WEBVTT - What you need to know before heading to the polls 0:00:02.120 --> 0:00:03.840 Nine podcasts. 0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:11.640 Welcome back to Prime Time. With the election almost upon us, 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:13.840 we thought it was the perfect time to check back 0:00:13.840 --> 0:00:17.160 in with Shane Wright, our trusted guide to economic stories 0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:21.599 behind the politics. Shane's the senior economics correspondent for The 0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:24.280 Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, and he's brilliant at 0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:28.680 helping us separate the noise from the numbers. Shane Wright, 0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:30.440 welcome back to Prime Time. 0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:33.880 Can't believe you brought me back. But look, your poor listeners. 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:38.680 We've had six weeks of campaigning now. What has surprised 0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:39.800 you economically? 0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:45.000 Economically, actually, the biggest surprise apart from the start, which 0:00:45.000 --> 0:00:49.280 was the stupidity of Donald Trump's tariffs and Liberation Day, 0:00:50.000 --> 0:00:53.040 has been the costings being produced by the opposition on 0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:59.480 the second last day, because I think the chutzpah of 0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:02.760 the opposition to have been complaining about economic management for 0:01:02.760 --> 0:01:05.120 such a long time and then say, oh, by the way, 0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:08.080 we'll have two bigger deficits for the next two years 0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:13.959 is pretty extraordinary. And you can understand why they waited 0:01:13.959 --> 0:01:17.720 until the after the Thursday afternoon before the Saturday election, 0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:20.760 when a third of the public have voted to come 0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:23.560 out with that sort of reveal. 0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:27.200 Wow. It's just it's it's astounding, isn't it? 0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:32.559 Yeah. Look, we've had this whole economic, um, through line 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:36.360 from the campaign, from the coalition saying better economic managers, 0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:39.600 and they're free to say that. But then when you 0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:43.240 come out with the costings and you go, oh, oops, 0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:48.480 by the way, and they've been complaining about tax, the 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:52.240 amount of tax being paid by Australians, fair criticism. But 0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:54.880 they think their argument is we will improve the budget 0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:57.480 bottom line by the end of the decade. I won't 0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.360 hold my breath, but it's all done by higher tax. 0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.760 It is all done by higher tax. Like one of 0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:08.520 the weirder things. And if Peter Dutton, if the people 0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:11.480 traveling with him, they've seen a lot of service stations 0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:14.920 over the six the five weeks of the campaign and 0:02:14.919 --> 0:02:18.840 the Peter Dutton campaign continues to claim that there is 0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:22.840 this yurt tax coming from labor, which is the introduction 0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:28.919 of higher fuel standards. The coalition is actually banking on 0:02:28.919 --> 0:02:33.320 an extra $600 million by