Latest / Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps / Just Josh: Why Can't Politicians Answer A Question?

Transcript

Just Josh: Why Can't Politicians Answer A Question? · Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

0:03
G'day humans!
0:04
Welcome to the safe space for dangerous ideas.
0:07
And the dangerous idea today
0:09
is that if politicians don't get better at having uncomfortable conversations in public
0:14
with citizens, with journalists, then all the rest of us are screwed because voters are going
0:20
to go for candidates who seem more authentic, more unfiltered and more willing to answer
0:26
questions directly.
0:28
In the United States, we've seen the rise of some truly toxic political
0:32
candidates, mainly on the right, I must say.
0:35
There's this James Fishback character who is a
0:39
Florida congressional wannabe who is overtly basically racist and anti-Semitic and is getting
0:46
a lot of cred from the online right because he just tells it like it is.
0:49
He's not going to be
0:50
censored by anybody.
0:52
We've seen the damage that the Trump administration has done to the discourse,
0:55
largely because Donald Trump presented himself, especially during his first run for the White
1:00
House, as being someone who wasn't going to be cowed by political correctness and was going to
1:03
tell people what he thought, regardless of whether or not they liked it or whether it was the proper
1:08
thing to say.
1:09
And here in Australia, One Nation, the far-right, certainly anti-immigrant party,
1:15
is more popular than it's ever been.
1:17
The only thing that stands between us and a thumping win
1:20
by One Nation at the next election, not that they would take government, but significantly control
1:24
the House and or the Senate, is the opposition leader, who is the head of the centre-right party,
1:31
Angus Taylor.
1:32
Now, what I want to do today is something a little bit different.
1:35
I want to play
1:36
you a media interview between Angus Taylor and the country's preeminent current affairs show,
1:41
which is called 7.30, used to be called the 7.30 Report, on the National Public Broadcaster.
1:47
As an example, as just a little chiming in, at the risk of taking potshots from the sidelines,
1:53
I think I have a pretty good idea of how to have uncomfortable conversations, of how politicians might do better at having uncomfortable conversations and seeming fair dinkum, seeming free from bullshit without putting their foot in it in a way that's going to give them massive pain in our crazy 24-hour news cycle and social media cacophony.
2:14
So I humbly submit myself to the opposition leader, Angus Taylor, with this analysis of his performance on the current affairs show, 7.30, in a spirit of constructive analysis.
2:28
And I hope that in looking at this, you can take away ideas about how political candidates can do better in media interviews in your own country, in your own jurisdiction.
2:40
And certainly, if you're ever going to be a political candidate yourself or if you know any people who are running for political office, it might be worth letting them tune in, just sharing this with them and giving them an assessment of the opinion of somebody who spends a lot of time having very careful conversations.
2:58
about how politicians can do better at being genuinely authentic and free from artifice
3:04
without stumbling.
3:06
So let's just have a listen.
3:07
And if you're outside of Australia,
3:09
it's worth just remembering, especially if you're American, that the opposition leader
3:13
is the leader of a kind of permanent government in waiting in a parliamentary democracy,
3:19
where they're the leader of the party that has the second largest number of seats in the House
3:24
of representatives, and they are supposed to provide an alternative vision for the country.
3:29
It's really like you've got the alternative president who's already sitting there and is
3:34
supposed to articulate a strong and bold vision for the direction that they would take the country
3:40
in.
3:40
Now, the background that you need here is, as you will be familiar with if you've been listening
3:45
to the show recently, Australia just had its budget, which is the government's big fanfare,
3:49
sort of State of the Union night, where it delivers its ideas about what it's going to do
3:53
to the country, for the country, with the country in the next 12 months.
3:57
This was a biggie.
3:58
It had
3:59
major reforms, including sort of massively raising the taxation of assets, taxes on property and
4:07
shares, with a view to someday potentially perhaps lowering tax rates for salary workers and for
4:15
wages.
4:16
The response from the opposition was to say, we're not going to do any of that.
4:20
If we
4:20
get into government, we're going to roll the whole thing back.
4:21
We're going to cancel it all.
4:23
And instead, we're going to index the tax rates, which means that they would always creep up with
4:28
inflation and you wouldn't accidentally sort of find yourself being taxed more simply because
4:32
inflation was pushing you into a higher tax bracket.
4:34
And we'll do all of these other wonderful
4:36
things, but we're not necessarily going to cost them yet because it's not an election year yet.
4:41
So we don't have to be too specific, but we're going to be as big and audacious as the government
4:45
was, but in the opposite direction in terms of saying no.
4:48
So let's have a look at this interview
4:50
and I will pause it throughout and I will make constructive suggestions as to what the opposition
4:56
leader, Mr. Angus Taylor, may have done differently if he really wanted to stanch the bloodshed
5:04
of voters fleeing his party for more authentic seeming populist anti-immigrant parties of the
5:11
right.
5:12
Angus Taylor, congratulations on your budget in reply.
5:15
There is, as we know, a one
5:17
nation wave sweeping through Liberal held electorates, extinction level according to the
5:23
polls.
5:24
Are you laying out your plan tonight to stop their momentum?
5:28
No, Sarah, and thank you for
5:29
having me.
5:30
I'm laying out our plan for Australia, for our nation, at a time when the standard of
5:35
living is going backwards.
5:36
People are deeply worried.
5:38
Okay, okay, okay, okay.
5:40
Does your
5:40
bullshit detector already go off that he's just starting to recite the thing that his media
5:45
advisor told him to say in response to the first question, regardless of what the first question
5:49
was.
5:50
If you are asked, are you releasing this budget in reply in order to take wind out of the
5:59
sails of One Nation, which is stealing your voters from the right?
6:04
And if everybody basically knows
6:06
that that is your biggest problem at the moment, don't come out of the gate by saying no.
6:12
Firstly,
6:12
nobody believes it.
6:13
Secondly, what you're about to launch into sounds canned.
6:16
The correct thing
6:17
to say if the interviewer asks you, are you trying to defeat one nation, is to shrug and say a bit,
6:25
yeah, yeah, that is part of it.
6:27
We can see that Australians are dissatisfied and we can see that
6:30
both political parties historically haven't been offering them what they need and what they deserve.
6:36
And the answer is not to go and vote for some populist party that's full of hot air but has no real solutions for Australia.
6:43
And the answer certainly isn't to vote again for the government, which has just delivered the worst budget in Australian history.
6:49
We are committed to rebuilding this party and delivering on the dream for real Australians.
6:56
So absolutely, we're concerned about One Nation and their rise just shows how poorly the government has been delivering for real Australians and we're here to change that.
7:06
Or something like that.
7:07
You don't have to lie straight out of the gate because you're afraid that there's going to be a headline saying, oh, the leader of the opposition admits that he's partly motivated by losing voters to One Nation.
7:20
Yeah, I mean, it's a fact.
7:22
So what?
7:22
I mean, if you can't admit to that, then don't be surprised when people like the leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, who would admit to her credit, she would admit to something that was patently true about her motivations and her campaigning and her strategy.
7:38
Don't be surprised if she gets more votes.
7:40
About the direction of the country.
7:43
They're deeply worried about their own incomes
7:47
and their families and their future.
