quick trip.
• 2:09
  S3: He'll be in Washington for two working days. I believe
• 2:13
  S3: he meets with Trump on Tuesday at 2 a.m. Australian time.
• 2:17
  S3: So you've got to be pretty hardcore to stay up
• 2:20
  S3: that late or wake up at that time or feel
• 2:22
  S3: like a, you know, a Socceroos World Cup game when
• 2:24
  S3: just the diehards on Twitter are live tweeting through it? Yeah,
• 2:28
  S3: and it could be.
• 2:28
  S2: It could be an interesting scoreline though out of this one. Yeah.
• 2:30
  S2: You never do.
• 2:31
  S3: You reckon which which which way will this be a
• 2:33
  S3: Fabio Grosso Italy versus Socceroos style national tragedy moment or
• 2:36
  S3: a or a conquest?
• 2:39
  S2: This is one of the great questions and as as
• 2:41
  S2: I'm not going to express an opinion on the Socceroos
• 2:44
  S2: as I am not an expert in that field. But, uh, yes,
• 2:48
  S2: it could. This could go any way.
• 2:50
  S1: It could. I mean, and Paul Paul's got views on
• 2:52
  S1: that too, I know. Um, the PM of course, copped
• 2:54
  S1: a lot of criticism from the media about the fact
• 2:57
  S1: that he hadn't gotten a meeting with the with Trump
• 2:59
  S1: since his inauguration in January, and that it was all
• 3:02
  S1: too late. But now he's got the meeting. What form
• 3:04
  S1: will the meeting take? Do we know?
• 3:06
  S3: It's not a formal state visit. There'll be no big
• 3:09
  S3: state dinner. And it will not be full of that
• 3:11
  S3: kind of pomp. It's. It's been called a working visit,
• 3:14
  S3: which will take the form of, you know, elbow walking
• 3:17
  S3: into the Oval Office, do a quick handshake photograph and
• 3:21
  S3: then a longer sit down meeting in the in the
• 3:24
  S3: Oval Office. There may be a huge pack of journalists
• 3:27
  S3: in there asking all kinds of questions, and it may
• 3:30
  S3: be a more rambunctious affair.
• 3:32
  S1: Yeah, but the actual meeting itself obviously takes place in private.
• 3:35
  S1: And then they ask the journalists in. Yeah. So and
• 3:37
  S1: that could be a freewheeling press conference. That's sort of
• 3:40
  S1: where the fireworks happen, right, with, with a Trump press conference.
• 3:42
  S1: Because you never know what he's going to say. There's always,
• 3:45
  S1: I think, a little bit of tension, dramatic or otherwise,
• 3:48
  S1: on the part of the foreign leader who's visiting. And then,
• 3:50
  S1: of course, you've got the white House press corps, which
• 3:52
  S1: are by no means a conventional press corps Prescott anymore.
• 3:55
  S1: So what does he want to accomplish in this meeting?
• 3:57
  S1: What does he need to accomplish in this meeting? He's
• 3:59
  S1: got to really make make it work for him, right?
• 4:01
  S3: Yeah. There's a lot of pressure going into it, although
• 4:03
  S3: I feel I mean, it's only a few days away
• 4:05
  S3: now and there's not a huge amount of media speculation
• 4:09
  S3: about it. I'm surprised at how long it's taken for
• 4:12
  S3: attention to turn to it, and I wonder if that's
• 4:14
  S3: because there's a bit of fatigue on on previewing this
• 4:17
  S3: potential meeting, because it was meant to occur at Canada,
• 4:20
  S3: at the G7 in whenever that was June, and then
• 4:23
  S3: it was meant to happen again at the United Nations
• 4:25
  S3: General Assembly. And so I wonder if people are just
• 4:27
  S3: a bit sick of forecasting what will occur.
• 4:29
  S1: Tell us quickly what he needs to do there, because
• 4:31
  S1: he wrote about that this week.
• 4:33
  S3: Well, Critical Minerals is turning into I interviewed Richard Marles,
• 4:36
  S3: the defence and defence minister and deputy prime minister, last week,
• 4:39
  S3: and I said, how big a deal is this becoming
• 4:41
  S3: geopolitically for Australia as it crystallizes in the minds of
• 4:45
  S3: many Western leaders, but in particular Trump and his key allies,
• 4:48
  S3: that this is a core part of the contest with China.