getting rid of that tax. 0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:37.320 And I go, how's this? How is this so? It's 0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:41.360 because they are expecting that people will pay more fuel 0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:46.440 excise because their cars will not be as fuel efficient, 0:02:47.040 --> 0:02:50.639 higher tax. Like it's one of the great mysteries. But 0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:52.520 that's what they managed to do. So. 0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:56.240 Wow. And that's the tax they're waving up front isn't it. 0:02:56.639 --> 0:02:59.240 Well they're saying we're not going to go ahead with 0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:02.960 it with the with the higher fuel, the better fuel standards, 0:03:03.120 --> 0:03:07.040 which start from July 1st. But doing that actually means 0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:10.520 they collect more tax. And it makes sense because if 0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.720 cars are not as fuel efficient, then you burn more fuel. 0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:16.320 You pay more fuel excise. 0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:19.240 Wow. One of the great mysteries having you to unpick 0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:21.680 it just makes so much of a difference to listening 0:03:21.720 --> 0:03:23.440 to the lines coming out through the media. 0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:25.800 Well, this is the media. Come on. 0:03:26.000 --> 0:03:28.959 I know, I know, but but you don't see beneath 0:03:28.960 --> 0:03:31.839 the story. And this is the stuff that I, I 0:03:32.000 --> 0:03:34.040 am a bit fascinated by because I think we have 0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:37.120 to understand rather than just hear. 0:03:37.200 --> 0:03:39.600 Out more, if that's what that's what's getting you excited. 0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:40.320 But yeah that's. 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:43.480 Yeah. Well sorry. Yeah. So since we last spoke, which 0:03:43.480 --> 0:03:46.640 was right back at the beginning of the campaign, Trump's 0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:49.880 tariffs have really come in. Cracked the market apart. What 0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:51.600 do you think that's going to do to the polls. 0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:56.320 Well I think Liberation Day which was April 2nd was 0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.800 one of the key moments of the campaign because you've 0:03:59.800 --> 0:04:02.760 had Peter Dutton, remember in January there he was saying, 0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:06.160 we're going to have a Department of Government efficiency. We 0:04:06.160 --> 0:04:08.640 all love Elon Musk. He's going to rip. We're going 0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:10.240 to rip through and get rid of spending and all 0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:15.240 the rest. And then Americans have got to look at him. 0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:18.880 The Canadians have got to look at him. The Greenlanders 0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:21.080 have got a good look at him. Hell, even the 0:04:21.080 --> 0:04:24.080 penguins on heard and McDonald Island have now heard about 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:28.880 Donald Trump. And they've gone, oops a daisy. Um, like, 0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:32.640 even this week, we've had, like, two really interesting pieces 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:36.320 of data out of the US. One is the economic 0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.120 the American economy contracted through the first three months of 0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:43.600 the year, which is because every business is trying to 0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.000 put in product into the US now because of all 0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:51.240 these