Latest / Inside Politics / Did Anthony Albanese just give his most important speech?

Transcript

Did Anthony Albanese just give his most important speech? · Inside Politics

0:02
S1: From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
0:05
S1: This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Friday, July 11th.
0:11
S1: What do the great wartime prime minister John Curtin and
0:14
S1: current prime Minister Anthony Albanese have in common? Well, a
0:18
S1: little bit, according to Albanese. Anyway, on the weekend, the
0:22
S1: PM delivered the John Kershner oration and set tongues wagging
0:25
S1: with hints about our newly independent stance when it comes
0:29
S1: to Australia's relationship with the United States. But how will
0:33
S1: this land with the Trump administration, which is currently reviewing
0:36
S1: the Aukus pact? Is it possible they will make Australia
0:39
S1: pay more for submarines under the pact, or pressure us
0:42
S1: into participating into a possible conflict with China over Taiwan? Plus,
0:47
S1: we discuss the puzzling matter of yet more US tariffs
0:50
S1: on Australian goods, perhaps, and we ask, what is going
0:53
S1: on with the reserve Bank? Are they misleading the public
0:56
S1: or are they just confused themselves? Joining me to discuss
0:59
S1: all this, we have our chief political correspondent, Paul Satchell,
1:02
S1: and later we'll be joined by our senior economics correspondent,
1:05
S1: Shane Reich. Paul, welcome back. We understand you've just returned
1:13
S1: from a holiday in Bali, much enlightened. So Namaste to you.
1:17
S2: The Canberra winter is slowly taking away my tan. But
1:21
S2: but your book is still fresh in my mind, Jacqui.
1:22
S2: It was one of my favourite things I read in
1:24
S2: my time away.
1:25
S1: Oh, that's so nice. I'm so glad that you took
1:27
S1: me to Bali. I hope it was relaxing. It's good
1:30
S1: to have you back. And you came back with a bang.
1:33
S1: You had a really important story this week about the
1:35
S1: review of the Aukus pact that the Trump administration is undertaking.
1:38
S1: You did a deep dive. Tell us what you reported.
1:41
S2: Yeah, well, it's all pretty murky. This review into Aukus
1:45
S2: was announced on June 12th. So about a month ago now,
1:49
S2: it was revealed by the Financial Times and newspaper. Not the, uh,
1:52
S2: not the administration itself. The review's been led by a
1:56
S2: fellow called Elbridge Colby, who's a Harvard graduate, military planner,
2:02
S2: really influential strategic thinker within the Trump administration. He's the
2:06
S2: defense undersecretary, so he's effectively the policy chief who advises
2:10
S2: Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host, who's the defense secretary,
2:14
S2: who's also an influential fellow in Trumpland. And Elbridge Colby's
2:18
S2: been a long term skeptic of a particular element of
2:22
S2: the Aukus deal. He's very big on the idea of
2:25
S2: South Korea, Japan, India, Australia effectively forming this anti-China axis
2:32
S2: in the Indo-Pacific to contain China. He believes that the
2:36
S2: US is focused, should move from Europe and the Middle
2:39
S2: East and stop trying to be the global cop in
2:41
S2: those areas, and that most of its spending should shift
2:45
S2: to containing China, which he sees as America's long term
2:50
S2: adversary and kind of existential threat to US hegemony in
2:53
S2: the Indo-Pacific, but also in the world. So he announced
2:56
S2: this review about a month ago. And given his previous
3:00
S2: comments about the difficulty of selling Virginia class submarines to
3:05
S2: Australia because they are in scarce supply already in the US,
3:10
S2: and shipbuilding capacity is not big enough to sustain the
3:12
S2: amount of ships that the US needs before it even
3:15
S2: gives any to Australia. This sparked concern in Canberra. It
3:18
S2: sparked concern among our diplomats in Washington, sparked concern in
3:21
S2: the UK about the possibility that Elbridge Colby might significantly
3:26
S2: amend Aukus. There was concern that he might scrap it
3:29
S2: or make some serious changes to it. So I spent
3:32
S2: the last week or so trying to understand what this
3:34
S2: review is, looking at, what Australia has been told about
3:37
S2: it and where he might go. It's pretty murky. It's
3:40
S2: pretty early stages, but effectively the two key takeouts of
3:43
S2: the story were that one, the US might seek more
3:46
S2: money from Australia. For US shipbuilding, we're already paying about
3:51
S2: $5 billion, um, over the over the long run to
3:54
S2: help build Virginia class subs in the US. Uh, there's
3:57
S2: an argument that we should pay more. And the other
3:59
S2: element is that Elbridge Colby has told Australian sources outside
4:04
S2: and some in the political establishment, that he believes this
4:08
S2: should be a firmer public or private declaration from Australia,
4:11
S2: that subs would be used with the US in a
4:14
S2: guaranteed sense, like necessarily, uh, if there's any conflagration over Taiwan,
4:20
S2: which would raise a whole bunch of questions about sovereignty
4:22
S2: for Australia.