• 4:51
  S3: So to explain to listeners, critical minerals are a whole
• 4:53
  S3: bunch of elements in the periodic table that are becoming
• 4:57
  S3: much more in demand because they're used in modern defense
• 4:59
  S3: technologies and really core to the green revolution for solar
• 5:03
  S3: panels and magnets and also semiconductors and many different new
• 5:07
  S3: modern age products. China has cornered this market for about
• 5:10
  S3: 20 or 30 years, so they mine about 75% and
• 5:13
  S3: they produce about 90%. Yeah, they're not actually that rare.
• 5:17
  S3: There are many big deposits in the world, but they're
• 5:19
  S3: very expensive to mine. But Australia has a tremendous amount.
• 5:22
  S3: We effectively have the whole periodic table, but we've not
• 5:25
  S3: invested enough in it over time to actually bring them
• 5:27
  S3: out of the ground. The US now acknowledges that Australia
• 5:30
  S3: is arguably the most important place it can start supplying
• 5:34
  S3: critical minerals from. And so there's a huge push being
• 5:37
  S3: led by Kevin Rudd in Washington, who's been doing this
• 5:39
  S3: for the best part of two years to get US
• 5:42
  S3: and European investment to dig it out of Australia and
• 5:44
  S3: create a non-china supply chain. And Richard Marles argument was that,
• 5:49
  S3: you know, this is not some second tier interest of Trump.
• 5:52
  S3: This is a core interest of the Trump administration, brought
• 5:55
  S3: to light last week when China started again restricting these
• 5:59
  S3: exports to the US, which has sparked another bout in
• 6:02
  S3: the trade war between China and the US.
• 6:04
  S1: And Shane, our interests, our economic interests really align with
• 6:07
  S1: the US on this. I mean, we also need these
• 6:09
  S1: critical minerals and we are also reliant on China. If
• 6:13
  S1: China's got more or less a monopoly on at least
• 6:15
  S1: producing them because they're very dirty to produce and expensive,
• 6:17
  S1: as Paul said.
• 6:19
  S2: Yeah. Um, I don't know if the economic interests are
• 6:21
  S2: aligned specifically with, uh, the US as also China. Remember,
• 6:25
  S2: China is still the big cash cow for this country
• 6:28
  S2: with iron ore. So the context is someone there are
• 6:33
  S2: two big competing forces for these these minerals. We can't
• 6:38
  S2: refine them and use them because we're too small a country.
• 6:41
  S2: We're too far away from the main sources, like some
• 6:44
  S2: of the stuff that ends up in semiconductors, which are
• 6:46
  S2: vital to the AI revolution. Like we are not going
• 6:50
  S2: to replicate Taiwan and become a great producer of semiconductors.
• 6:55
  S2: So ultimately we actually have a really strong position economically
• 7:01
  S2: with both powers because China, yes, China does have 75%,
• 7:07
  S2: but they don't have all of them. They're not as
• 7:09
  S2: easy to mine in parts of China as they are
• 7:12
  S2: in Australia. Like you get out into parts of Western Australia. Yep.
• 7:15
  S2: Pick it up, dig it out. Off you go. A
• 7:17
  S2: lot easier. So I find it really interesting that like
• 7:20
  S2: at that economic power play that's going on between China
• 7:25
  S2: and the US and how Central Australia is to both
• 7:28
  S2: of those nations.
• 7:29
  S1: So we're almost like a sort of we're a pivot
• 7:31
  S1: point or we've got leverage on both sides.
• 7:33
  S4: Yeah, yeah.
• 7:35
  S1: Paul I want to ask you about tariffs as well,
• 7:36
  S1: because that's another thing that Albanese will be perhaps delicately
• 7:39
  S1: raising in this meeting. What does he want to achieve
• 7:42
  S1: on tariffs.
• 7:43
  S3: Well we're subject to the lowest baseline tariff of 10%.
• 7:47
  S3: No country has had that has been exempted from that.
• 7:51
  S1: And across the board tariff.
• 7:53
  S3: Across the board tariff, which in a relative sense, given
• 7:56
  S3: much of the world is at a higher baseline rate,
• 7:58
  S3: we are put at a competitive advantage because of that.