tariffs. And the other thing which showed and also 0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:55.279 we've also seen their trade figures. Australia had not run 0:04:55.279 --> 0:04:58.799 a trade surplus with the United States since Harry Truman 0:04:58.800 --> 0:05:02.280 was president. Okay, we have now run a surplus for 0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:06.080 the last three months with the US, and it's because 0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.000 Americans are buying gold. 0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:10.200 Wow. 0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:12.960 Lots of gold. Not just from Australia, but Australia is 0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:16.560 a big producer of gold, of course, but from other countries. 0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:20.839 And it's because gold is a traditional inflation hedge. And 0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:23.920 that's what people are doing because they know investors in 0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:27.760 the US know tariffs are inflationary. That's why they're buying gold. 0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:29.920 That's why gold has gone to such high prices over 0:05:29.920 --> 0:05:34.760 the last month or so. So yeah, April 2nd for 0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:40.680 an opposition that had gone had linked itself to that Trumpian. 0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:43.240 We're going to take on the world and we're going 0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:48.479 to we're going to cut government spending was a major issue. 0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:53.359 And people and voters here, Australians, even before Trump was elected, 0:05:53.490 --> 0:05:56.529 with when did not have any love for Trump. Like 0:05:56.890 --> 0:06:00.409 the support, Trump would not be successful in Australia. Like 0:06:00.450 --> 0:06:03.570 we can see that in every poll that where he 0:06:03.570 --> 0:06:06.530 gets asked about it. And I think that it's such 0:06:06.529 --> 0:06:10.289 a key moment when everyone went, oh my God, this 0:06:10.290 --> 0:06:15.130 is what Trump, Trump, Trump is Trump ism is. And 0:06:15.130 --> 0:06:18.370 that has hurt. You've seen it in the polls, the 0:06:18.410 --> 0:06:25.370 Canadian elections, that sort of, um, real antithesis towards what 0:06:25.410 --> 0:06:29.050 Trump stands for has hurt everyone on the right or 0:06:29.050 --> 0:06:31.089 the populist side of politics over the last. 0:06:31.089 --> 0:06:33.450 Very interesting times, isn't it? You wouldn't have predicted this 0:06:33.450 --> 0:06:35.170 back in in March, would you? 0:06:35.730 --> 0:06:38.850 I have written about how Trump and those tariffs were crazy, 0:06:39.050 --> 0:06:43.250 like even the numbers, like the stupidity of ultimately we 0:06:43.290 --> 0:06:48.690 got the threat of 145% tariffs on China. Like it 0:06:48.690 --> 0:06:52.849 is such a destabilizing aspect of it and it makes 0:06:52.850 --> 0:06:56.529 no sense. And people think like his whole argument, that 0:06:56.529 --> 0:07:01.410 we will pay for huge tax cuts with revenue on these, 0:07:01.930 --> 0:07:06.770 on these imported products, will force people to produce everything locally. Okay. 0:07:06.810 --> 0:07:09.410 So that means you don't get any revenue because there's 0:07:09.410 --> 0:07:13.850 nothing being imported into the country. How the deficit just 0:07:13.850 --> 0:07:16.930 blows out. And and he's running a huge like the 0:07:16.930 --> 0:07:20.530 deficit has got bigger since he's taken over. So that's 0:07:20.570 --> 0:07:23.850 that's that's Trump. But that's the Trump factor that's played 0:07:23.850 --> 0:07:27.010 through a real key line through this whole election campaign 0:07:27.010 --> 0:07:27.570 I think. 