7:49
And so that's why we've laid out a pathway
7:51
for a fairer, freer, better Australia,
7:54
one with lower taxes,
7:56
one that's not got an assault on aspiration,
7:59
like we see under Labor,
8:00
but supports aspiration with significant tax cuts,
8:05
not just getting rid of Labor's toxic taxes,
8:08
but I think the very worst tax of all,
8:10
which is the one that goes up every single year
8:13
because of inflation,
8:15
and that is a big impost on Australians.
8:18
It's holding them back and we will get rid of it.
8:21
We'll also align immigration with housing,
8:24
get housing supply up,
8:26
but make sure immigration...
8:28
OK, he's going way ahead of himself here.
8:30
You don't have to give the entire portfolio of policies
8:34
in your first answer.
8:35
I know that media advisers think,
8:37
you've got to come out of the gate strong.
8:39
You've got to really list all of the things that you want to get across
8:41
because you never know the interviewer might not get to them.
8:44
Look, if the interviewer doesn't get to everything,
8:46
then at some point before the end of the interview,
8:48
you can say, I also just want to add,
8:50
since you're obviously obfuscating this important fact
8:54
about the budget and reply, and then you can go into your thing.
8:56
You don't have to lay it all out up front
8:58
so that you sound like you're just reciting something
9:00
which you obviously learned five minutes before going on the air.
9:03
...numbers are such that we can support them with housing.
9:07
and we'll make sure that we've got affordable, abundant energy
9:09
and we put Australians first.
9:11
That's the focus.
9:12
Alright.
9:13
Clearly, two twin key concerns here.
9:16
Tax, which we'll come to, on immigration first of all,
9:19
because we are having this conversation
9:21
with that cloud of One Nation hanging over the Liberal Party.
9:25
Why the attack on permanent residents in this speech
9:29
who work and pay tax the same as citizens?
9:32
Well, it's about putting Australian citizens first
9:35
and that's the duty of a government to put Australian citizens first.
9:40
That's not a bad response.
9:41
Just to clarify what it is that the interviewer, Sarah Ferguson, is talking about there,
9:46
part of the opposition's plan is that you would only be eligible for welfare payments
9:51
and for certain social services if you're a citizen,
9:53
removing permanent residents from eligibility for certain welfare.
10:00
I think you already have to have been in the country for three years or four years or something
10:04
to get on to certain, to access certain social services.
10:07
This is not including healthcare.
10:08
They would still get free healthcare,
10:10
but part of the opposition's proposal,
10:11
should they be elected into government,
10:12
would be to strip welfare benefits
10:14
from people who are not citizens.
10:17
So that's a legitimate question
10:18
and it's a legitimate answer
10:19
that the opposition leader has given,
10:21
saying we're just reshifting the focus to citizens.
10:23
All right, bravo.
10:25
And I think it's extraordinary that at a time like this,
10:30
the government has cut support
10:32
for older Australians' private health insurance
10:35
and yet there is welfare for non-Australian citizens.
10:39
Sarah, they...
10:40
Just to be clear, these are permanent residents who pay tax
10:44
and in many cases are waiting to become citizens.
10:47
So why focus on them?
10:49
Well, citizenship is a privilege
10:52
and it's something we want people to get something from.
10:56
You know, if you contribute to this country,
10:58
we want to contribute back
11:00
and that's what citizenship is all about.
11:03
But when you have a situation where someone can come and get all the benefits without that, it becomes meaningless, Sarah.
11:10
And the truth is, if you ask Australians whether people can get access to welfare programs without being citizens, they'd say they can't.
11:19
But they actually are.
11:20
And it's costing the country a great deal.
11:23
So this is 17 different programs.
11:25
There's appropriate exemptions in compassionate circumstances.
11:29
Okay, okay.
11:29
I'm already sort of nodding off.
11:31
I think the correct answer when the interviewer says, why are we focusing on this set of people is not to start waffling about citizenship and citizenship comes with this and citizenship comes with that, but to pivot back to the fact that you're a responsible government that takes spending seriously.
11:45
I mean, you know, in an ideal world, this is what I would say, in an ideal world, we'd have, you know, milk and honey flowing for everybody and we'd all have an infinite amount of welfare that we could get from the government.
11:55
If Australia wants to be competitive in the 21st century, we have to have a competitive economy, we have to constrain spending.
11:59
This government is one of the highest spending governments on a consistent basis in Australian history.
12:04
They're one of the highest taxing governments.
12:06
governments.
12:07
If you want responsible people to be looking after the country's finances,
12:09
then we do have to find areas where regrettably we have to shave off a little bit of spending.
12:14
And it doesn't make a lot of sense to us for people who aren't even Australians to be getting
12:18
money from Australian taxpayers.
12:21
That to me, framing it in fiscal terms in order to dodge
12:25
the claim that you're sort of dog whistling to racists, but shifting the conversation back to,
12:30
we have a finite amount of money, we have to spend it on something that we'd rather spend it on
12:34
Australians than spend it on non-Australians.
12:36
It's not really that complicated, right?
12:38
I mean,
12:38
you're pretending you don't understand it, Sarah, but you do get it.
12:42
Like, you know,
12:43
we've got money, we've got a certain amount of money to spend.
12:45
I'd rather it went to Australians
12:46
than non-Australians.
12:48
But importantly, it's saying that we're going to put Australian citizens first,
12:52
not rip money out of private health insurance for older Australians or veterans.
12:57
These measures for migrants, as you say, they are about focusing on the idea of citizenship,
13:05
pushing people, if you like, towards citizenship.
13:08
However, for some countries, particularly people from China and India,
13:12
in order to become Australian citizens, they have to renounce their Indian or Chinese citizenship.
13:18
And there are grave concerns amongst people in that community that they would lose assets.
13:24
Now, what's your message to the very large Indian and Chinese diaspora this evening,
13:30
listening to you saying that you will force them to give up their citizenship
13:34
if they want to receive any of these welfare benefits?
13:37
You want them to give up those citizenships and potentially lose their assets.
13:41
What's your message to them?
13:42
We're not forcing anyone to give up anything, Sarah.
13:44
We're saying that if you want access to the privileges,
13:47
which we believe should be privileges of citizenship,
13:50
you need to become a citizen.
13:51
So you need to make a choice.
13:53
It's very simple.
13:54
And the idea that someone should arrive and the moment they arrive here, get access to family tax benefit, for instance.
14:02
I think for Australians, that's just not on at a time like this when we're really struggling.
14:07
We were approaching a trillion dollars of debt under Labor.
14:11
Australians are struggling with their own household budgets.
14:14
OK, look, it was not a bad start to the answer.
14:18
But one thing that politicians and political candidates need to take seriously is the possibility of brevity and having a conversational conversation.
14:27
In other words, the kind of conversation that you might have at the pub instead of the kind of conversation that you would have if you were delivering a policy address.
14:34
If the interviewer says, what is your message to the Chinese Australians and Indian Australians who may suffer penalties from their home countries if they become Australian citizens and who you're trying to take benefits away from, then you don't have to start waffling about the trillion dollars here and all of these.
14:57
You could just briefly say, my message to them is, if you want to be Australian, we'd love to have you.