• 8:01
  S3: And the Productivity Commission has actually said that we might
• 8:04
  S3: benefit in the long run if other countries escalate and
• 8:07
  S3: do reciprocal tariffs. That hasn't quite happened yet to the
• 8:10
  S3: extent that we thought, but we're still yet to see
• 8:11
  S3: the consequences of what happens with China and the US,
• 8:14
  S3: which has been delayed, the consequences of that tariff war,
• 8:17
  S3: in part because the US backed away from Chinese tariffs,
• 8:20
  S3: because when China responded by blocking critical minerals, Ford and
• 8:25
  S3: other car manufacturers said, hey, can we not tariff them
• 8:27
  S3: because we actually need these things to build cars and
• 8:29
  S3: our economy will stop. So these things are all intertwined.
• 8:32
  S3: Don Farrell, every time he speaks, the trade minister says,
• 8:35
  S3: you know, we still want to get rid of that 10%
• 8:37
  S3: and we still want to get rid of that steel
• 8:39
  S3: and aluminium tariff. I think there's there's more that's more
• 8:42
  S3: of a talking point now than anything. I don't think
• 8:45
  S3: the government.
• 8:45
  S1: Does that mean that Albanese just won't raise tariffs. Or
• 8:48
  S1: will he sort of say, oh mate, you know, what
• 8:50
  S1: do you want to think about that 10% and then
• 8:51
  S1: just drop it.
• 8:52
  S3: I think he'll raise it because it has to be
• 8:54
  S3: part of the readout, the readout being what they tell
• 8:57
  S3: the Australian public he raised. We can't be seen to
• 9:00
  S3: have given up on it, but I don't think there's
• 9:02
  S3: any likelihood of dropping the 10%. There is a prospect,
• 9:05
  S3: if there in some broader critical minerals deal, which the
• 9:07
  S3: government is very quiet about, given the sensitivity that there's
• 9:11
  S3: a potential that we get some sort of carve out
• 9:14
  S3: in the steel and aluminium space, and maybe a deal
• 9:17
  S3: for to ensure that CSL, the drug manufacturer, doesn't get
• 9:20
  S3: caught up in the pharmaceutical tariffs. Keir Starmer got some
• 9:23
  S3: adjustments to auto tariffs and steel I believe, when he
• 9:26
  S3: did a deal with Trump.
• 9:28
  S2: But he got an adjustment. They're still paying tariffs and
• 9:31
  S2: the US budget and every like Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary,
• 9:35
  S2: keeps reminding him you actually need the tariff revenue because
• 9:40
  S2: of the huge deficit that the because.
• 9:42
  S3: He keeps.
• 9:42
  S2: Cutting taxes. So it's like the whole argument that, oh
• 9:45
  S2: you'll get a country like whoever whichever political leader turns
• 9:49
  S2: up in Washington says, get an exclusion on tariffs. Trump
• 9:53
  S2: cannot do that without absolutely crushing even further a terrible
• 9:58
  S2: budget situation.
• 9:59
  S1: So just really quickly, Shane, and this is probably a
• 10:02
  S1: much bigger conversation. But, you know, we heard so much
• 10:05
  S1: panic mongering amongst people like yourself, economists about the tariffs
• 10:09
  S1: and that they were going to crash the US economy
• 10:10
  S1: and they were going to push up inflation. And, you know,
• 10:13
  S1: people were even worried about a sort of global recession
• 10:15
  S1: in some cases. What has been the impact of the
• 10:17
  S1: tariffs so far that we can see.
• 10:19
  S2: It's pushing up inflation. It's starting to slow the American economy. Yeah.
• 10:24
  S2: If it wasn't for the AI data build out that's
• 10:28
  S2: occurring across the United States. The US would be in
• 10:30
  S2: recession right now. And and Trump is causing that. The
• 10:34
  S2: thing that hasn't happened and most and every economist is going,
• 10:38
  S2: thank God, is that there hasn't been the retribution from
• 10:41
  S2: everybody else. Yeah. That's that's what it all swung on
• 10:44
  S2: because at this point, Trump is causing pain to his
• 10:49
  S2: own economy and to his own residence. And you can
• 10:51
  S2: see that as much as like we hear about how
• 10:55
  S2: successful Trump is, he is so underwater in the American polls.
• 10:59
  S2: All of the opinion polls.
• 11:00
  S1: Oh, yeah.