0:07:27.770 --> 0:07:30.690 Yeah. It's amazing something so far away can actually be 0:07:30.690 --> 0:07:32.570 so close. Um. 0:07:33.130 --> 0:07:36.330 Well, I think like the the last time a US 0:07:36.330 --> 0:07:40.210 president has played such a big role in an Australian election, 0:07:40.330 --> 0:07:45.050 you have to go back to Harold Holt. And 1966, 0:07:45.410 --> 0:07:50.730 when Lyndon Baines Johnson actually visited Australia in October that 0:07:50.890 --> 0:07:58.170 year and like huge crowds, this is Pro-vietnam and LBJ 0:07:58.410 --> 0:08:04.730 pro Harold Holt. And the 1966 election, which was held 0:08:04.730 --> 0:08:08.530 about six weeks later, the biggest victory by any side 0:08:08.530 --> 0:08:11.330 of politics in history, the Harold Holt had a huge 0:08:11.370 --> 0:08:17.050 win like it was about 5743. Wow. And by 1969, 0:08:17.050 --> 0:08:20.450 the Vietnam War was not so popular, and they and 0:08:20.450 --> 0:08:23.690 the Liberal Party went very close to losing office in 69. 0:08:23.730 --> 0:08:27.610 It finally happened in 72. But that impact of a 0:08:27.610 --> 0:08:32.090 US president like we saw it in 2007, people might 0:08:32.090 --> 0:08:37.010 remember when John Howard effectively said, Barack Obama, like, if 0:08:37.050 --> 0:08:41.850 you if you want if Americans want, uh, terrorists to succeed, 0:08:41.850 --> 0:08:45.330 vote for Barack Obama, that people forget that that's he 0:08:45.330 --> 0:08:49.689 really leant in at that point. But LBJ 66 was 0:08:49.809 --> 0:08:52.369 even bigger impact on an Australian election? 0:08:52.730 --> 0:08:56.050 Interesting times, aren't we in? And so for someone heading 0:08:56.050 --> 0:08:58.489 to the polls this Saturday, which, you know, it's tomorrow, 0:08:58.530 --> 0:09:01.770 it's tomorrow. Um, what are the economic red flags or 0:09:01.770 --> 0:09:04.490 promises you'd be reading the fine print on? What should 0:09:04.490 --> 0:09:05.410 we be looking for? 0:09:06.410 --> 0:09:11.729 Um, anything about either side saying we're going to save money? 0:09:12.170 --> 0:09:18.210 Because the history of politicians saving money is a very 0:09:18.210 --> 0:09:21.450 sad one. It's a very sad one. And both sides 0:09:21.450 --> 0:09:25.490 are doing that. We will save x, y, z. Um, 0:09:25.490 --> 0:09:29.290 like the Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher have said. Right. 0:09:29.330 --> 0:09:33.250 We will improve the budget bottom line by $1 billion 0:09:33.250 --> 0:09:38.490 over four years. That means still cumulative deficits of 150 billion. Um, 0:09:39.530 --> 0:09:43.930 even with what Angus Taylor and Jane Hume have announced, 0:09:45.090 --> 0:09:48.850 the deficits over the next four years are 137 7 billion. 0:09:49.250 --> 0:09:53.850 Like so. It's huge. Neither side has really come. Has 0:09:53.890 --> 0:09:57.170 been upfront about how they really improve the structural side 0:09:57.170 --> 0:10:00.530 of the budget, or how they improve the speed of 0:10:00.530 --> 0:10:04.689 the economy, like the policies, their policy, rats and mice 0:10:04.929 --> 0:10:09.850 from both sides, rather than something that really goes to 0:10:09.890 --> 0:10:14.130 how you improve the functioning of the overall economy, like, 0:10:14.170 --> 0:10:16.449 and and if you go down that path, there will 0:10:16.450 --> 0:10:19.570 be winners and losers for the last 20 years. Neither 0:10:19.570 --> 0:10:24.050 side of politics has wanted to talk about winners and losers. 0:10:24.410 --> 0:10:29.770 But in any economic reform, there are losers. Um, and 0:10:29.809 --> 0:10:32.370 and no one wants to be completely upfront about that. 0:10:32.610 --> 0:10:36.930 So let's let's knock on that door. Who's the loser 0:10:37.210 --> 0:10:40.090 in the Liberal Party's picture? And who's the loser in 0:10:40.090 --> 0:10:43.370 the Labor Party's picture at the moment as you see it? 0:10:43.410 --> 0:10:45.809 Well, the loser is anyone in the public service in 0:10:45.809 --> 0:10:48.730 the Liberal Party. And those numbers do not make any sense. 0:10:48.970 --> 0:10:53.770 Like they just there is this suggestion and Peter Dutton 0:10:53.770 --> 0:10:57.410 has leant into that camp. There's been an extra 41,000 0:10:57.450 --> 0:11:01.809 public servants put into Canberra. There's only 69,000 here to 0:11:01.809 --> 0:11:06.969 begin with. And that the numbers that they've like. And 0:11:06.970 --> 0:11:09.929 we know what happened when the Liberal Party tried to 0:11:09.970 --> 0:11:11.890 keep a lid on the public service. And there's nothing 0:11:11.890 --> 0:11:14.330 wrong with keeping a lid on the public service. Absolutely 0:11:14.330 --> 0:11:18.730 nothing wrong with that. But ultimately, in their last term 0:11:18.770 --> 0:11:20.530 of office, which is only three years ago, they ran 0:11:20.530 --> 0:11:24.449 into huge problems which required use of labour hire. The. 0:11:24.570 --> 0:11:29.370 If anyone wants an idea, read the Veterans Royal Commission 0:11:29.850 --> 0:11:35.449 and what happened there people mental health people died because 0:11:35.450 --> 0:11:40.929 they weren't able to get access to their compensation or 0:11:41.809 --> 0:11:46.450 or or ongoing financial support because of huge delays in 0:11:46.450 --> 0:11:48.050 the Veterans Affairs Department. 