4:23
S1: I mean, that that is I think that would put
4:26
S1: the fear into any government and into the Australian public
4:29
S1: as well, because I don't think it's by any means
4:32
S1: assured that Australians would support military, a military conflict over Taiwan,
4:38
S1: or sending Australian troops to to such a conflict.
4:41
S2: Huge questions about that. I mean, Elbridge Colby has said
4:44
S2: previously that Australia arguably is is America's best ever ally
4:50
S2: since World War two in the sense that and he's
4:54
S2: these are he's quotes not mine that he says that
4:57
S2: Australia has joined us even in our most inadvisable wars.
5:01
S2: And he's referring.
5:02
S1: It's a bit of a.
5:02
S2: Backhanded.
5:03
S1: Compliment.
5:03
S2: Isn't it? So and if you listen, I mean, if
5:05
S2: most experts would say that Australia is very likely to
5:08
S2: join the US in any major, really major conflict around
5:13
S2: the world because that's the pattern of Australian behaviour. But
5:16
S2: you're right, Jackie, it's you know, this question about a
5:19
S2: conflict in Taiwan is is not something that's yet had.
5:23
S1: Yeah. The US has been putting pressure on its European allies,
5:28
S1: its NATO allies, to increase their military spending as a
5:32
S1: share of their GDP. How likely is it that that
5:34
S1: that could be a condition that's put on the deal?
5:36
S1: Because the Trump administration has also made noises about that
5:39
S1: with Australia, that our military spending isn't big enough.
5:41
S2: This the person I mentioned earlier, Elbridge Colby, is one
5:44
S2: of the key drivers behind this, this push to have
5:47
S2: American allies spend more on defence. His view is that
5:50
S2: most American allies don't pull their weight and they need
5:53
S2: to up their game. There's one school of thought in
5:56
S2: the Australian political establishment about the the actual intent of
6:00
S2: this review, and that is that it is purely a
6:04
S2: tool to create leverage for America to create an incentive
6:09
S2: for Australia to boost defence spending. So effectively, the the
6:13
S2: line of thinking there goes that the US knows how
6:16
S2: important Aukus is to us, by the way, it's also
6:18
S2: very important to them in terms of having a Western
6:20
S2: base that opens up the Indo-Pacific for submarine rotation. It's
6:24
S2: crucial to American strategic interests, too. But this line of
6:27
S2: thinking goes that the Americans know we need aukus. The
6:30
S2: Americans know how us how crucial it is to the
6:34
S2: government for the government to maintain public public support for it,
6:38
S2: and that reviewing it and creating a sense that there
6:40
S2: is doubt about its future would increase pressure on Australia
6:44
S2: to agree to American demands to boost military spending, which
6:49
S2: the Prime Minister has so far deflected and found ways
6:53
S2: to wriggle out of.
6:55
S1: Yeah, and we know I mean, that's the that's that's
6:57
S1: basically the M.O. of the Trump administration. And Trump himself
7:00
S1: has sort of stand over type tactics in international diplomacy.
