Latest / Inside Politics / ‘Intergenerational bastardry’ in our tax system: Do older Australians have it too good?

Transcript

‘Intergenerational bastardry’ in our tax system: Do older Australians have it too good? · 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, August 22nd. Well,
0:13
S1: this week was a very exciting one in Canberra, especially
0:15
S1: if you're the kind of person who really digs the
0:17
S1: philosophy of tax and transfer. We are talking, of course,
0:21
S1: about the Economic Roundtable, which was hosted by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Meanwhile,
0:27
S1: Health Minister Mark Butler began the necessary but painful process
0:30
S1: of reining in the enormous growth of the NDIS. Here
0:36
S1: to discuss all this, we have our chief political correspondent,
0:38
S1: Paul Satchell, and as ever, our special guest star and
0:42
S1: delightful senior economics correspondent, Shane Wright. Welcome, gentlemen.
0:46
S2: How are you both? And and wannabe Heather Locklear? That's
0:49
S2: exactly right, jacki.
0:50
S1: That's right, that's right. Always. Okay, we've been calling it Canberra. Coachella.
0:54
S1: And I do want to just note for the record
0:56
S1: that Chris Richardson, independent economist who was an attendee of
1:01
S1: the Economic Roundtable, has picked up this phrase, and he
1:05
S1: actually tweeted it this week as he was on the
1:07
S1: way to the economic Roundtable on a murrays bus.
1:10
S2: Well, that's the sort of impact you have, Jacqueline Maley.
1:13
S2: You you're you're permeating the economic and policy ether like.
1:19
S1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're influencers. We're all influencers. Okay. So
1:22
S1: the economic roundtable wrapped up on Thursday evening. Paul, tell
1:26
S1: us what came out of it.
1:27
S3: There were some conclusions and some were shorter term and
1:30
S3: some were longer term. So you'll remember weeks ago when
1:33
S3: we started talking about this economic roundtable, it quickly turned
1:36
S3: into a moment where there was a lot of commentary
1:38
S3: that this might be a really decisive turning point for
1:41
S3: the government, where it might start to look at wholesale
1:44
S3: tax reform and big new economic reforms that might kind
1:48
S3: of change the trajectory of the government. Over time, expectations
1:52
S3: were managed. It narrowed down to a conversation that was
1:55
S3: about what some would describe as low hanging fruit around deregulation,
1:59
S3: speeding up approval processes for housing for green energy projects,
2:03
S3: getting the skills sector to work better to make sure
2:05
S3: we've got the right people working in our economy, um,
2:09
S3: improving our migration system to improve, to ensure we're, uh,
2:12
S3: we're using our migrants in the best way possible. All
2:14
S3: of those things were ticked off by the government, and
2:16
S3: there were some real merit in those ideas.
2:19
S4: There was 29 hours of discussions in the end. Uh,
2:23
S4: there was, by our count, something like 327 different contributions
2:28
S4: made over the course of those three days.
2:32
S3: Uh, very important economists we spoke to last night said
2:35
S3: that this didn't set the world on fire, these immediate actions,
2:38
S3: but they gave the government a new menu from which
2:40
S3: to choose from, some of which could have a serious effect,
2:44
S3: a real, tangible effect on productivity between now and the
2:46
S3: next election, because they can be done quickly. I'd describe
2:50
S3: these this list of actions from the Treasury side at
2:53
S3: about ten of them as like one percenters, some of
2:56
S3: which are more than 1%. That's probably a little bit harsh,
2:59
S3: but quick, smaller things that can be done quickly, which,
3:03
S3: taken together, can have a tangible effect on productivity. And
3:06
S3: I think economists will give credit to the government for that.
3:09
S3: There was another element that the treasurer hinted at, which
3:13
S3: and Shane will get to this. And Shane's been writing
3:14
S3: about this this week, which I'd describe as kind of
3:17
S3: the holy grail, maybe of economic reform, these big picture
3:20
S3: items around, um, ensuring that the intergenerational compact between younger
3:25
S3: and older Australians is fixed, that we, uh, take away
3:29
S3: the burden of income tax from younger Australians and working Australians,
3:33
S3: that we potentially tax assets and wealth more at a
3:37
S3: higher level so that we can, uh, share the spoils
3:40
S3: of the Australian economy and wealth more equitably. The treasurer
3:44
S3: got to this, this final point on the tax system
3:47
S3: right at the end of his about 25 minute preamble.