0:11:48.530 --> 0:11:50.730 We know you couldn't get through a Centrelink call line 0:11:50.730 --> 0:11:53.530 for for you know, people were saying for months. 0:11:53.570 --> 0:11:58.010 That's right. So that's the that's one clear loser for 0:11:58.050 --> 0:12:01.850 the for the government. Like you'd be looking at anyone 0:12:01.850 --> 0:12:06.650 in in the business sector. Like there's nothing really. 0:12:06.690 --> 0:12:07.850 A tough enemy to take on. 0:12:07.890 --> 0:12:10.370 It's a tough. Well, this is the Labor Party, but 0:12:10.370 --> 0:12:14.410 there's nothing really there that says. Right. We're really supportive 0:12:15.090 --> 0:12:18.050 of trying to help you find a way to be 0:12:18.050 --> 0:12:21.050 more efficient, to be more productive. They've talked about competition 0:12:21.050 --> 0:12:25.570 and the budget actually had a competition element. And I 0:12:25.570 --> 0:12:29.650 actually think there were two really interesting policies, one from 0:12:29.650 --> 0:12:34.970 either side. They're very, very different. One was Labor's promise 0:12:34.970 --> 0:12:38.730 for the standardized tax deduction, which we're in a country 0:12:38.730 --> 0:12:42.250 where there are more accountants than there are farmers. And 0:12:42.250 --> 0:12:44.850 part of that is because of the stupidity of our 0:12:45.010 --> 0:12:47.250 tax system, and the fact that so many of us 0:12:47.250 --> 0:12:50.370 have to go to a tax agent. Introduction to the 0:12:50.370 --> 0:12:54.450 standardized tax deduction of $1,000. That's been around as an 0:12:54.450 --> 0:13:00.370 idea since the Henry tax paper. It's an efficiency gain. 0:13:00.370 --> 0:13:03.970 It's not huge, but it is a step on the 0:13:03.970 --> 0:13:07.410 coalition side. One of the interesting ones like it hasn't 0:13:07.410 --> 0:13:10.970 got any attention. But, uh, and this only affects a 0:13:10.970 --> 0:13:14.090 few people, but I think you'll resonate is the idea 0:13:14.090 --> 0:13:20.570 that we need somebody, an ambassador around hostage taking. So 0:13:20.570 --> 0:13:22.929 they actually have come up with this idea, right. Because 0:13:23.530 --> 0:13:26.970 people are being abducted overseas, and there's this whole element 0:13:27.130 --> 0:13:29.490 that goes under the under the radar of how you 0:13:29.490 --> 0:13:32.770 look after the families and how you get these people back. 0:13:32.809 --> 0:13:35.770 They've come up with a really interesting policy whereby you 0:13:35.809 --> 0:13:39.650 actually get somebody within foreign affairs who's sort of the 0:13:39.690 --> 0:13:42.970 point person, but you actually develop a way to deal 0:13:42.970 --> 0:13:45.730 with that. Like it's. 0:13:45.929 --> 0:13:46.489 Interesting. 0:13:46.530 --> 0:13:49.410 It's an interesting policy you got. Yep. Both sides can 0:13:49.650 --> 0:13:53.210 still come up with interesting or good policy. It's just 0:13:53.210 --> 0:13:55.329 the crap that's everywhere else. That's the problem. 0:14:09.090 --> 0:14:12.570 With me is Shane, right? The senior economics correspondent for 0:14:12.570 --> 0:14:17.410 The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Well, let's come 0:14:17.410 --> 0:14:19.810 back to the stuff that really affects everybody's hip pocket 0:14:19.810 --> 0:14:22.050 as we go into the election. Cost of living was 0:14:22.050 --> 0:14:25.690 a huge issue when we last spoke. Has any party 0:14:25.690 --> 0:14:27.970 put forward a plan that tackles it in a serious, 0:14:27.970 --> 0:14:28.890 long term way? 0:14:29.530 --> 0:14:33.410 I wouldn't go that far. Neither side. Come on, come on. 0:14:33.850 --> 0:14:37.170 Like ultimately like we got some really great inflation figures 0:14:37.170 --> 0:14:40.050 this week. Like, and my wife and I were having 0:14:40.050 --> 0:14:43.410 a debate about this just the other day about saying Cher. 0:14:43.450 --> 0:14:47.010 Cher complaining about inflation is so high. And I said, well, 0:14:47.010 --> 0:14:49.450 inflation is not high. And then I said, the other 0:14:49.450 --> 0:14:52.530 thing is wages are going up. No they're not. I said, yes, 0:14:52.530 --> 0:14:56.410 they are. Your wage is going up. And this is 0:14:56.410 --> 0:14:58.570 the issue with inflation. It's when you get into a 0:14:58.570 --> 0:15:02.650 whole cost of living argument. Um, because people look at 0:15:02.650 --> 0:15:06.610 the price of everything and everything has gone up. Absolutely. 