7:05
S1: In the midst of all of this speculation over aukus
7:07
S1: and how that pact might actually end up looking. Last weekend,
7:11
S1: Anthony Albanese gave an important speech called the John Curtin Oration.
7:15
S1: What did the PM say in this speech, and why
7:18
S1: did it sort of ruffle people's feathers a bit?
7:21
S2: Yeah, well, the timing was fascinating. It was on Saturday
7:24
S2: night in Sydney at the at an event to mark
7:27
S2: the 80th anniversary of the death of John Curtin, the
7:30
S2: labor wartime prime minister. And a week before he's about
7:34
S2: to travel to China to meet with President XI Jinping
7:38
S2: for the third time, at a moment when he's having
7:41
S2: a bunch of different brawls with the US over tariffs,
7:44
S2: over defence spending. With this Aukus review hanging in the air,
7:47
S2: and at a time when the conservative press and the
7:50
S2: opposition is putting a lot of pressure on the Prime
7:52
S2: Minister to mate with Donald Trump, which he hasn't so
7:55
S2: far been able to secure, You know, public polling in
7:58
S2: Australia shows that Donald Trump is deeply unpopular. And I
8:01
S2: think the government feels somewhat emboldened to be a bit
8:05
S2: more muscular in relation to the US, in the same
8:07
S2: way as Mark Carney in Canada and various other Western
8:11
S2: leaders are being. But there is still a huge amount
8:12
S2: of pressure to maintain the relationship and keep it in
8:14
S2: a healthy state. So the opposition question whether it was
8:17
S2: the right time to give this speech, and what did
8:19
S2: he say in the speech? James Curran, who's a really
8:22
S2: well regarded foreign policy expert, said that this was the
8:24
S2: most important speech Albanese has given in office. There are
8:28
S2: other foreign policy experts who were more moderate in their
8:30
S2: thinking on it, and believe that it was not even
8:33
S2: really a departure from previous comments from him. Effectively, the
8:36
S2: speech was in honour of John Curtin, as we've mentioned.
8:40
S2: And what was significant was the way in which the
8:43
S2: Prime Minister, couched on Curtin's legacy.
8:46
S3: Through 124 years of our federation and 31 prime ministers
8:52
S3: of Australia, John Curtin stands apart. No leader of our
8:57
S3: nation has faced a sterner test. No one has known
9:02
S3: a darker hour, and no prime minister has carried more
9:06
S3: on their shoulders alone during the.
9:10
S2: Someone described it to me yesterday as you could effectively
9:12
S2: take two paths on how you portray John Curtin's legacy.
9:16
S2: He's the effective Australian founder of the US Alliance. He
9:19
S2: shifted allegiance from Britain to the US during World War two,
9:23
S2: which was a contentious thing at the time, but has
9:24
S2: kind of become a pillar of our foreign policy. So
9:27
S2: if you're on the right of the Labor Party, a
9:29
S2: Richard Marles type who is more kind of comfortable with
9:32
S2: the US alliance than perhaps some on the left, you
9:34
S2: would look at John Curtin's legacy and say he gave
9:37
S2: us the US alliance. That is a pillar of our
9:40
S2: national identity now and foreign policy. And he's great. For
9:43
S2: that reason, the Prime Minister took a different route and
9:45
S2: said that John Curtin was a kind of more Australia first,
9:49
S2: a person who gave more emphasis on Australian sovereignty because
9:53
S2: he stood up to both Winston Churchill and the US.
9:56
S3: Is pushing back against two of the most powerful men
10:00
S3: in the world, and two of the most forceful personalities
10:04
S3: of 20th century politics. This moment is the core of
10:09
S3: the Curtin legend.
10:11
S1: Two divisions just for the historic context. This is in
10:13
S1: 1941 when, um, when the Japanese were bearing down basically
10:17
S1: on the Asia Pacific and had, you know, joined the war.