3:50
S3: And what he said was that at the roundtable, there
3:52
S3: was consensus that the tax system is not fair that
3:56
S3: younger people, he hinted at this, pay too much income tax,
3:59
S3: that older people have too good a ride, and that
4:01
S3: something needs to be done to look at the tax system.
4:04
S3: He didn't commit to any items, but he said Treasury
4:06
S3: would start addressing these issues. This is obviously something that
4:10
S3: will create huge, contentious debates about potentially taxes on superannuation,
4:15
S3: on removing the capital gains discount, potentially looking at negative gearing,
4:20
S3: as well as doing something on the tax mix, potentially, uh,
4:23
S3: and trying to ease the burden on younger Australians. We
4:26
S3: don't know where he wants to go with all of that.
4:28
S3: He said this would be a matter for cabinet, but
4:30
S3: the debate's been started and there was another another item
4:34
S3: that we knew also that was in the works, which
4:36
S3: was the at least pausing and potentially redrawing of the
4:39
S3: national construction code, which builders and many other experts say
4:43
S3: is making it too difficult to build a house. So
4:46
S3: effectively streamlining the rules that are prohibiting house building happening
4:51
S3: more quickly. One of the.
4:52
S2: Can I stop you there for one second, Paul. Like
4:54
S2: because this is the like the national construction code and
4:57
S2: this goes to the whole oh they've these things we
5:00
S2: knew this wasn't an issue at like this issue had
5:05
S2: come up during the election where the coalition said, we're
5:08
S2: going to freeze it for a decade. And there was
5:10
S2: a real big pushback from the industry. But you go
5:14
S2: back even two months ago, it had disappeared. And it's
5:18
S2: only because of the of the roundtable that it's really come,
5:21
S2: come to the fore very quickly. Like most people had
5:25
S2: no idea that this 3000 page behemoth existed, except if
5:29
S2: you're a poor builder having to work out what size
5:33
S2: or what depth of a firewall you had to put
5:35
S2: into a house. So this is it's interesting about how
5:39
S2: we go, oh, this is a thing we knew. But
5:42
S2: go back eight weeks, you and I and Jackie would
5:45
S2: not be discussing the ins and outs of the national
5:47
S2: construction code.
5:48
S1: I mean, I guess it's particularly important for the government
5:50
S1: now politically, because they've made promises very concrete, firm promises
5:54
S1: about how many houses they're going to build. And they've discovered,
5:57
S1: perhaps belatedly, that it's really hard to build houses because
5:59
S1: there's too many regulations.
6:01
S3: Yeah, I think you're probably right, Shane. I mean, we've
6:03
S3: read stories about it for weeks now, and so we've
6:05
S3: been accustomed to it being on the menu, but it
6:08
S3: has certainly come about into public debate only in the
6:10
S3: last few months. I think you're right about that.
6:12
S1: Okay. So so we had some agreement on some of
6:14
S1: these topics. I mean, it's pretty small beer. We're not
6:17
S1: talking about major tax reform. Major economic reform. Shane, what
6:20
S1: was your impression of the conference?
6:23
S2: I was always a bit cynical, especially around tax, because
6:27
S2: tax is the one of the most contested spaces going around.
6:32
S2: And you actually saw the way that the business lobby
6:34
S2: reacted to the Productivity Commission's idea of a cash flow
6:38
S2: tax like it, like they were trying to kill it,
6:41
S2: probably within about six hours of it going live. So
6:45
S2: and that's just around company tax where there's like every
6:50
S2: business bar five the 500 largest. We're going to get
6:53
S2: a tax cut, including some really substantial firms with turnover
6:57
S2: between 50 million and 1 billion. No matter what you did,
7:01
S2: they were going to get at least a 5% tax cut.
7:04
S1: But they were saying the overall tax burden was going
7:06
S1: to be higher on business.
7:08
S2: For 500 firms. Yes. Not for the other couple of million. Ultimately,
7:14
S2: because so much of tax we know about the problems. But, uh,
7:18
S2: the way and Paul and myself picked this up on
7:21
S2: the in the press conference that Chalmers gave was the
7:23
S2: fact that, yeah, the him conceding there's intergenerational issues. Um,
7:29
S2: and it's, it's whacking younger people. We've heard say Ken
7:31
S2: Henry has been talking about the international intergenerational bastardry of
7:36
S2: the tax system, but now he's actually like he's like
7:39
S2: the Pied Piper. He's finally got a team on his side.