• 11:01
  S2: Because of the cost of living pressures that are going on,
• 11:03
  S2: and because you can see the softness in the jobs
• 11:07
  S2: market and you can see businesses are just they did
• 11:11
  S2: bought a lot of pre tariff products into the US.
• 11:16
  S2: And they're now having to start pass on that increase
• 11:19
  S2: in price.
• 11:20
  S1: So there's a lag effect. But it's only going to
• 11:21
  S1: kind of there's the momentum on the inflation front is
• 11:24
  S1: only going to build on the US economy. I just
• 11:27
  S1: want to switch now. Obviously we Albanese will be talking
• 11:29
  S1: also about Aukus just very quickly, because you did have
• 11:32
  S1: this interesting interview with Richard Marles that was published this week,
• 11:36
  S1: where he talked about how vice president JD Vance is
• 11:39
  S1: actually sort of like the Trump whisperer or the guy
• 11:42
  S1: that Miles really wanted to build a connection with in
• 11:46
  S1: order to sort of have an end to the Trump administration.
• 11:49
  S1: Tell us about what Miles said.
• 11:51
  S3: Yeah. Well, there was this, um, much discussed trip that
• 11:55
  S3: Miles did. He was a bit secretive. He went without
• 11:58
  S3: giving the Australian media much notice in August, and it
• 12:01
  S3: was a key part of the focus from the Australian
• 12:04
  S3: media was whether he would get this formal meeting with
• 12:06
  S3: Pete Hegseth, his defense counterpart. He's met Pete Hegseth a
• 12:10
  S3: number of times before, but Miles opened up in an
• 12:13
  S3: interview with me last week on the on the real
• 12:15
  S3: purpose of that trip. And the the key thing he
• 12:17
  S3: was seeking to do was to build a political deputy
• 12:20
  S3: to deputy relationship with JD Vance. JD Vance is doing
• 12:23
  S3: a lot of one to ones with foreign leaders, Keir
• 12:26
  S3: Starmer and others. He's been seen as a kind of
• 12:29
  S3: intellectual thought leader of the MAGA foreign policy, clearly a
• 12:33
  S3: very influential figure close to Trump. Many people think he'll
• 12:35
  S3: succeed Trump. And so Miles said that that's a key
• 12:38
  S3: relationship for the government to effectively build trust, to emphasize
• 12:42
  S3: the points of shared values, shared language, shared strategy in
• 12:47
  S3: the Indo-Pacific with Vance, and to use that as a
• 12:50
  S3: way to pave the way for Albanese to meet Trump
• 12:52
  S3: this month. Yeah. Marles as you said, Jack Aukus will
• 12:56
  S3: be key to the meeting as well. The Pentagon still
• 12:59
  S3: reviewing it. Marles said that he received only positive feedback
• 13:03
  S3: from Marco Rubio, JD Vance, Pete Hegseth and Stephen Miller,
• 13:07
  S3: Trump's influential deputy chief of staff. During that one and
• 13:11
  S3: two days of meetings, which was really, um, to give
• 13:13
  S3: Marles credit, this government has copped a lot of flak
• 13:16
  S3: for their relationship with the Trump administration. Some of it justified,
• 13:19
  S3: some of it not. But to meet those four guys
• 13:22
  S3: within the space of I think it was really one
• 13:23
  S3: day is a pretty impressive swing through Washington.
• 13:27
  S1: Just coming back to the domestic front. Obviously the Prime
• 13:29
  S1: Minister's in such a powerful, powerful position at the moment.
• 13:32
  S1: He's you know, he's flying high in the polls. He's
• 13:35
  S1: had all these sort of foreign policy successes. He's almost
• 13:38
  S1: sort of like floating above domestic politics in a way
• 13:41
  S1: at the moment. But we did see this week that
• 13:43
  S1: there was the back down on the super changes. And
• 13:45
  S1: I know we've already canvassed in other podcasts, like the
• 13:48
  S1: sort of ins and outs of the actual changes themselves.
• 13:51
  S1: It was basically an abandonment of these reforms, or a
• 13:54
  S1: partial abandonment of these reforms that they were hoping to
• 13:56
  S1: get more tax from high super earners. I want to
• 13:59
  S1: talk about the politics of it, because it was reported that,
• 14:02
  S1: as Paul said, that Chalmers got his pants pulled down
• 14:05
  S1: by the PM, the PM basically overruled him and said, look,
• 14:09
  S1: you've got to you got to get rid of this.