15:05
that's all you really need if you want to become australians then become australians we're a
15:10
generous and welcoming country we'd love to have you as australian citizens apply that's it you
15:16
don't need more than that that's what a person who was defending a position that they held at a
15:21
barbecue or you know in normal conversation would say they wouldn't go off on this huge policy
15:27
tangent it's not necessary we're seeing cutbacks extra taxes being imposed on housing i was asking
15:32
I was asking you to address your answer to that specific group of people, the Chinese
15:36
and the Indian diasporas, because obviously at the last election the Liberal Party suffered
15:43
significant losses in those communities.
15:45
They felt there had been intemperate attacks on
15:49
them.
15:49
So it makes me wonder how bad the threat must feel from One Nation to risk angering
15:54
those communities again.
15:56
Sarah, I welcome those communities who come to this country and want to build businesses
16:01
and build careers and do things in our country
16:04
and become Australians.
16:06
That's the pathway.
16:07
I mean, I grew up in one of the great immigrant towns
16:09
of Australia, not far south of here,
16:10
where we saw thousands of people come to that town, Cooma,
16:16
after the Second World War,
16:18
and it was an extraordinary place to grow up.
16:20
But what made it so extraordinary
16:23
was the people who came wanted to be part of our country.
16:26
They wanted to become Australians.
16:28
That's the model of immigration and citizenship that I want to see.
16:31
The group of people that you're talking about, as I said,
16:34
these are taxpaying permanent residents,
16:36
many of whom are waiting to become citizens.
16:40
They already face a two- or four-year...
16:43
This is where I would interrupt the interviewer
16:45
because she's just banging on about the same thing,
16:47
which he's basically answered already.
16:49
And she's saying they're waiting, and I would just interrupt and say,
16:54
and as soon as they become citizens,
16:55
they'll be eligible for all the benefits of citizenship.
16:57
It's as simple as that.
16:58
As soon as they become citizens,
17:00
they'll be eligible for all the benefits of citizenship
17:02
and we'll be delighted to have them.
17:04
Period.
17:05
Waiting period for welfare as things stand.
17:08
Why do you want to further penalise that group
17:11
by restricting access to welfare completely?
17:13
Sarah, access to citizenship comes after four years of being here
17:18
and only one year of permanent residency.
17:20
This is not a high threshold.
17:22
So the real issue is this.
17:24
It's true.
17:25
But you are proposing to take welfare away from people in that group at that time, in a period of...
17:31
That's not a bad answer, what the opposition leader's answer to Sarah there was.
17:34
But again, I would just keep things much more on point and much tighter and much freer from waffle.
17:41
As we'll see subsequently in this interview, he does have a tendency to get himself tangled up in long answers to things that obfuscate what everyone can tell he is or isn't actually saying.
17:52
So, I mean, if she's saying that, why are you trying to punish people?
17:55
Honestly, by the time she's saying it for a third time, I think that's a time to just laugh at her a little bit and be like, Sarah, I know I see what you're trying to do here.
18:05
I know you're trying to say that we're punishing people.
18:09
The reality is there's a certain amount of money to go around and we don't spend an infinite amount of money on an infinite number of people.
18:16
So we have to make calls somewhere.
18:17
And this is a call that we've made.
18:19
Citizens get benefits from being citizens.
18:21
That's the end of the story.
18:23
And if she keeps on at it, then you just laugh and you say, she looks ridiculous.
18:28
She keeps, you know, it's not that complicated a thing to explain if you just explain it in the context of, we think that there are good reasons to be an Australian.
18:37
And if people want to be Australians, then they can become Australians.
18:41
That's all you need.
18:42
Global competition for skilled migrants.
18:45
Have you muddled how many skilled migrants might leave Australia because of the conditions you want to create?
18:51
Well, Sarah, there's always a long queue of people wanting to come to this country.
18:54
It's because it's, I believe, the greatest country on earth.
18:58
That's a good answer.
18:58
But if people come to this country in order to receive welfare in the first couple of years of being here, perhaps that's not an appropriate circumstance.
19:08
When you say in order to, are you suggesting they come here to get the welfare?
19:11
But at the end of the day, Sarah, it's appropriate that people come here, spend some time.
19:19
Yeah, see, she just did a gotcha question and he didn't call her out on it.
19:22
The thing is, if you're in an interview and the other person is being disingenuous and you don't respond, then you're the one who seems wooden.
19:29
That's the sort of unfair thing about the dynamic in interviews.
19:32
If one person is being prosecutorial and you decline to take the bait, then you're the one who seems shifty, when in fact you could just call them out for being inappropriately adversarial about a matter that is important.
19:47
If she's saying, are you implying that people are coming here just in order to get welfare benefits, then you can just say, you were just asking me to estimate the number of people who won't come here as a result of not being able to get welfare.
20:03
I think that's a ridiculous insinuation.
20:06
people who want to come to Australia because they're highly skilled and they want to make a
20:10
go of it are not going to care about whether or not they get handouts from the government
20:13
if people did care massively about how many handouts they get within the first few years
20:17
of being here before they even become Australians then okay they're not the type of people people we
20:23
want I mean that is both ballsier and riskier but also speaks directly to the point without
20:32
any fear or favour.
20:34
I mean, there's no reason why you can't say things like that.
20:37
The alternative is to just come across as so cautious
20:39
and so terrified of losing your job by upsetting anybody
20:42
that you're a deflating blancmange for everybody else,
20:46
totally inoffensive and, as a result, totally unappealing.
20:49
And become a citizen over time and then they get access
20:52
to the privileges of citizenship.
20:54
That's how most countries in the world work.
20:57
It's completely appropriate that we should do the same.
21:00
And this is, look, the extraordinary thing about this is how many Australians have said to me in recent weeks, as I've been talking to people about this, I had no idea that non-citizens could get access to 17 of these welfare programs soon after they arrive in the country.
21:20
Now, we have a very generous welfare system in this country, a very generous safety net, social safety net.
21:27
And that's appropriate.
21:28
but it's also appropriate to take it away from people who are planning lives careers families
21:36
in australia contributing to we are not taking anything away from anyone sarah this will be
21:40
grandfathered we've been very clear about that so that's actually incorrect uh that's a good point
21:46
a point of clarification when they say something but you know he could have been more firm on that
21:51
he could have said you know as well as i do i assume that you're aware that anyone who currently
21:56
receives benefits will continue to receive the benefits.
21:58
This isn't going to affect the benefits
22:00
of anyone who is currently receiving them.
22:01
This is about setting up our priorities for the future
22:04
of Australia and where we want our resources to go and where we don't.
22:08
It is grandfathered
22:10
and once you become a citizen you get full access to those programs.
22:15
You promised one of the biggest
22:16
cuts to immigration in Australia's history was the language that you used.
22:19
A statement as bold
22:20
as that demands a number.
22:22
Sure.
22:22
What's your number?
22:23
Well what you will see from our number is
22:26
is a cut of more than 70% since Labor's, the peak under Labor.
22:31
That's 100%.
22:32
More than 40%.
22:33
That's 150,000.
22:34
Is that your number?
22:37
Can I answer the question?
22:38
Please.
22:39
I'm trying.
22:41
40% on the current level.
22:44
OK, you can already see this going sideways, right?
22:46
She's asking for a number.
22:47
She said, you've said that this is going to be a big cut to immigration.
22:52
What's the number?
22:53
She's asking that question, and he knows she's asking that question because they haven't announced a specific number.
22:59
They don't have to announce a specific number yet.