7:42
S2: And they're singing from a similar, uh, hymn book now.
7:46
S1: Yeah. So you wrote a really compelling piece about this
7:49
S1: this week, And you basically, I think, came to the
7:51
S1: conclusion that this intergenerational bastardry, we don't usually use vulgarity
7:56
S1: on this podcast, but we're quoting Ken Henry. So it's okay. Yeah.
7:59
S1: That's right. Yeah. So basically the intergenerational inequity where the
8:03
S1: tax burden is much higher on working age and younger
8:05
S1: people than it is on older people. And you basically
8:09
S1: came to the conclusion that not much is going to
8:11
S1: be done about that huge structural issue out of this roundtable.
8:15
S1: Is that is that what you think?
8:17
S2: Yes. Although the fact that he's conceded that there's a
8:20
S2: problem and it depends on how you go about it.
8:23
S2: Like this government is still like the noise around the
8:26
S2: government's change on superannuation, which is affecting just tens of
8:31
S2: thousands of people, you would think is the end of days. Yeah.
8:34
S2: Amongst some of the criticism. And you go, oh come
8:37
S2: on fellas, let's calm down a little bit. But it's
8:40
S2: that's the sort of noise when it's an issue around
8:43
S2: the globe where so many people, the wealth, wealth is
8:47
S2: the like. We've always talked about income inequity. Yeah. But
8:51
S2: now we're getting into like, people have realized. Hold on.
8:53
S2: It's where wealth is, where we have so many multi-billionaires
8:58
S2: people have sort of. What the hell's going on? Yeah.
9:01
S2: And the working age population, particularly if you're in your
9:04
S2: 20s or 30s, you feel like you've absolutely been rogered over.
9:07
S2: And they and these people have absolutely every right to
9:11
S2: believe that. So that argument about where how wealth is
9:15
S2: treated as opposed to income is, I think it's something
9:18
S2: that's going to keep gathering, gathering attention.
9:21
S1: And Shane, you wrote a piece this week basically saying,
9:24
S1: you know, it's easy to be cynical about the Productivity
9:26
S1: Roundtable that, you know, not enough has come out of it,
9:29
S1: or that we didn't get a lot of kind of
9:30
S1: actionable things that are going to happen straight away. But
9:33
S1: you also pointed out that genuine economic reform takes a very, very,
9:37
S1: very long time. And if you don't build consensus over
9:39
S1: a very, very, very long time, then it just won't succeed.
9:42
S1: And Ken Henry knows that better than anyone because, you know,
9:45
S1: he put forward the mining tax and a carbon price,
9:48
S1: and both of those died in a big political fight.
9:51
S1: So do you think that's what the government is trying
9:54
S1: to do? Basically use this as a groundwork for a very,
9:57
S1: very long process of political consensus building for some major reforms?
10:01
S2: Yeah. Paul Circle might be on the aged pension by
10:04
S2: the time it gets all done. Yeah. But, um, and
10:07
S2: he's a very young man right now. Let's let's make
10:10
S2: that clear for those who can't see him. However, maybe
10:13
S2: it's the world that we live in that we get
10:15
S2: instant gratification from everything. Policy change does take time. It
10:21
S2: really does. Like, as you notice the column I wrote,
10:24
S2: the GST took 25 years from being explained to being
10:29
S2: put in place. And Paul Keating, someone who really does
10:32
S2: know how to communicate and bring people, bring people with him.
10:36
S2: On reform he lost. People forget that in 1985, he
10:40
S2: wanted a consumption tax and got beaten by his own
10:43
S2: government on that introduction. So it does take time. You
10:47
S2: mentioned Henry the Standard. One of his proposals was the standardized, uh,
10:52
S2: tax refund for people who line up every year, go
10:57
S2: down to a tax accountant to get their tax done.
11:00
S2: That was in Henry and finally made it into the government's, uh,
11:05
S2: election agenda. And we and already you can see some
11:08
S2: there's some big name tax agents saying, oh, this is
11:11
S2: end of days, right? Um, we're talking about something that
11:14
S2: will like, this is where Paul's absolutely correct, where Saul
11:18
S2: Eslake talking about one percenters or, or uh, Danny, Danny
11:22
S2: would talked about just making a change that might give
11:25
S2: you an inch of improvement.
11:27
S1: Um.