• 14:11
  S1: Shane what happened?
• 14:12
  S2: Yeah. And ultimately, this is how past relationships between treasurers
• 14:17
  S2: and prime ministers work. Um hawke-keating Howard-costello hockey and Abbott,
• 14:23
  S2: which a lot of people tend to forget, uh, what
• 14:26
  S2: went on there? There's always a tension. Yeah. Um, and
• 14:30
  S2: in this case, Albanese's effectively said come up with something different. Yeah.
• 14:35
  S2: And that's what he's done. The ultimate end game is
• 14:39
  S2: that the tax on high end superannuants is going up
• 14:43
  S2: by not an inconsequential amount, but nowhere near by as much.
• 14:47
  S1: And it leaves. It leaves Jim Chalmers with a problem,
• 14:50
  S1: because now he's got a hole in the budget where,
• 14:52
  S1: you know, the projections of what they were going to
• 14:54
  S1: save with those costings has sort of gone.
• 14:57
  S3: And it's really one of their only savings measures.
• 14:59
  S1: Yeah, yeah.
• 15:00
  S2: I wouldn't call it a savings measure. This was a
• 15:02
  S2: revenue measure. This was increasing tax.
• 15:03
  S3: Revenue measure to actually bring in cash.
• 15:05
  S4: Yeah.
• 15:05
  S2: So this this I think rule of thumb rather than
• 15:10
  S2: say 40 billion, which is we actually have some idea
• 15:13
  S2: because the Liberal Party went to the last election saying
• 15:16
  S2: we're going to repeal this tax. So there was an
• 15:19
  S2: analysis done by the Parliamentary Budget Office which said the
• 15:22
  S2: cost of repealing that tax, the original tax proposal was 43,
• 15:27
  S2: 44 billion over the next ten years. Nothing to sneeze at. Um,
• 15:32
  S2: the cost of that was much larger for the coalition,
• 15:34
  S2: because they were going to blow up the whole thing.
• 15:36
  S2: There was going to be extra government debt as well,
• 15:38
  S2: so the total cost was 50. Bill coming back to
• 15:41
  S2: where Chalmers has ended up. The change to indexation. By
• 15:46
  S2: indexing these thresholds, he has changed remarkably how much they're
• 15:50
  S2: going to earn. I'm thinking about half.
• 15:53
  S1: Of.
• 15:53
  S2: That.
• 15:54
  S1: But they haven't given us any official costings on, like
• 15:56
  S1: we were going to. We were saying back then that
• 15:59
  S1: we were going to, you know, save all this money,
• 16:00
  S1: but now it's actually only going to be this tiny
• 16:02
  S1: amount of money.
• 16:04
  S2: Well, you mean you say 43 billion is a lot
• 16:07
  S2: in 2020? Billions. Nothing like I don't know where you shop, Jack,
• 16:11
  S2: but more than half I'm getting. I'm getting worried, Jack. Jack,
• 16:14
  S2: about your spending proclivities.
• 16:16
  S1: I know, I know. I mean, yeah. Um, so am I.
• 16:20
  S1: I guess what I'm saying is, what I'm trying to
• 16:22
  S1: get at is that they had this economic roundtable, which
• 16:24
  S1: was obviously pushed by Jim Chalmers. They were like, you know,
• 16:27
  S1: we're really interested in tax reform. We're open to it.
• 16:29
  S1: It's on the table. But they're not really are they?
• 16:33
  S2: No, there are there are other things coming?
• 16:37
  S1: What? There are.
• 16:38
  S2: Well? What's coming? I'm not going to give it all
• 16:40
  S2: away right.
• 16:41
  S1: Now on this podcast.
• 16:42
  S2: I think you will see the next budget. There'll be more.
• 16:44
  S2: There'll be more changes. Okay. Like. Right. Everyone's forgotten what
• 16:48
  S2: actually went on during those three days. And we focus
• 16:52
  S2: on tax. Yeah. But say for instance, this week a
• 16:56
  S2: big shift which the reserve Bank has been banging on
• 16:58
  S2: about is the lack of competition in the country. Yes,
• 17:01
  S2: the government's competition reforms in that space actually took another
• 17:04
  S2: step forward this week.
• 17:06
  S3: Epbc act is.