10:20
S1: And John Curtin insisted that Australian troops come home to
10:24
S1: Australia to defend Australia.
10:26
S2: And the Prime Minister quoted other labor figures, such as
10:29
S2: Paul Keating, in saying that Curtin was the first Australian
10:33
S2: leader to put Australian independence at the centre of foreign policy,
10:37
S2: and this was a marker for how his government would
10:40
S2: behave and that Australia would seek its own interests rather
10:44
S2: than being subservient to any other ally. So it was seen.
10:47
S2: It was seen as a call for independence within the
10:49
S2: US alliance.
10:51
S3: And a supporter of Aukus. Uh. That's important, but that
10:56
S3: doesn't mean that we are subservient to any other country,
11:03
S3: you know.
11:04
S1: Of course, Albanese is going to China next week to
11:07
S1: meet with President XI Jinping. Some of his critics say
11:10
S1: the speech would have been very welcome in China. Is
11:12
S1: that true, do you think?
11:13
S2: Well, the language towards China has been pretty stable for
11:17
S2: years now. But there is no doubt that Chinese diplomats
11:22
S2: around the world, and we saw this earlier this week
11:24
S2: with the Chinese ambassador to Australia suggesting that we should
11:27
S2: expand our free trade agreement with China, start doing technology sharing,
11:33
S2: and effectively go past this period of what has been
11:38
S2: widely described as stabilization to a point of actually enhancing
11:42
S2: the relationship even further. There's no doubt that Chinese diplomats
11:45
S2: would look at the way Australians and Canadians and Brits
11:50
S2: are talking about the US at this moment, and look
11:53
S2: at it favourably. Favorably. Um, there's no doubt that a
11:56
S2: kind of global scepticism about the US's reliability is good
12:00
S2: for China. Yeah, but practically what it means is hard
12:03
S2: to know, because the agenda for this China trip is
12:06
S2: six days. But it's not not clear yet whether the
12:09
S2: government does want to take any further step in the
12:11
S2: direction of growing the China relationship, or whether it's just
12:15
S2: more of the same in terms of stabilisation.
12:26
S1: I want to talk about tariffs now, and for that
12:27
S1: we will need our special guest star, our esteemed senior
12:30
S1: economics correspondent Shane Risch. Shane, how are you?
12:34
S4: All the better for seeing you, Miss Maley.
12:36
S1: That's so kind of you. Let's talk about tariffs just
12:40
S1: super quickly. Can we? I'd love to. Yeah. Let's let's.
12:43
S1: I feel like we need a live tariff ticker like
12:45
S1: they have on, you know, on news channels just to
12:48
S1: keep us constantly updated.
12:50
S4: It's like it's a bit like the election, you know,
12:52
S4: when counting how many seats one side of. Yeah.
12:54
S1: It's so confusing. I feel like just sort of like
12:57
S1: turning off the TV until they decide one way or
12:59
S1: the other. But we can't because we're journalists. So this week,
13:02
S1: Trump has threatened more tariffs on copper and pharmaceuticals. And
13:06
S1: the latter is particularly worrying for Australia. Right.
13:09
S4: Oh yeah. That's well 200% tariff if and when maybe
13:14
S4: next year. Like there's so much, uh, hairiness around this
13:19
S4: one from Donald Trump. The 50% tariff on copper, which
13:24
S4: Australia doesn't sell much copper directly to the United States,
13:28
S4: but BHP and Rio Tinto run the world's biggest copper
13:33
S4: mine in Chile. That's of some importance to the United States.
13:38
S4: And as our ticker is ticking over, there is another
13:41
S4: seven nations who got a special letter from Trump.
13:46
S1: I want to talk about the pharmaceuticals and the threat
13:48
S1: on tariffs there, because in Australia we have the Pharmaceutical
13:51
S1: Benefits Scheme, which is quite beloved, I think, of most
13:54
S1: Australians because it heavily subsidises about 1000 approved medicines for
13:58
S1: Australian people. But the Trump administration has made no secret
14:01
S1: of the fact that it absolutely hates our PBS, and
14:04
S1: I think it's even been called socialized medicine. Why doesn't
14:07
S1: the Trump administration like the PBS?