11:27
S2: After a while, you get to a full yard. Maybe
11:29
S2: you'll go the, the full nine yards to go into
11:32
S2: a movie analogy, that sort of thing. It it just
11:36
S2: takes time. And people want to see everyone and I
11:38
S2: understand want to say, ah, we've got the whole solution.
11:42
S2: Here it is. We'll put in place by the end
11:44
S2: of the week, it'll be all done. That's not how
11:47
S2: society works at all.
11:49
S3: And they say there's a lot of, uh, there'll be
11:51
S3: a lot of talk, uh, in coming days about how
11:54
S3: this moment failed to match the Big bang moments of
11:57
S3: economic reform, particularly from the Hawke-keating era, and then in
12:00
S3: part from the Howard era and what Jim Chalmers would
12:04
S3: say if he was on this podcast and being honest,
12:07
S3: which he may not be if he was on this podcast,
12:09
S3: would be to say that there are no, you know,
12:12
S3: floating the dollar ideas that the government can easily enact
12:16
S3: to do immediate big change.
12:19
S1: Yeah. So what happens politically from now, Paul? I mean,
12:22
S1: will this just kind of fade into oblivion? Will they
12:24
S1: make these changes and we might get some incremental improvements
12:27
S1: on productivity. And they can sort of point to those
12:29
S1: or will they use it for. I don't know, some
12:31
S1: sort of agenda building exercise or to actually do something
12:34
S1: major over the next two and a half years, something
12:36
S1: major that might upset people but might also really benefit
12:38
S1: the economy.
12:40
S3: Well, Chalmers was asked this yesterday, was he, as he
12:42
S3: was leaving his press conference, the question was asked by
12:44
S3: a few different people in different ways, and the question was,
12:47
S3: do you feel like you're exiting this week with a
12:50
S3: new public mandate to do something more bold as this
12:54
S3: term goes on? His answer was mixed. He said that
12:57
S3: our mandate comes from the people being the election, where
13:00
S3: they had a very thin mandate on economic reform that
13:02
S3: allowed them to do not very much. But he did
13:04
S3: say that the nature of this government is that we
13:07
S3: bring people into a conversation, and that's how we do change.
13:11
S3: We tell people what we're doing, we bring them along
13:14
S3: for the ride. And I think what he was hinting
13:16
S3: at was that this week, for the first time, he's
13:20
S3: been more honest about what the problem is that needs
13:22
S3: to be solved, being the tax system moving away from
13:25
S3: all the low hanging fruit that he's already going to enact,
13:28
S3: and by being upfront about the problem that needs to
13:30
S3: be solved on tax, I think he's giving himself a platform. Yeah.
13:35
S3: Just through using these words to do some more later
13:38
S3: in the term. The opposition's been very cynical this week.
13:40
S3: They've called it a stitch up. Ted O'Brien had a
13:43
S3: probably slightly confected brawl with Chalmers inside the.
13:46
S1: I know that was that was exciting. That was a
13:48
S1: little juicy piece of gossip out of an otherwise dry
13:50
S1: round table.
13:52
S3: Little, little. My favourite piece of reporting for the week, jacki,
13:54
S3: for sure.
13:55
S1: It was. It was so exciting. A little a little
13:57
S1: exchange of terse words.
13:59
S3: Well, the background to this is interesting. So Ted O'Brien's
14:02
S3: The Shadow Treasurer used to be the energy spokesman, was
14:04
S3: responsible for the nuclear plan, the disastrous nuclear plant in
14:07
S3: the last opposition. He's now the deputy leader. He agreed
14:11
S3: to go into the round table as one of the
14:13
S3: 25 or whatever attendees. He's the only opposition MP at
14:16
S3: the Round Table. There was quite a lot of pressure
14:18
S3: from some of his colleagues, his senior colleagues in the opposition,
14:21
S3: who believe that his attendance at the Round Table legitimized
14:25
S3: the whole project, which was a Chalmers project, and gave
14:29
S3: weight to the government's agenda. And so there was some
14:32
S3: internal pressure on him to show a point of difference
14:35
S3: in the room. There was some conjecture in the days
14:38
S3: leading up as to whether he would do a walkout,
14:40
S3: like a staged walkout to protest it.
14:42
S1: I love a walkout. I mean, you really capture people's
14:45
S1: attention if you flounce out of a room.
14:47
S3: Yeah, it's not really his style to do something like that.