• 17:07
  S2: Epbc. There are those things like ultimately they are good
• 17:11
  S2: for the economy and for the budget, but they are
• 17:13
  S2: not nearly as sexy as write a tax change.
• 17:17
  S1: Paul. Treasurers and prime ministers have to work together. Their
• 17:20
  S1: success depends on each other. They're so interdependent and yet
• 17:24
  S1: they do, you know, always traditionally have a rivalry. Do
• 17:27
  S1: we see any of that with Albanese and Chalmers? I
• 17:29
  S1: know they have a good working relationship. I would not say.
• 17:32
  S1: You couldn't say at the moment that they have a
• 17:34
  S1: rivalry with each other. But could there be a rivalry
• 17:37
  S1: in the future? They have very different interests, don't they?
• 17:40
  S3: Yeah, there. There's a big age gap between them as well.
• 17:43
  S3: Chalmers is from the Queensland right. Albanese is from the
• 17:45
  S3: labor left. They're institutionally different characters. I mean they're both
• 17:49
  S3: they are both. I think Phil Currie wrote this this week,
• 17:51
  S3: both kind of working class guys who love rugby league.
• 17:53
  S3: So there's some similarities there. But they're from different parts
• 17:55
  S3: of the party. They have fundamentally different interests. In terms
• 17:58
  S3: of Chalmers trying to build himself up to become the
• 18:00
  S3: prime minister and Albanese trying to retain this immense power
• 18:05
  S3: and this special position he has now with this big majority.
• 18:07
  S3: But it's not you mentioned earlier, Jack, and I'm not
• 18:11
  S3: not to quibble with your language, but it's not just
• 18:13
  S3: my view that he got rolled by the PM. He
• 18:15
  S3: just he just did. Yeah. Um, Chalmers has been defending
• 18:20
  S3: this policy for two years, not giving any room to
• 18:22
  S3: the criticism that taxing paper profits might set a bad
• 18:26
  S3: precedent for the government for it to be potentially, you know,
• 18:29
  S3: if a if a negative scare campaign is launched by
• 18:32
  S3: the Liberal Party to suggest that it would be used
• 18:34
  S3: on the family home or whatever else. He gave no
• 18:36
  S3: room to that theory. The Prime Minister, before the election,
• 18:39
  S3: we reported this yesterday, started to become concerned about the
• 18:42
  S3: prospects of a scare campaign. He decided not to make
• 18:45
  S3: any changes pre-election because Angus Taylor, who was widely criticised,
• 18:49
  S3: criticised as an incompetent shadow treasurer, didn't weaponize the issue.
• 18:53
  S3: Tim Wilson then got elected after the election. Tim Wilson,
• 18:56
  S3: the master of a big scare campaign against the labor
• 18:59
  S3: tax policy. He started banging the drum through the Australian
• 19:01
  S3: Financial Review and other newspapers. The Australian became interested through
• 19:05
  S3: their economics correspondent, who was just quite dogmatic about this policy.
• 19:10
  S3: And so the campaign unusually, very unusually, came to life
• 19:14
  S3: after the election. And so this raised up the fear
• 19:17
  S3: and the Prime Minister's mind again, that he had pre-election
• 19:20
  S3: and around the time of the economic roundtable, which was August,
• 19:23
  S3: which we spent a lot of time in here calling
• 19:25
  S3: Canberra's Coachella, the prime minister said to Chalmers, look, we're
• 19:29
  S3: not going forward with this proposal in its current form.
• 19:32
  S3: I'm not going to tell you how to suck eggs.
• 19:33
  S3: You need to own this, but it can't have these
• 19:36
  S3: components of unrealized gains and no indexation. Come up with
• 19:39
  S3: a new plan. That's my order. I was told the
• 19:42
  S3: Prime Minister barely even consulted his cabinet on this. He
• 19:45
  S3: made a call off his own judgment with some key lieutenants,
• 19:49
  S3: and Chalmers was forced to announce this on Albanese's first
• 19:52
  S3: day in the Pacific Islands on holiday. It was a
• 19:55
  S3: proverbial sandwich for the treasurer, and kind of leads to
• 19:58
  S3: questions about his authority around the cabinet table and his
• 20:02
  S3: ability to pursue reform. If this is, if he backs,
• 20:04
  S3: if he's been forced to back down on something that,
• 20:06
  S3: you know, many commentators, I think rightfully said was not
• 20:10
  S3: as big a deal as some of the critics made out.