23:01
This is a reply to a budget where they set out their priorities about what they would do if they were in government, which they're not going to have a chance to be for at least another two years.
23:11
so it's completely legitimate for him to answer the question about what is the number
23:16
by saying we're not releasing a number yet and then go on to talk about his plan which is
23:21
essentially that we're not going to bring in more people than there are houses to put them in
23:25
because the biggest priority is to make sure that house prices can be stabilized so that young
23:30
Australians can afford a home he can bang on about that all he wants but instead he's becoming
23:35
defensive because he's saying that oh can I just answer your question she's saying well I'd love
23:40
to answer my question because she knows that he's not going to answer the question.
23:42
And as soon as
23:43
he declines to answer the question by putting an actual figure, numerical figure on it, whilst
23:49
insisting that he is answering the question, she can smell blood in the water and what is about to
23:53
happen becomes inevitable.
23:56
And the truth is the right number will depend on how many houses get
23:59
built.
24:00
I mean, this is the whole problem.
24:01
This government thought that they could pick the right
24:04
number without knowing how many houses that were going to get built.
24:07
And the truth is,
24:09
not enough houses have been built for the numbers they said.
24:12
We're talking about a statement that you made in your speech tonight.
24:15
And I say that,
24:16
having asked you a couple of questions about One Nation.
24:19
One of the biggest cuts to immigration
24:20
in Australia's history, as I said, a statement as bold as that requires a number to be put next
24:26
to it.
24:27
Otherwise, it's a slogan.
24:29
Your maths on the numbers you just referred to is 150,000.
24:33
Is that your planned net overseas migration number?
24:36
Sarah, I've given you those numbers,
24:38
and I don't think...
24:38
I don't know who's done those calculations for you.
24:42
But the truth is... Are you saying that's wrong?
24:43
The truth is that we had immigration
24:46
at 550,000 under this government.
24:49
550,000.
24:51
Before that.
24:51
The peak after COVID.
24:52
That's where it peaked.
24:55
And so we need to get down to a number...
24:56
With settings.
24:57
We've discussed this before.
24:58
Those were settings put in place by your government.
25:00
This is the sort of nonsense this government...
25:02
This is a question about numbers.
25:04
I'd really like to finish, Sarah.
25:05
Yes.
25:05
This is nonsense.
25:07
I'd like you to answer the question about numbers.
25:08
Well, I will, and I'm answering the question,
25:10
but you've just got to give me a go to answer it.
25:12
Okay, this is hostility with no purpose.
25:16
It's perfectly fine to have an adversarial exchange
25:19
if there's substance to it.
25:20
If there's no substance to it, people just roll their eyes
25:23
and go, bloody politicians and bloody journalists
25:25
just engaged in this muckraking exercise
25:28
where none of us are any the wiser.
25:29
What is the point of this exchange?
25:31
why is the interviewer going in so hard for this particular number when she knows that he doesn't
25:36
have it why is he being so evasive about the fact that they don't have a number yet when they're
25:40
under no obligation to have a number yet he has tacitly accepted her framing of the issue when she
25:46
says uh an an assertion like the biggest cut to australian immigration you know in a generation
25:53
or whatever he said in his speech requires a number otherwise it's just a slogan i mean he
25:58
should have nipped it in the bud before she even got to that.
26:00
But if she gets to that point and he
26:02
doesn't say anything, then it suggests that he agrees with her, that it needs a number.
26:06
Otherwise,
26:07
it's just a slogan.
26:08
He has to push back instantaneously, just as you would if a friend
26:11
said that to you at the pub.
26:13
I mean, if you said, I'm setting my sights really, really high,
26:20
and in 2029, I want to be making more money than I ever have.
26:24
And your friend said exactly how much?
26:27
and you were like, well, more than I ever had.
26:30
And they were like, well, unless you can tell me
26:32
the precise number that you're going to earn
26:33
in the 2029 to 2030 fiscal year,
26:36
then that's just a slogan.
26:38
You wouldn't be like, you wouldn't accept that
26:41
and then say, well, I'm trying to answer your question.
26:43
I am answering your question
26:44
if you'll just give me a chance to answer your question.
26:45
This whole kabuki theater that we go through
26:48
in political interviews and debates is totally alienating.
26:52
This is why populist parties are on the rise
26:54
and why sane politicians don't get ahead anymore.
26:59
You would say, hey, fair crack of the whip.
27:02
We're talking about something that's not going to happen for years.
27:05
I'm talking about an aspiration.
27:07
I'm talking about an intention.
27:09
I'm talking about setting priorities and setting goals.
27:13
You can go off on whatever tangents you want to with your abacus
27:16
and care about the minutiae of the particular details.
27:21
I'm under no obligation here to you to put a precise figure forward we're about aligning
27:27
our priorities with the priorities of Australians but you know that we don't have a number there's
27:31
no number yet why would there be a number we're we're years away from an election and we have no
27:35
idea what the future is going to hold we have no idea how many houses are going to be built we have
27:39
no idea what the immigration rates that the government's the government sets is going to be
27:44
over the next couple of years I mean as soon as she as soon as it became clear that she was trying
27:50
to hunt for a number and call him essentially a paper tiger or a hypocrite or a charlatan
27:58
for not having a precise number, he should have shot that down immediately because that's what
28:02
a human being would do if you were being authentic.
28:04
He would just be like, well, I don't have one.
28:06
I
28:06
mean, I don't have a number.
28:08
There's no number.
28:10
I'm articulating a set of priorities here.
28:13
And the best that she would be able to do would be like, well, if you're going to make a big claim,
28:16
like the biggest cut to immigration, then you should have a number.
28:19
And then you can go,
28:20
Well, we don't.
28:22
Next question.
28:24
I mean, so what?
28:26
The reality is you don't have a number.
28:27
You only
28:28
have two choices.
28:29
Either you have a number or you admit that you don't have a number.
28:33
This third way
28:34
of not having a number but pretending that you do have a number and that you actually are answering
28:38
the question while you're not answering the question.
28:39
Oh my goodness, please.
28:42
This is complete
28:43
nonsense you hear from this government.
28:44
Absolute utter nonsense.
28:47
They were the government and the
28:49
peak got to 550,000 people.
28:52
There is no way in this country that houses could support that number.
28:58
The two numbers have to be linked.
29:00
So what we're proposing is each year the Housing Minister would
29:03
say we've got this many houses available and so the right number or the cap should be an appropriate
29:11
number to suit that.
29:12
Now we know already based on what we are seeing that that number is likely to
29:17
be 70% down from the peak, roughly 40% down from where we are now.
29:22
And I said, we've got some
29:24
catch up to do too, because frankly, what's happened is Labor has failed so miserably on
29:30
their housing targets and been so far above their immigration targets that we've got to get catch
29:35
up.
29:35
This will allow young Australians to get into a home, Sarah, and that is the most important
29:40
objective we have here.
29:41
I'd like to note... That's a good way to wrap the answer, to link it back to
29:44
housing.
29:44
You've made a big statement in your speech.
29:46
You're not prepared to back it up with
29:48
numbers, even though you know...
29:49
I've just given you the numbers.
29:50
Well, you haven't given me the
29:51
final... Well, Sarah, I've said what the number will be.
29:54
It will be based on the number of houses
29:56
that are built.