14:49
S3: So what he did decide to do was on the
14:51
S3: last day, the Thursday, as they were talking about budget
14:53
S3: restraint after Jenny Wilkinson, the new finance Treasury, um, gave
14:57
S3: her spiel on budget management, Ted O'Brien put his hand
15:00
S3: up and said, I'd like to have a have a say.
15:02
S3: And he gave a very forceful spiel which cited an
15:05
S3: op ed that he'd written this week in one of
15:08
S3: the papers, which effectively said that Jim Chalmers had ruined
15:11
S3: the budget. He cited a bunch of different statistics, and
15:14
S3: Chalmers interjected also forcefully and said, quote, according to a source, Ted,
15:19
S3: this isn't Question Time. And he also said that every
15:22
S3: number you have just read out there is wrong. This little,
15:26
S3: this little Barney went on for a little while, apparently.
15:29
S3: And Daniel Mukhi, the New South Wales treasurer, apparently interjected
15:32
S3: and said, guys, we need to move on. No one
15:34
S3: wants to hear this. Can we can we go to
15:36
S3: the next speaker?
15:37
S1: Well, cue the great Peacemaker. Um, what a scene. What
15:40
S1: a scene.
15:41
S2: Apart from. I really need to get out more. Jackie.
15:43
S2: You really are going crazy. It's not Shakespeare, that's all
15:47
S2: I'm saying.
15:54
S1: Let's move on quickly to the NDIS, because, um, in
15:57
S1: terms of budget management and structural budget sort of overhangs, um,
16:02
S1: the NDIS has been a real headache for the government
16:05
S1: and for the last coalition government as well, just because
16:07
S1: of the the rate of growth of the scheme and
16:09
S1: the enormous, enormous expense of it. So is it coincidental,
16:14
S1: do you think, Shane, that this week, um, Mark Butler,
16:16
S1: the health minister, went to the National Press Club and said, look,
16:19
S1: we're actually going to overhaul this and we're going to
16:20
S1: do something about this, and we're going to cut that
16:22
S1: growth rate right down from I think they wanted to
16:25
S1: do it 8% a year or keep it to 8%
16:27
S1: a year. But now he's saying, no, we're going to
16:29
S1: go further and keep the growth to 5 to 6%
16:31
S1: a year, and we're going to basically kick off a
16:34
S1: lot of young autistic and kids who are sort of
16:37
S1: on the ADHD spectrum. Onto another scheme. Tell us a
16:41
S1: little bit about that.
16:42
S2: Yeah. It's no coincidence. It has been a very interesting
16:45
S2: week because there's this. And there's also a change around
16:47
S2: deeming rates which hit pensioners. Yeah, I think someone tried
16:51
S2: to describe it. It'll only save $1.8 billion. I look,
16:54
S2: I would get out of bed for $1.8 billion. So
16:57
S2: I don't think it's that inconsequential. However, Mark Butler, his
17:01
S2: proposals as our colleague, the brilliant Natassia Chrysanthos, has mentioned,
17:06
S2: what he's talking about is a possible saving of close
17:09
S2: to $100 billion over the next decade if they can
17:12
S2: get this policy up and going, which is effectively you, grandfather,
17:19
S2: the kids who are autistic, who are on the scheme now,
17:24
S2: grandfather them and stop new ones coming on, uh, within
17:29
S2: the next 18 months or next two years and move
17:32
S2: them into a much cheaper and much more targeted scheme, which,
17:37
S2: and Butler's argument is ultimately the NDIS was set up
17:41
S2: for people with permanent and irreparable disabilities.
17:46
S1: Severe disabilities, severe disabilities.
17:48
S2: And and I you can understand parents who've got, uh,
17:51
S2: autistic children and they there is a spectrum as a
17:55
S2: as my wife is a teacher and she deals with
17:58
S2: kids who are across the spectrum in this space. Yeah.
18:01
S2: You can understand if you had this chance to get
18:04
S2: some great, like, huge like we're talking huge amounts of
18:07
S2: money to help them. You can understand why you do it.
18:09
S2: You do.
18:10
S1: It transforms people's lives, I think, and particularly for kids
18:13
S1: who are maybe from lower socioeconomic backgrounds where they wouldn't
18:16
S1: have gotten that, that assistance originally.
18:18
S2: Of course, the studies are showing that people, higher socioeconomic
18:23
S2: parents who are really doing well to get there, they've
18:26
S2: been able to negotiate the scheme really well and access
18:29
S2: this scheme, which is actually coming in. And you're right,
18:32
S2: it is coming at a huge cost to every taxpayer.