0:15:06.650 --> 0:15:07.090 Absolutely. 0:15:07.130 --> 0:15:09.730 They're absolutely right. But people don't look at what their 0:15:09.730 --> 0:15:13.050 wages are doing either. And they go, hold on, how 0:15:13.090 --> 0:15:16.290 am I paying for this? So this has been a 0:15:16.290 --> 0:15:19.250 real key argument from Peter Dutton. And he has come 0:15:19.250 --> 0:15:21.770 up with this idea. We'll have fuel excise cut for 0:15:22.210 --> 0:15:25.850 12 months, which means in 12 months time, the cost 0:15:25.850 --> 0:15:29.330 of your petrol will go up by $0.25 a litre. Yep. 0:15:29.650 --> 0:15:34.810 And this one off tax offset, $1,200. Which is mind 0:15:34.850 --> 0:15:38.530 boggling silly because this is what happened last under the 0:15:38.530 --> 0:15:41.370 last government. And you just people get used to it. 0:15:41.370 --> 0:15:45.710 So in two years time, everyone's going to fail. 10 0:15:45.710 --> 0:15:49.370 million people face a $1,200 increase in their tax. So 0:15:49.730 --> 0:15:52.210 it's just you get, you give with one hand, you 0:15:52.210 --> 0:15:53.290 take away with the other. 0:15:53.530 --> 0:15:55.650 Right before another election just before. 0:15:55.690 --> 0:15:59.330 And someone and ultimately the and this is part of 0:15:59.330 --> 0:16:01.890 their costings is the government. The opposition says we won't 0:16:01.890 --> 0:16:05.650 go ahead with the tax cut that's been legislated already. 0:16:06.330 --> 0:16:09.930 That's all their costings are predicated on this extra like 0:16:09.970 --> 0:16:14.170 in 2829, there's an extra $7 billion in personal income 0:16:14.170 --> 0:16:18.250 tax collected under the coalition that helps improves their bottom budget. 0:16:18.250 --> 0:16:21.210 Bottom line. So you've got that going. You've got tax 0:16:21.250 --> 0:16:25.170 going up. So really, really short term the government has 0:16:25.170 --> 0:16:28.930 been doing this with, say, its energy subsidies, which run 0:16:28.930 --> 0:16:31.650 out at the end of this year. I think the 0:16:31.650 --> 0:16:34.010 reserve Bank will be finally happy that they're out of 0:16:34.050 --> 0:16:37.010 the system, because then we can see really what's going 0:16:37.010 --> 0:16:40.610 on in terms of the energy market, whether there really 0:16:40.610 --> 0:16:43.730 is a reduction in price pressures across that area, and 0:16:44.010 --> 0:16:45.930 there won't be that sort of money going back into 0:16:45.930 --> 0:16:51.410 the economy. Like the opposition says, it's fuel excise is deflationary. 0:16:51.810 --> 0:16:54.370 It yes, it reduces the inflation rate, but it's still 0:16:54.370 --> 0:16:59.210 pumping $7.5 billion into the economy. At the same time, 0:16:59.650 --> 0:17:03.330 my economics training is that would be inflationary. That's what 0:17:03.330 --> 0:17:05.609 the reserve Bank also would be believing as well. 0:17:05.930 --> 0:17:09.410 Very interesting times, isn't it? Um, we spoke about how 0:17:09.450 --> 0:17:12.090 older Australians make up the majority of voters last time 0:17:12.090 --> 0:17:14.850 we spoke. Do you think they've been a part of 0:17:14.850 --> 0:17:17.250 this campaign at all? Do you think there has been 0:17:17.450 --> 0:17:21.609 anything beyond lip service paid to older generations, or is 0:17:21.609 --> 0:17:24.250 this is this really targeting the young people and their 0:17:24.250 --> 0:17:25.130 cost of living? 0:17:25.690 --> 0:17:28.450 Um, well, cost of living is important to older Australians, 0:17:28.450 --> 0:17:32.090 but ultimately, like, we're really at that crux where the 0:17:32.490 --> 0:17:37.050 Gen Z and millennials are around the same size of 0:17:37.290 --> 0:17:44.060 voting bloc Look as, um, boomers and Xers. We're we're 0:17:44.140 --> 0:17:49.100 on that cusp right at the moment. Um, in terms 0:17:49.100 --> 0:17:52.260 of like the you can see like both sides have 0:17:52.260 --> 0:17:55.100 really embraced the government's urgent care clinics. 