14:10
S4: I think it's the pharmaceutical lobby of the United States
14:12
S4: that hates the PBS. And the pharmaceutical pharmaceutical lobby of
14:16
S4: the United States hates every nation, starting with Canada and
14:20
S4: across to Europe, that acts as a single buyer of drugs.
14:25
S1: So it gets a bulk, a bulk deal, a.
14:27
S4: Big bulk deal. And that's what really upsets pharmaceutical companies that,
14:31
S4: you know, like to trade off or bargain off against
14:34
S4: individual buyers and are able to increase their prices or
14:39
S4: not follow through with big breakthrough drugs. So yes, Australia's
14:44
S4: looking at this big hit, but this is going to
14:47
S4: be another problem, say for Mark Carney in Canada. This
14:49
S4: is a problem for the National Health Service in the
14:51
S4: in Britain. This is a problem for the French health system,
14:54
S4: the German health system, because every other almost every other
14:57
S4: developed country in the world has this sort of model,
15:01
S4: except for the United States, which has some of the
15:04
S4: highest priced drugs in the world, and which, if you
15:07
S4: can't afford them, you die. Like, that's slightly what it is.
15:11
S4: There's a lot of focus on it. But of course,
15:13
S4: with Donald Trump, we're trying to work out how real
15:17
S4: is the threat because he the we talk about Taco
15:20
S4: Trump for a reason.
15:23
S1: Yeah that's Trump always chickens out.
15:25
S4: Yeah. Whether he would go through with this because like
15:28
S4: you start saying to the consumers of the United States,
15:32
S4: your drugs are going out, getting up very expensive very quickly.
15:36
S1: Yeah, yeah. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the new tariff threat
15:39
S1: was very alarming because Australian pharmaceutical companies are so deeply
15:43
S1: exposed to the US market. But he also said that
15:46
S1: our pharmaceutical benefits scheme is not something that we're willing
15:49
S1: to trade away. Healthcare and subsidised healthcare is obviously a
15:52
S1: very key part of the Labour platform, but nonetheless it
15:55
S1: could end up hurting the Australian consumer because it'll have
15:59
S1: a big hit on our economy, won't it?
16:00
S4: No, no, it actually hits the Australian producers selling. And
16:05
S4: this is the whole problem with Donald Trump's and his
16:07
S4: understanding of tariffs. Americans pay for it. So if you're
16:11
S4: going to put a 200% tariff on Australia's 2 or
16:14
S4: $3 billion worth of pharmaceutical exports to the United States,
16:16
S4: you are hurting American consumers. Australian producers would then go, right.
16:22
S4: Can we still keep sending them to the United States?
16:25
S4: Are Americans willing to keep paying for it, or do
16:28
S4: we find another market?
16:29
S1: Yeah, Paul, tell it to us straight, because there's a
16:32
S1: lot of criticism still of the Prime Minister, particularly from
16:36
S1: the opposition, that he hasn't been able to secure a
16:37
S1: meeting with Donald Trump to discuss tariffs and other matters.
16:41
S1: Is it a big deal that we can't get that meeting?
16:44
S1: Should he take it personally, or is it just evidence
16:46
S1: of how mercurial Donald Trump is?
16:49
S2: I think it's probably an element of both, which I'm
16:52
S2: fencing in a bit there. If you look at the
16:54
S2: way the government first approached the the Trump administration for
16:59
S2: the for the immediate period after the inauguration in January,
17:02
S2: the government was in election mode. It made political sense
17:05
S2: for the government, and they were having political success in
17:08
S2: tying Trump's unpopularity to Peter Dutton. So you couldn't it
17:12
S2: was hard for them to at that time when they
17:14
S2: were making those anti-US points in political debate to then,
17:20
S2: for example, say, oh, and we're also traveling to Washington
17:22
S2: to try and meet Trump. It was incongruous. But I
17:25
S2: think that delay in actually fronting up to the question of, okay,
17:31
S2: we disagree with this administration on a whole bunch of
17:33
S2: issues and values, but they are still our most critical alliance.