• 20:13
  S3: Then what does that say about his ability to do
• 20:14
  S3: bigger things?
• 20:15
  S1: Well, that's what I'm sort of interested in on an
• 20:17
  S1: interpersonal level, because it's a humiliating thing to be, to
• 20:21
  S1: have to back down publicly from this policy that you've
• 20:24
  S1: been touting and really backing for two years. How does
• 20:27
  S1: that feel for Chalmers? And does that not breed some
• 20:30
  S1: resentment towards the Prime Minister, who maybe could have let
• 20:32
  S1: him know a little bit sooner, perhaps, that, you know,
• 20:34
  S1: he was not in favour of this, you know, reasonable
• 20:38
  S1: sort of change in a lot of people's minds.
• 20:40
  S3: Well, that's a good question. I can't read Chalmers mind.
• 20:42
  S3: I mean, he was pretty stony face in that press
• 20:44
  S3: conference on Monday in the Blue Room. He's a master politician,
• 20:48
  S3: Jim Chalmers. He knows how these things work. I think
• 20:50
  S3: he did as good a job of possible as presenting
• 20:53
  S3: this new change as, um, good reform. And in some
• 20:56
  S3: ways it is good reform. What he did to the
• 20:58
  S3: top tax bracket and the low income measure to give
• 21:01
  S3: the green something the new policy is not it will
• 21:04
  S3: have more fans than the old policy. So I think
• 21:07
  S3: he's found a good solution. But I think it Marginalises
• 21:10
  S3: Chalmers in the government, it enhances the idea that the
• 21:14
  S3: Prime Minister has ultimate control. To your point, earlier, Jack,
• 21:16
  S3: about how the special position the Prime Minister is in,
• 21:21
  S3: I don't know if I should say this, but I'll
• 21:22
  S3: say it anyway. The Prime Minister was walking out of
• 21:24
  S3: Question Time on Wednesday or Thursday last week, and there
• 21:27
  S3: was a small a small group of people in the corridors.
• 21:30
  S3: And he joked that the only thing his colleagues were
• 21:33
  S3: split on was whether he was going to serve 5
• 21:35
  S3: or 6 terms. He was absolutely joking. But it's just
• 21:38
  S3: it's a sign of where he's at. Chalmers. Chalmers has
• 21:41
  S3: been overshadowed by Tony Tony Burke at the moment in
• 21:43
  S3: some ways. Um, Mark Butler is growing.
• 21:46
  S2: I want to wind you back there. Marginalising treasurers. Doesn't happen. Well.
• 21:51
  S3: I'm not saying he's marginalised, but I just did.
• 21:53
  S2: You just said this marginalizes the treasurer. I'm going to
• 21:56
  S2: pull you up because historically, the guy and they've all
• 22:00
  S2: been guys who holds the finances of the country is
• 22:05
  S2: impossible to marginalize because, remember, because you've got the Treasury.
• 22:08
  S2: The Treasury itself has so along with finance, they have
• 22:13
  S2: so much control of everybody else's, like the political.
• 22:17
  S3: I just think it's happened here to some extent, to
• 22:19
  S3: some extent.
• 22:20
  S2: To some extent. But I don't think it can go
• 22:22
  S2: its end of days. Oh, not at all. But marginalising
• 22:24
  S2: it because ultimately the budget, which is pivotal to how
• 22:28
  S2: a government runs, that's that's the that's the purview of
• 22:31
  S2: the treasurer of the day.
• 22:32
  S3: And he'll bounce back. But this is a low moment.
• 22:34
  S1: Yeah, yeah. Thanks, guys. That was a very interesting wild
• 22:37
  S1: roving chat. I really enjoyed it. See you very soon.
• 22:40
  S2: It's always a pleasure to see you, Jack.
• 22:47
  S1: Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong with technical assistance
• 22:51
  S1: from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom
• 22:55
  S1: Mackendrick is our head of audio. To listen to our
• 22:58
  S1: episodes as soon as they drop, follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify,
• 23:01
  S1: or anywhere else you listen to your podcasts. To stay
• 23:05
  S1: up to date with all the politics, news and exclusives,
• 23:07
  S1: visit The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To
• 23:11
  S1: support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age
• 23:14
  S1: or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.