0:17:55.300 --> 0:17:55.659 Yeah. 0:17:55.700 --> 0:17:58.899 Now, we know older Australians use the health system more 0:17:58.940 --> 0:18:02.060 than younger people. And that is and they portray it 0:18:02.060 --> 0:18:04.739 as such. Like this is helping you like. Yes, it 0:18:04.740 --> 0:18:07.820 helps the mother who's got a kid who's done something 0:18:07.820 --> 0:18:10.460 silly to their hand or their foot or whatever, because 0:18:10.500 --> 0:18:13.380 children are great at that. Yeah, but it's also aimed 0:18:13.500 --> 0:18:17.060 at older Australians who really. Yeah, chronically who need that 0:18:17.060 --> 0:18:20.699 health service. So in that space and yeah, that's both 0:18:20.700 --> 0:18:24.300 sides have been really promising a lot in that that space. 0:18:24.340 --> 0:18:27.020 In Medicare space. And it's good to see because it's 0:18:27.020 --> 0:18:31.340 been hard to hard to maintain health services in, you know, 0:18:31.380 --> 0:18:35.020 and stay stay healthy if you can't access a doctor 0:18:35.020 --> 0:18:35.940 at the right price. 0:18:36.060 --> 0:18:40.820 That's right. But ultimately, like the older Australians, they've been 0:18:40.820 --> 0:18:43.540 more peripheral to this election than in past ones. Like 0:18:43.540 --> 0:18:46.500 if you go back, John Howard in oh seven was 0:18:46.500 --> 0:18:50.460 promising like like billions of dollars in a straight out 0:18:50.500 --> 0:18:53.060 handout to people on the aged pension, like. 0:18:53.980 --> 0:18:56.820 Tax cuts don't hit the hip pocket of the retiree. Right. 0:18:56.940 --> 0:19:01.100 That's right. You're very much nobody talks about that in 0:19:01.100 --> 0:19:03.899 the media. But but that's the reality is if you 0:19:03.900 --> 0:19:06.419 get a tax cut you don't you're not paying tax. 0:19:06.460 --> 0:19:09.780 If you've got the retirement based super fund on tap. No. 0:19:09.820 --> 0:19:13.300 That's right. And like the opposition has really pushed into 0:19:13.300 --> 0:19:16.379 the change that the government has been pushing for the 0:19:16.380 --> 0:19:19.700 best part of three years, which is the the tax 0:19:19.700 --> 0:19:23.860 arrangements on people with superannuation balances of more than $3 billion, 0:19:23.859 --> 0:19:27.340 3 billion, $3 million. Like that is still a very 0:19:27.340 --> 0:19:31.700 small proportion. But they're not young people who have $3 million. No. 0:19:31.740 --> 0:19:34.859 And this is where the where the rhetoric has really 0:19:34.859 --> 0:19:38.260 pushed into, oh, this is in inheritance text. Peter Dutton 0:19:38.260 --> 0:19:40.780 has used that in the last couple of days. So 0:19:40.780 --> 0:19:44.980 that's really aimed at older voters more probably his base 0:19:45.140 --> 0:19:45.980 higher income. 0:19:46.020 --> 0:19:47.859 Do you think the libs will block that? 0:19:47.900 --> 0:19:49.060 Yeah. That's their plan. 0:19:49.100 --> 0:19:50.139 That's their plan. 0:19:50.460 --> 0:19:55.700 Part of their saving is they cost out blocking that, 0:19:55.940 --> 0:19:58.700 not going ahead with that change because it costs money 0:19:58.740 --> 0:20:00.340 not to go ahead with that change. 0:20:00.380 --> 0:20:02.460 And talking to people out there, the biggest fear around 0:20:02.460 --> 0:20:05.820 that one from the mass market is that that's not indexed. 0:20:06.540 --> 0:20:10.820 Yeah, it's not indexed. But at a government will index it. Yeah, 0:20:10.859 --> 0:20:12.419 it will absolutely get indexed. 0:20:12.460 --> 0:20:15.420 Because, you know, an average young person today, millennial coming 0:20:15.420 --> 0:20:18.300 through that has 30 years of super will compound their 0:20:18.300 --> 0:20:22.780 way to $2 million balances. Yeah. Before they retire easily. 