18:38
S2: So yeah, what Mark Butler's outlined. You can see the
18:41
S2: commitment to it because they understand it has to be
18:44
S2: done and do. Kudos to the coalition because the coalition
18:48
S2: did not get any help from labor when the roles
18:52
S2: were reversed in terms of trying to bring change to
18:55
S2: the NDIS. The coalition's already signalled, look, we're open to
18:59
S2: this because they understand that this is a this is
19:02
S2: a bipartisan problem that they have to address.
19:05
S1: Yeah. And I think the NDIS, for the most part,
19:07
S1: is usually been treated as a fairly bipartisan issue because
19:10
S1: it's so important to, to disabled Australians. Paul, do you
19:13
S1: think the government's likely to get any political or any
19:15
S1: kind of public backlash over these cuts to the NDIS?
19:19
S3: Well, I think the timing is is interesting. This is
19:21
S3: a few months after the May election that labor is
19:24
S3: openly admitting that even their 8% growth target means that
19:27
S3: this scheme is still going to increase at a really
19:30
S3: eye watering rate 8% compounding when the when a scheme
19:33
S3: costs nearly $50 billion per year means that a kind
19:37
S3: of behemoth will double in pretty quick time. Any politician
19:41
S3: you talk to in private acknowledges this scheme is absolutely
19:44
S3: nothing compared to what it was meant to be, and
19:47
S3: that it needs to be reined in. But when you
19:50
S3: have an election coming up, people aren't willing to be
19:52
S3: honest about these things in public. Because even when you
19:56
S3: do try and make reasonable changes to a scheme that
19:59
S3: creates losers, losers can be loud and losers will be
20:03
S3: latched onto by politically interested parties to make a political point.
20:06
S3: But I think Mark Butler's honesty on Wednesday and the
20:10
S3: way he framed the argument to say to parents, no,
20:13
S3: no individual family is at fault here. It's not your
20:16
S3: fault that you have signed up to this scheme. There's
20:18
S3: a lack of services for autistic kids in schools and
20:22
S3: in other areas in the community, because everyone has allowed
20:25
S3: the all states and other parties have allowed the federal
20:28
S3: government to pay for this thing because the NDIS is there.
20:31
S3: He's saying no one is to blame. We're not targeting you.
20:35
S3: But this game doesn't work for the broader public interest,
20:38
S3: and something needs to be done. So an unencumbered government
20:40
S3: with a big mandate and a strong political position can
20:44
S3: be honest and tackle big issues even when they are contentious.
20:47
S3: I think that's a that's a that's that's one of
20:50
S3: the benefits of having a commanding election win, which we
20:53
S3: should be pleased with for the public interest, I think.
20:55
S1: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, chaps, what are we going to
20:57
S1: do without the Productivity roundtable in our lives? Like, is
21:00
S1: there a shaney? Do you feel like a hole in
21:03
S1: your soul now or never?
21:06
S2: The the the race for economic reform never ends. That
21:10
S2: that finish line just keeps going off and off into
21:13
S2: the distance. And look, given what they've commissioned, this thing
21:17
S2: is going to keep going and going. And every couple
21:19
S2: of weeks myself or Mr. Sarkar will ask the treasurer,
21:23
S2: so how's the roundtable going? Where are you up to?
21:26
S2: It isn't going to end that soon.
21:28
S3: And he'll say, he'll say, oh, don't remind me of
21:29
S3: that thing.
21:30
S1: Yeah, that. That old thing. Um, well, this is music
21:34
S1: to my ears, because we can keep talking about productivity.
21:36
S1: And I love talking about productivity. Chaps, thanks so much
21:39
S1: for coming on and sharing your wealth of experience and insight,
21:43
S1: as always.
21:45
S2: Well, you're a great host, Jackie. You you know how
21:47
S2: to get the best out of us.
21:48
S3: Stop it. Have a great weekend, guys.
21:50
S1: Thanks, guys. Today's episode was produced by Julia Carr Katzel
21:56
S1: our executive producer is Tami Mills, and Tom McKendrick is
22:00
S1: head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon
22:02
S1: as they drop, follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or
22:06
S1: anywhere else you listen to your podcasts. To stay up
22:09
S1: to date with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit
22:12
S1: The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald websites and to
22:15
S1: support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting the page or. Subscribe.
22:22
S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.