29:57
Now, I'll ask you, if I may, how many houses will Labor build in a couple of years
30:05
time?
30:05
If I was to guess... You can put those questions to Labor.
30:07
Let me ask you a different
30:08
question.
30:09
Let's move on.
30:10
If you're going to make a very... No, if you're going to go in for the
30:13
kill, you've got to go in for the kill.
30:14
If you're going to ask her a question, then you have to
30:16
follow it up.
30:16
If you're going to play that game and be like, let me ask you, how many houses is
30:19
Labor going to build?
30:20
And she says, well, you can put that question to Labor.
30:22
Then you don't just
30:23
sigh and look defeated.
30:26
Either go in for the fight or don't go in for the fight.
30:29
Once she says,
30:31
well, you can put that question to Labor, you can say, Labor's not the ones who are going to tell
30:36
me.
30:36
You're the one who seems to be claiming that I need a precise number.
30:38
You're the one who wants
30:39
the exact number.
30:40
You tell me what the exact number is.
30:41
You give me the number of houses,
30:42
I'll give you the number of migrants deal yeah either this is just the this is not rocket science
30:50
folks this is the way that Angus Taylor the opposition leader presumably talks when he's
30:56
in private with his colleagues sitting around a table trying to hash out what policies they're
31:01
going to have someone shoots brings up an idea and if they really like each other if they actually
31:05
have respect for each other they probably feel free to go in on each other from time to time
31:10
and if you're not going to go in on the interviewer in a situation like this then you have to just
31:15
politely point out that you're not answering the question for reasons x y and z which might be
31:20
totally legitimate reasons and in this case they are legitimate but it sounds like he's waffling
31:24
it sounds like he's evasive it sounds like he hasn't done his homework sounds like he's hiding
31:28
something because he's claiming to have given her a number that we can all hear he hasn't given her
31:33
it would be much better if he just said we don't we don't haven't there is no number instead of
31:37
saying, well, I've given you the number, it's 40%, just say, but there is no number yet.
31:41
We're
31:41
talking about a policy that's going to be dictated by future numbers.
31:45
Very substantial cut, which you
31:46
have signalled very clearly in your speech tonight.
31:49
And on the numbers that you have given me, we're
31:51
calculating that at about 150,000 as your total number.
31:54
So you only have a small number of levers
31:57
available to you to cut the net overseas migration number.
32:02
Cutting international students, working
32:04
holiday visas, which the Nationals oppose, and New Zealanders.
32:08
So which of those levers
32:09
are you going to pull to make a massive cut in immigration?
32:13
Well, Sarah, as I said, we'll give a number in the lead up to the next election.
32:17
This is about the visas.
32:18
I've given the principle, well, if I can finish, I've given you a very clear principle.
32:23
It
32:24
will be a very substantial reduction because there is no way that the government is going
32:28
to get their housing completions up to a level that's going to give a bigger number than that.
32:33
Okay, he's not even answering the question remotely.
32:36
She's given him three ways to cut immigration.
32:39
He has said he's going to cut immigration.
32:41
Even though he doesn't have a specific number,
32:43
he said it's going to be a massive cut.
32:45
She's given him three categories in which you can do that.
32:49
Student visas, working holiday visas, and New Zealanders.
32:54
And he's gone back to saying, well, as I've said before,
32:57
by the way, if you're a politician,
32:59
or if you're ever giving an interview to the media,
33:01
don't use phrases like, as I've said before,
33:03
or as we've already unveiled, or as I've stated repeatedly.
33:07
I know that you feel like you've said
33:08
it a lot of times before, because you're constantly giving interviews like this,
33:11
and you're feeling frustrated with the interviewer.
33:13
But the audience needs you to say it three times
33:15
before they can hear it anyway, and it just comes across as condescending and smug.
33:19
So if she gives you three different categories, then actually wrestle with those categories.
33:23
And the true answer is that he doesn't know yet how he's going to cut immigration,
33:28
because they've just seen a budget.
33:30
They're just spitballing what their response to the
33:32
budget should be.
33:33
They're still formulating exactly what it'll look like.
33:35
They haven't
33:36
dotted all of the I's.
33:36
They haven't crossed all of the T's.
33:37
It's not their job to do so.
33:39
They're not in government.
33:39
They're in opposition.
33:40
They're a long way away from an election campaign.
33:42
They're just creating an alternative proposal to what the government wants to do in order to set
33:47
their priorities apart.
33:48
That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do at this stage of the cycle.
33:52
And he can just say that.
33:55
When she says, which of those three things will you be looking at?
33:59
you can say we're looking at all of them or we haven't arrived at any decision yet.
34:03
We're looking at all of them.
34:04
We don't know.
34:06
We'll look at it.
34:06
We'll look at it before the
34:07
next election.
34:08
It will be, if I can, if I have my answer, it will be below 200,000.
34:12
There's no
34:14
doubt about that.
34:15
And then the right mix will depend on the circumstances at the time.
34:20
What
34:21
is clear, what is clear is that the number of students in this country has been at record
34:26
levels this government lost control of that situation.
34:29
So you will be targeting international
34:31
students?
34:32
Well I'm just saying that that's one area that is obvious for us to look at there's
34:35
no question.
34:36
Will you exclude working holiday visas?
34:38
Well as I say that the number of temporary
34:40
visas has increased dramatically under this government and that's been part of the housing
34:45
crisis.
34:45
So working holiday visas are also on the table?
34:49
I'm saying temporary visas obviously is a
34:52
big part of the explosion does that include why is this so hard why is that why is everything so
34:58
waffly and combative and like trying to it's like you know trying to squeeze a bar of soap that
35:03
keeps slipping out of your hand or trying to pin down a an ice cube that keeps shimmying across
35:08
the table it's like she says are you she says are you ruling out uh working holiday visas you just
35:14
say nothing's ruled out at this stage that's it nothing's ruled out it's all everything everything's
35:19
in, we're committed to significantly cutting immigration and everything's on the table.
35:24
That's all you need.
35:24
Good working holiday.
35:25
Well, as I say, Sarah, we will lay out the individual visa numbers as we get close to
35:31
the election.
35:31
The process we have laid out is that as we see the housing completions, we'll set a cap
35:37
and then the visa numbers will fit within that cap.
35:40
How do you put a hard cap on that overseas migration when it includes Australian citizens
35:44
who are free to come and go?
35:45
Well, you can make reasonable predictions about what those things are going to be, Sarah.
35:49
So if you can forecast...
35:52
That's a pretty good answer.
35:53
Yes, just a simple answer.
35:54
You can make pretty good predictions about what that's going to be.
35:57
Then full stop.
35:57
Then you probably already have in your head some idea
36:00
of how those numbers are going to break down.
36:02
Well, Sarah, what we don't know is how many houses we're going to get.
36:06
And what I do know about this government
36:08
is they've completely failed to reach their housing targets
36:12
time and time again.
36:14
That's a pretty good answer.
36:15
So we will see what they deliver on that.
36:17
They're sitting on around 170,000 now.
36:21
That's well below the numbers that we saw when we were in government.
36:24
They have completely failed to meet their own housing targets.
36:28
We're on about 70,000 houses a year less than they should be getting to
36:33
on their own targets, and we'll see how that plays out
36:35
over the next couple of years.