17:36
S2: How do we bridge that gap and try and create
17:38
S2: a relationship with this president? The delay in having to
17:42
S2: wait till the election was over and then get better
17:44
S2: down in terms of staff and thinking about the strategy,
17:47
S2: meant that the government was was not front footed on
17:49
S2: how to deal with Trump. And I think they've now
17:51
S2: been left in a little bit of a tricky scenario
17:53
S2: where they've spent a lot of time making barbs against
17:56
S2: the US, but now they've got issues on defence spending,
17:59
S2: on aukus, on tariffs. And it's not we're not at
18:02
S2: the front of the queue in terms of having these negotiations.
18:05
S2: But having said that, even the countries who have had negotiations,
18:08
S2: such as Keir Starmer in the UK, have got deals
18:11
S2: that are being criticised in their own countries as not
18:14
S2: being worth much. Yeah. And just a very quick point.
18:17
S2: The Productivity Commission came out with an interesting report earlier
18:20
S2: this week which suggested Shane wrote this story, that because
18:24
S2: we are at the lowest 10% baseline in an average sense,
18:27
S2: we are the least worse off in terms of trade
18:30
S2: with the US, which means that we're at a kind
18:32
S2: of comparative advantage and we might actually benefit from that.
18:35
S2: The risk is that the global trade war actually reduces
18:38
S2: growth everywhere, and that causes negative.
18:41
S1: Growth and takes the global economy. I can't believe you
18:43
S1: just cut Shane's grass by talking about the Productivity Commission there.
18:46
S1: I mean, he'll probably fight you about that.
18:48
S4: No, I'm just impressed that he's used the term comparative advantage.
18:52
S1: I like that. I really like.
18:53
S4: That. I didn't know he was a fan of David Ricardo. Uh,
18:56
S4: for our economic nerds who are listening and, uh, Paul's
18:59
S4: looking at me saying, who the hell's David Ricardo? But anyway.
19:02
S1: We don't get enough of David Ricardo on this.
19:04
S2: Not the only one who reads Shane.
19:06
S1: Yeah, you probably read it in one of Shane's stories.
19:09
S1: But anyway, um, on on Tuesday, just quickly, the RBA
19:12
S1: had Michele Bullock and her colleagues dashed all our hopes,
19:16
S1: and she kept rates on hold at 3.85%. You know,
19:19
S1: as a Sydney mortgagee, how devastating this was to me personally.
19:23
S1: Pretty much all the banks and the economists were predicting
19:25
S1: a rate cut is for the RBA misleading us, or
19:29
S1: are they just confused themselves.
19:31
S4: Or they're confused with their communication skills, which is one
19:35
S4: of the a key issue that's coming up.
19:37
S1: Wasn't wasn't the sort of the revamp of the RBA
19:40
S1: and these news press conferences that they're giving and the
19:42
S1: sort of new transparency that was supposed to be all
19:44
S1: about better communication.
19:46
S4: You're exactly right. But whether they've mastered it is a
19:49
S4: completely different question at this point, and it was during
19:52
S4: the press conference. One of the most interesting bits was
19:55
S4: a reporter said, right, um, given that what everyone was expecting,
20:01
S4: are you happy with the communication? Oh, no. We're communicating. Well.
20:05
S5: Um, I think communication generally actually has been going pretty well.
20:10
S5: I think what was the difference was that, um, reasonable
20:14
S5: people can differ in their interpretations of data. And I
20:17
S5: think there was a couple of.
20:18
S4: Investors, people who've got hundreds of millions of dollars in
20:21
S4: the market, had bet you were going to cut rates.