36:36
But I'll tell you one thing I'm not going to do.
36:38
I am not going to allow the net overseas migration get to a number
36:44
which is beyond the housing we have in this country.
36:47
I want to move on to tax indexation, noting that we don't have any numbers from you after that bold statement, but on tax indexation.
36:55
So she's just slipped the knife in as she leaves that subject.
36:58
She says, I'm going to move on to another subject, tax indexation, noting that we haven't received any numbers from you on that bold statement.
37:07
I think if she goes back in for that, then you have to jump back in for the kill as well and say, Sarah, I appreciate that you're completely obsessed with the minutiae of this particular policy.
37:16
and I'm delighted that you're such a fan of the policy
37:18
that you want to see how every I is dotted
37:20
and every T is crossed
37:22
when we're still two or three years out
37:24
from forming government.
37:26
At this stage, we're setting out our priorities
37:28
and nobody thinks it's incumbent upon us
37:32
to predict the future with a crystal ball
37:34
and tell you exactly what the number's going to be right now.
37:37
So nice try at the gotcha, but no dice.
37:40
This is a big move.
37:41
This is something that tax experts around the country
37:44
have wanted for a very long time,
37:46
No side of politics has wanted to do this.
37:48
You've decided to do it.
37:50
So what will it cost the budget, the budget's bottom line over those four years?
37:54
Well, the biggest thing is what it's going to cost hardworking Australians.
37:58
So I do want to start here because this is important.
38:01
What you will...
38:02
Okay, we're back into slogans again.
38:04
As soon as you hear the word hardworking Australians or hardworking Americans,
38:08
your eyes just sort of glaze over, don't they?
38:10
It's like, here comes the speech.
38:12
Here comes the bit he's rehearsed with his media advisor.
38:14
Well, you know, the number that we should be focusing on is the number of hardworking Australians, the amount of tax that they're paying.
38:22
Again, it's an opportunity to go back to the question of what she's actually saying.
38:26
And if she's fishing for something, if you've just had a disastrous moment where she's been fishing for a precise number, you've squirmed all over the place trying to pretend that you have a number when you don't actually have a number and trying to pretend that you have been saying a number that you have not in fact been saying.
38:45
instead of just saying we don't have it.
38:47
And now she comes at you again and says you're going to index
38:50
the tax brackets to get rid of bracket creep.
38:55
And she says, what is that going to cost?
39:00
Instead of being fair dinkum about it and open about it and saying,
39:04
well, I don't know if they've actually costed this or not.
39:08
This is Josh speaking now, not the opposition leader.
39:10
So there are various ways he could answer this question.
39:13
either if he doesn't want to answer, if he doesn't want to give a number, but he actually does have a
39:17
number, then he's going to have to be savvy in some way about concealing that.
39:22
But he has to also
39:23
be open about the fact that he's concealing that and say, we've got numbers, we're putting them
39:27
through a costings process and we'll get them out before the next election, but I'm not going to
39:30
tell them to you now.
39:32
Or he has to say that there's some uncertainty about the numbers in a way that
39:36
is plausible.
39:38
I don't know how many predictions they're able to make about what the costing
39:41
would actually be.
39:42
It's also worth noting that this particular policy is one that economists
39:46
from both sides of the aisle have long advocated for.
39:49
This is widely regarded as being good policy.
39:51
Journalists, academics, and economists from both left and right recognize that it is bad for
39:58
everybody to be getting an automatic tax increase every single year simply as a result of inflation,
40:04
and he should be applauded for doing this.
40:07
So if you did want to dodge the question when the
40:09
question first comes, then instead of pivoting to some canned remark about hardworking Australians,
40:15
I would opt for the bigger picture, which is to say, you know, as well as I do, this is a reform
40:22
that economists from left and right have been arguing for, for decades and decades.
40:27
And the
40:27
fact that the government didn't take this on and insist on taxing salary earners more and more
40:34
every single year is shameful, frankly.
40:37
If they want to do something big, then they should have
40:38
done the obvious big thing that would put more money in the pockets of Australian workers.
40:44
That would be the correct response.
40:46
I think it would probably go down a little bit better than
40:49
immediately reading off a crib sheet about hardworking Australians, but let's see.
40:54
What you will see from bracket creep is in the first year, $250 at the target inflation rate,
41:01
to a half percent.
41:02
No, hang on.
41:02
No, wait, just on that, are you going to,
41:05
would you repeal the WETO, the new tax that the government's brought in?
41:08
Well, we've said we'll support that initiative.
41:13
Again, don't say we've said.
41:14
Nobody cares what you've said.
41:16
It doesn't matter.
41:17
Just say, no, we'll keep it.
41:19
That's all you need to say.
41:20
No, we'll keep.
41:21
Everyone will still get their $250.
41:24
The fact of the matter is it goes from $250 for a typical learner,
41:27
someone on about $70,000, $500, $750, $1,000.
41:34
This is the thief in the night, Sarah.
41:36
What's he saying?
41:37
Do you understand that?
41:38
I don't understand that.
41:40
$50, $1,000, $7,000.
41:40
He's just stating numbers.
41:46
Sell the picture.
41:47
There's an old slogan in advertising and in pitching that you want to
41:52
sell the sizzle, not the bacon.
41:54
People buy the sizzle, not the bacon.
41:57
He's selling us bacon
41:58
here with all these numbers.
42:00
You've got to make their skin prickle just a little bit and get them
42:06
a little bit excited about something.
42:08
Like every single year, you get an automatic pay cut.
42:13
I mean,
42:13
you get an automatic tax cut.
42:14
We don't have to come out with enormous fanfare and shower you
42:17
with tax cuts before every election cycle or during some big budget fanfare.
42:23
We are legislating
42:25
a tax cut every single year that you will always do better off.
42:29
This is a reform that economists
42:30
have been arguing for for ages.
42:33
And this is going to, you know,
42:34
this is going to put the power back in the hands
42:37
of people who actually have salaries and wages in Australia
42:41
instead of fat cats or whatever.
42:43
However you want to phrase it,
42:44
phrase it in a way that is actually going to resonate
42:46
with people's emotional experience
42:49
of living through a cost of living crisis
42:51
instead of reciting a bunch of numbers
42:53
where nobody knows what you're talking about.
42:55
This is actually how Labor generates revenues.
42:59
it raises taxes on people
43:01
and the higher inflation goes
43:02
the higher the number.
43:04
Those numbers
43:04
double if inflation is sitting at
43:06
the current level at 5%.
43:08
So it is true that there is a cost
43:11
to that.
43:11
That's absolutely right.
43:12
And what is that cost?
43:13
Well, you know, it will
43:15
depend on the inflation rate.
43:17
And here
43:17
we go into the same problem.
43:20
What do you forecast?
43:21
You can give me a figure with
43:24
some plus and minus
43:25
in it.
43:26
What do you forecast
43:27
that number to be?
43:28
Well, the inflation rate right now is running at double the target inflation rate.
43:33
What will it be running in a couple of years?
43:35
Let's see.
43:35
But I'll tell you where the savings
43:37
are going to come from.
43:37
Hold on.
43:38
Just give me a number for how much indexing.
43:41
If you're not going
43:42
to give her the number, tell her you're not going to give her the number.
43:46
Don't try to change the
43:46
subject and think she won't notice.
43:48
She's Sarah Ferguson, one of the most decorated journalists
43:51
in Australia.
43:52
She's going to notice when you're not answering a question and she's going to be
43:55
a dog with a bone, she's going to smell blood in the water, she's going to want to come after you.
43:59
If she says, I just want you to give me a number, and you're not going to give her a number,
44:04
there's a very simple answer, Mr. Taylor.
44:07
You just say, I'm not going to give you a number.
44:10
That's it.
44:11
I'm not going to give you a number.
44:13
End of story.
44:15
What's she going to do?
44:16
Well,
44:16
I'm very upset.
44:17
I think it's ridiculous that you're not giving me a number.
44:19
You think it's
44:19
ridiculous?
44:20
Okay, that's fine.
44:21
We don't know what inflation is going to be.
44:23
We don't know
44:24
what the overall tax burden is going to be.
44:25
We haven't seen what this government is going to be
44:27
putting out in their next budget, which might involve some tax cuts of their own.
44:30
They're
44:30
presumably going to go to the next election with a new tax package.
44:33
It is 2026, Sarah, I would say.
44:38
The election's not till 2028.
44:39
I love the fact that you think that I'm imminently going to become
44:43
the Australian Prime Minister on the basis of this one speech, but I'm sorry to shatter your
44:48
illusions.
44:48
I'm actually just setting out a bunch of priorities for our party as an alternative for
44:53
Australians to vote for, to set an agenda that is more pro-growth and that involves tax cuts
45:00
for everybody, for salary earners and wage earners.
45:04
So there is no number yet.
45:06
I mean,
45:07
what's she going to do?
45:08
Whereas when she senses you squirming, when she senses you being inauthentic,
45:11
when she senses you dodging a question, she's going to go in for the kill.
45:15
Tax will cost the budget bottom line.
45:17
Well, it'll be what is necessary to alleviate those numbers that I just described to you,
45:22
How do you restore your economic credentials
45:25
if you won't put a number on the massive new policy
45:28
that you're presenting to Australian people tonight?
45:29
The number will depend on the inflation rates we see
45:32
closer to the election.
45:33
And we will put our costings closer to the election.
45:35
But I'll tell you one thing, Sarah.
45:37
Well, we've done some rough calculations on that.
45:40
Well, if you want to give me advice on the numbers going around here...
45:42
No, they're not my advice,
45:43
but I'm asking you to confirm that this is correct.
45:47
The number we've come up with is $20.5 billion over four years,
45:51
growing very fast in the fourth year, $11.8 billion.
45:56
So $11.8 billion by 2030, a cost
45:59
of $22.5 billion.
46:00
Is that right?
46:01
So why did you need to ask me the question?
46:03
I wanted to know what number you came up with.
46:05
So we can argue about this all day.
46:07
Okay.
46:09
Getting snarky when you don't have anything to bring to the table is not great.
46:14
I mean,
46:14
I understand the instinct that she's being hostile, so you want to be hostile in return.
46:18
But there's a way of being hostile where you're actually just calling someone on their
46:21
on their bullshit and there's a way of being hostile that just leaves you looking petty
46:25
and unfortunately in this interview i feel like the opposition leader is mostly doing the latter
46:30
looking petty instead of looking like he's actually bringing the fight um you know she's
46:34
talking about the all these numbers and so on you for a start you should have already said that
46:38
you're not going to give her a number secondly uh you can say look that's that's the ballpark
46:43
and the reality is that undoing labor's automatic tax increases is expensive uh you know but the but
46:49
if the but if australia is going to be competitive if we're going to have productivity growth and
46:52
wage growth and low inflation then you know something's got to give you can't just keep
46:57
spending like a drunken sailor and taking more and more and more money away from australian
47:01
workers uh you know so you just shift you can you can you can sort of cauterize the question
47:07
by just putting a button on it and admitting that you're not answering the question instead
47:11
of constantly pretending that you are and then talk about the big picture you want you want the
47:16
narrative to feel robust and you want your uh when you decline to actually answer a specific question
47:23
you want to be up front about that so it doesn't sound like you're uh you're sneaky we might have
47:27
different we might have we might have different numbers i think what matters is whether there are
47:32
savings there to pay for it that's the question well and how much it is matters well that's good
47:37
he that that's a good thing to say yes once you've said if he'd sold the dream of like we are going
47:43
to permanently ensure that Australians keep more of their money
47:47
and don't receive a big tax increase every year by stealth
47:52
because of inflation, then if he had done that,
47:55
he would be able to pivot there to the question is not how much it costs.
47:58
The question is whether or not it adds any debt to Australia.
48:02
And, you know, if you can pay for it, you can do anything
48:05
if you pay for it, right?
48:06
I mean, he could just say that.
48:08
You can do anything if you can pay for it,
48:10
and here's how we're going to pay for it.
48:11
It's true, but it will depend on the numbers you use and the inflation.
48:15
You are coming to the Australian people tonight to re-establish your position as the leader of a would-be government.
48:22
Central to that are your economic credentials.
48:24
That is the person that you have put forward tonight.
48:27
So you can tell us how much it's going to be and how you're going to pay for it.
48:30
And I've told you again, it will depend on...
48:33
No, no.
48:34
Don't pretend that you've told her something that you haven't told her and don't seem like you're squirrelly.
48:40
If she says you've come to the Australian people and you're trying to sell yourself as having economic credentials, then you are totally free again to pull back.
48:50
She's inviting you to pull back essentially and tell a big picture story about what your party represents in contrast to the government.
48:59
and there is a free kick.
49:01
I mean, she gave you a free kick there
49:02
by saying that you're presenting yourself
49:04
as the party of economic responsibility.
49:06
You can pull back and you can say,
49:08
ever since the era of Sir Robert Menzies in the 1950s,
49:12
the Liberal Party of Australia
49:14
has been the party of economic and fiscal responsibility
49:17
and that is not going to die on my watch.
49:18
You know, if you want me to spout out specific numbers
49:23
to the 10th decimal place so that you can, you know,
49:26
you can pull a gotcha when those numbers turn out
49:28
to be slightly inaccurate in a couple of years' time, go for it.
49:32
I know that's the game that you
49:33
play.
49:34
That's the game that you've always played.
49:35
You've always been hostile to a low-tax agenda.
49:37
But the reality is that we're continuing, we're carrying the flame on behalf of Australians who
49:42
don't want to see a huge taxing and spending government that's running out of control.
49:46
When we get to the next election and we actually have to submit detailed proposals for what we're
49:51
going to do, then you will see the detail.
49:54
To dance around now as if you've somehow cornered
49:57
me and got me because two or three years out from an election, I don't have the fine print of every
50:02
single detail, but instead I'm talking about the vision that the Liberal Party has for Australia.
50:07
I'm sorry, it's just not going to fly.
50:09
That's what you say.
50:11
On the inflation rate at the time.
50:13
I don't know how many times I can say that to you.
50:14
It's a question of trust.
50:15
And then the question is this.
50:18
And then the question is this.
50:20
How do you pay for it?
50:21
And there's four areas we've been very clear about and I was very clear about today.
50:25
And
50:25
And this is the crucial point, ending the corporate welfare that Labor has been pursuing.