20:24
S4: Every major bank economist in the country said you were
20:27
S4: going to cut rates. I think that's the evidence that
20:29
S4: the communication.
20:31
S1: Has pretty incontrovertible.
20:32
S4: Down to two quotes. Uh, LED Zeppelin there. Um, so
20:37
S4: I think that's like they're still working on it. Even
20:40
S4: her explanation saying, look, we do speeches, we do speeches.
20:44
S4: And which is how they they try to give signals
20:47
S4: to the, to the to the public and to investors.
20:50
S4: They had done speeches, but those speeches had stopped before
20:55
S4: these these really key, uh, monthly inflation figures that forced
20:58
S4: everyone to go, what the hell's going on? The bank
21:01
S4: has to cut. We've got more Donald Trump tariff craziness.
21:05
S4: You've got to cut. You've got to protect the economy.
21:07
S4: But no, Bullock gets up and says, well, hold on,
21:10
S4: just hold on.
21:11
S5: Five weeks by our next meeting in five weeks, we
21:14
S5: will have the June quarter. CPI another labor market reading
21:18
S5: further information about international developments and an updated set of forecasts.
21:23
S5: So the board decided to wait a few weeks to
21:25
S5: confirm that we're still on track to meet our inflation
21:28
S5: and employment objectives.
21:30
S4: And she's giving us wink wink, nudge nudge probably will
21:33
S4: cut at our meeting. Uh.
21:35
S1: Well, they kind of have to cut now because she
21:36
S1: pretty much promised it to us right on on Tuesday.
21:40
S4: Yeah. And this is a look. The bank. And it's
21:42
S4: what they call forward guidance. Everyone in Sydney and Melbourne
21:46
S4: will know. Remember when Phil Lowe said, oh, look, we
21:48
S4: don't think we don't think rates need to go up
21:50
S4: until 2024.
21:52
S1: I'll never forget it, Shane. I'll never forget it. Hashtag
21:54
S1: never forget.
21:55
S4: And Michelle Bullock has almost every press conference she's done
21:59
S4: since taking the job. I'm not giving you forward guidance,
22:02
S4: but saying, oh, June 30th, those figures, they'll be really important.
22:06
S4: It's all about the timing. It's all the directions. In
22:08
S4: one way you go, oh come on, that's forward guidance.
22:11
S4: Just with a roadmap.
22:12
S1: I mean, it's like trying to pass the kind of,
22:15
S1: I don't know, the tea leaves or something. The economic
22:17
S1: tea leaves, which you do very, very well for us. Shane.
22:20
S2: To be fair to Bullock on on on forward guidance
22:23
S2: like in her defence, she's not forecasting years into the
22:26
S2: future here.
22:26
S4: I'd agree with you. Except she has said I don't
22:28
S4: give forward guidance. Five weeks in the reserve Bank world
22:32
S4: is it can be an eternity. Look, given what we've
22:36
S4: seen this even this year, like only the last meeting was,
22:39
S4: they discussed whether they should have half a percentage point
22:42
S4: cut because of what was going on with Donald Trump. Like,
22:45
S4: things are moving very quickly in this space.
22:48
S1: They are. And speaking of forward guidance, we must end there, chaps.
22:51
S1: We've we've moved from LED Zeppelin to that Ricciardo guy
22:54
S1: that you mentioned. We will meet again.
22:58
S6: We'll meet.
22:59
S1: Again.
23:00
S6: We will, Miss Maley. We will.
23:02
S1: Um. And I hope very soon. Thank you both for
23:05
S1: joining us today.
23:06
S2: Thanks, guys.
23:07
S4: Thanks, Matt.
23:11
S1: Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong. Our executive producer
23:15
S1: is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
23:18
S1: To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
23:21
S1: follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
23:25
S1: listen to your podcast. And to stay up to date
23:27
S1: with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age
23:31
S1: and The Sydney Morning Herald websites to support our journalism.
23:34
S1: Subscribe to us by visiting The Age or. Subscribe. I'm
23:41
S1: Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.