50:32
We've seen endless amounts of this with the National Reconstruction Fund, the so-called
50:36
Future Made in Australia that's sending industry offshore, ending the housing bureaucracy,
50:42
the Housing Australia Future Fund, ending the net zero bureaucracy, the climate bureaucracy
50:48
that this government has created.
50:50
I have to say, you laid out all these elements in the speech tonight.
50:53
We're at the time where we have to wrap.
50:57
I know we don't have your numbers,
50:59
but you've made some bold statements in your speech tonight.
51:03
If she says you've laid out all of these things in your speech tonight
51:07
but we're out of time, then you can say, well, isn't it convenient
51:11
that just when we talk about funding the proposals that I've advocated,
51:15
you run out of time?
51:16
It would have been nice if we'd spoken about, well,
51:18
I suppose you might sound a bit snarky if you said it would have been nice
51:20
if we'd spoken about those proposals earlier.
51:22
but if he'd been more succinct in his answers up front then he would have had the opportunity for
51:27
her to get to the ways in which he's going to pay for his proposals for her to then say well we've
51:32
heard you know for her to grill him about the lack of numbers and then when he gets to the point at
51:37
which he's going to he's talking he's trying to talk about how he's going to pay for the proposals
51:42
that she seems to be implying are uncosted and unpaid for for her to then say well we're out of
51:48
out of time, it does reflect poorly on his ability to race through some of these subjects so that he
51:55
can get to the things that he really wants to talk about.
51:57
If the problem is that he lacks economic
51:59
credibility because he's throwing out these big plans about how much he's going to cut immigration
52:05
and how much he's going to cut taxes by indexing the tax brackets, and he wants to sort of bolster
52:13
his economic credibility by saying, yeah, but we're going to cut in four areas and allow me to
52:18
list them, then he has to make sure that he has time to talk about those four areas, not by
52:22
squeezing them in where they don't belong, but by being peppy as he gets through the earlier parts
52:28
of the conversation.
52:30
If she asks a question, you know, do you have numbers?
52:32
You say, nope, we don't.
52:33
She says, you know, are you doing this in part because you're afraid of One Nation?
52:37
You go,
52:38
yeah, a little bit.
52:38
You know, we don't want voters to go over to a dead-end minor party.
52:43
We want them
52:43
stay here inside the Liberal tent.
52:45
There are all kinds of ways that you can move the conversation
52:48
along and allow her the time to give you the opportunity to talk about things that you want
52:53
to talk about without having to make it sound like you're reading off a script.
52:57
There'll be
52:58
much discussion.
52:59
I look forward to having you confirm.
53:00
You will get our numbers closer to the
53:02
election and that is the convention and you know it.
53:05
Angus Taylor, thank you very much.
53:06
Good to be
53:06
with you.
53:07
He finally said the thing that he should have said 20 minutes ago.
53:11
You will get the numbers
53:12
close to the election, that is the convention, and you know it.
53:15
I mean, he could have said,
53:17
the convention, as you know it, is to provide numbers close to the election.
53:21
He could have
53:21
said that at the beginning of the interview, and he could have said it every time she was pushing
53:26
him for numbers.
53:27
The fact that she knew that he wouldn't say it, and that she knew that she could
53:30
make him look dodgy by trying to pin him down, and that he wouldn't just fess up to the fact that he
53:36
didn't have specificity yet, is telling.
53:40
It's telling about the way that professional journalists
53:43
know that politicians are going to react.
53:46
It's telling about how much politicians have to fear
53:49
or feel they have to fear from people jumping on some line, like, you know, if he'd said,
53:56
I don't have the numbers, then is there going to be a headline in the left-wing press, in the
54:00
Guardian or the ABC saying, you know, Taylor admits he has no clue.
54:06
Maybe.
54:07
So what?
54:09
How many
54:09
bad headlines has Pauline Hanson had?
54:12
How many bad headlines did Donald Trump get?
54:14
How many bad
54:15
headlines does Nigel Farage put up with?
54:18
You just got to at some point put up with the bad headlines
54:21
and trust that what people really crave is a sense that you're a legitimate person who doesn't take
54:26
any bullshit, who can speak like a human being, who can wrestle with the best of them, who isn't
54:32
going to get cornered and get anxious and seem evasive, but seems like a real human being.
54:39
That
54:39
is the currency of the 21st century, for better or worse.
54:43
Maybe it was better when politicians
54:45
were all orators and they could all speak professorially and it was an era of Martin
54:51
Luther King and JFK.
54:53
But that era ended with Barack Obama.
54:56
The reality is nowadays politicians
54:58
have to be likable.
54:59
They have to be normal seeming.
55:01
They have to be willing to trigger
55:04
some tripwires and tread on some eggshells, as I often say of our conversations on this show.
55:09
And if they're not, then they can't blame other people if voters flee to minor parties with
55:17
unpolished politicians who are willing to take on the mantle of saying things as they are.
55:24
The number of people who you can talk to who are flirting with a vote for minor parties,
55:31
who will say, I may not agree with everything they believe in, I may not agree with all their
55:35
policies, I may not agree with everything they say, but at least you know they believe it.
55:40
At least you know they're speaking a truth that they believe in.
55:45
They're not just doing a poll
55:46
tested, boring, kind of politically safe angle.
55:53
They're willing to put themselves out there and
55:56
live or die on the basis of their own claims.
55:59
That's what people want these days.
56:01
And if you
56:02
think, well, hindsight's 20-20, and of course, Josh can be a Monday morning quarterback, but
56:07
if he was there in the studio with Sarah Ferguson, well, maybe he wouldn't have done any better than
56:10
angus taylor listen i haven't poured over this interview and uh made taken notes about it this
56:18
is me winging it i saw that interview once when it went to air last week and now i'm just making
56:23
it up on the fly so there's no reason if angus taylor is not capable of making it up on the fly
56:29
in a way where he's treating the journalist as if the journalist was uh you know a disagreeable
56:35
mate at the pub who is talking to him and who he wants to level with, then he cannot expect
56:41
to retain the votes of Australians who are interested in authenticity and a sense that
56:49
there's a real human being who believes in real things and is willing to call bullshit on bullshit
56:54
when he has to.
56:55
Incidentally, I spoke to Angus Taylor before the last election.
56:59
He joined me
57:00
in our studios in Melbourne.
57:01
We sat down and had a great chat.
57:03
If you go back and listen to that,
57:04
Just search for Angus Taylor in the Uncomfortable Conversations podcast feed.
57:08
You will see he's a very personable, very likable guy.
57:13
I'm not picking him out because I think that he's a woeful politician.
57:16
I'm picking him out because I think that he's behaving exactly as mainstream politicians
57:21
unfortunately these days do, which in part explains why so few people vote for mainstream
57:26
political parties at the moment.
57:28
But go back and listen to that episode and you'll see that he and I have a really interesting
57:32
and casual and relaxed chat.
57:33
If he could somehow rekindle that part of his personality and bring that into the public sphere a little bit more aggressively, then the fates of the Liberal Party could certainly change.
57:45
So those are my thoughts.
57:47
I hope this is in some way useful.
57:49
The only reason why I do this is because I do feel like if politicians don't get better, mainstream politicians don't get better at having uncomfortable conversations with their interlocutors, then we will end up with far left or far right populists who at least have the advantage of seeming unfiltered and authentic.
58:07
Thanks for your time.
58:09
I will see you next time.