0:20:23.100 --> 0:20:25.020 Yeah. They'll still be short of the 3 million. But 0:20:25.020 --> 0:20:28.020 you can see like even the government's own numbers, you 0:20:28.020 --> 0:20:31.340 can see how it picks up. But their argument is one, 0:20:31.340 --> 0:20:34.820 we've got to put the policy in place. Okay. But two, 0:20:34.820 --> 0:20:37.780 to they would know in their own heads. A future 0:20:37.820 --> 0:20:44.020 government will index that, otherwise they will have angry retirees 0:20:44.020 --> 0:20:45.740 with a lot of money in their super saying, what 0:20:45.740 --> 0:20:48.780 the hell are you doing to us? But ultimately, once 0:20:48.780 --> 0:20:53.220 you're in that superannuation space, there are huge concessions going on. 0:20:53.260 --> 0:20:57.420 Everyone says, that's my money. Absolutely. But you're being forced 0:20:57.420 --> 0:21:00.659 to put in being putting away your money into that 0:21:00.660 --> 0:21:04.419 and you're getting a huge tax concession to do it. Yeah. 0:21:04.900 --> 0:21:06.899 So that's the trade off in that space. 0:21:07.140 --> 0:21:09.340 Now talk to me about one issue that I've heard 0:21:09.340 --> 0:21:11.460 very little about. And I would really like to have 0:21:11.460 --> 0:21:15.580 heard more about. And that's deeming rates on the aged pension. 0:21:15.900 --> 0:21:18.740 I thought I heard something in the budget that the 0:21:18.740 --> 0:21:21.300 Labour government was going to maintain the freeze. But then 0:21:21.300 --> 0:21:24.379 I've heard in the last week that they weren't. What's 0:21:24.380 --> 0:21:25.340 the truth of this? 0:21:26.260 --> 0:21:28.900 There's no truth to them. Like there was a this 0:21:28.900 --> 0:21:31.180 is being put out like these are parts of the 0:21:31.180 --> 0:21:32.620 subterranean campaign. 0:21:32.660 --> 0:21:35.300 Things, people. Yeah, but it's a significant number of people 0:21:35.300 --> 0:21:37.020 that operate off the income test. 0:21:37.060 --> 0:21:37.380 Oh, yeah. 0:21:37.540 --> 0:21:38.180 In Australia. 0:21:38.420 --> 0:21:41.540 The argument that the government, like there wasn't there was 0:21:41.540 --> 0:21:44.380 a thought that maybe because the deeming rate should be changed, 0:21:44.540 --> 0:21:45.700 it is actually too low. 0:21:45.740 --> 0:21:48.139 It's very low. It's very low, but it will impact. 0:21:48.140 --> 0:21:52.900 There's about 450,000 people that will be hurt who are 0:21:52.900 --> 0:21:56.100 retired and reliant on the aged pension, who will lose 0:21:56.100 --> 0:21:59.300 a good chunk of their pension. Yeah. If if that 0:21:59.300 --> 0:22:00.179 number moves. 0:22:00.380 --> 0:22:02.700 Yeah, but I'm putting them on my budget hard hat 0:22:02.700 --> 0:22:06.180 right now. I'm going to assume the deeming rate was 0:22:06.220 --> 0:22:11.380 at 0.25% at the moment. If you are getting if 0:22:11.380 --> 0:22:13.179 you were only getting 0.25. 0:22:13.300 --> 0:22:14.500 And 2.25. 0:22:14.540 --> 0:22:18.540 And 2.25, if you're getting that when the cash rate 0:22:18.580 --> 0:22:20.300 is at 4.1. 0:22:20.460 --> 0:22:21.940 So where do you think it will go to? Because 0:22:21.940 --> 0:22:24.179 we're going to see that by 30th June. So, you know, 0:22:24.180 --> 0:22:25.780 I've got a book going to print and I need 0:22:25.780 --> 0:22:27.700 to change, change the numbers in it. 0:22:28.540 --> 0:22:30.899 The Prime Minister got asked this and he said no change. 0:22:31.540 --> 0:22:33.780 He got he he he got asked that question. He 0:22:33.780 --> 0:22:35.979 got asked that question. He knew the numbers on the 0:22:35.980 --> 0:22:39.540 deeming rate. So he knew that this issue is in 0:22:39.540 --> 0:22:41.460 the ether with people because. 0:22:41.460 --> 0:22:43.340 So you think there'll be no change this year? 0:22:43.340 --> 0:22:45.860 I don't think they'll change this year. It needs to change. 0:22:46.020 --> 0:22:46.420 Yeah. 0:22:47.420 --> 0:22:52.260 Because ultimately it's it's not it's actually not true. The 0:22:52.300 --> 0:22:54.460 deeming rate at the moment is not true. 0:22:54.619 --> 0:22:57.380 No. It means everybody's getting an incredible discount on their 0:22:57.380 --> 0:23:00.300 Commonwealth seniors health card and their, their pension. And it's 0:23:00.300 --> 0:23:03.900 great for for retirees. Right I love it the rate 0:23:03.900 --> 0:23:06.020 at this level and I I'm watching for it. And 0:23:06.020 --> 0:23:08.780 a lot of people don't know what the deeming rate is. 0:23:08.820 --> 0:23:10.580 If you're if you're on the aged pension using the 0:23:10.580 --> 0:23:13.900 income test, you'll know. But you may not realize it's 0:23:13.940 --> 0:23:16.500 a it's a hot button for July June 30th. 0:23:16.540 --> 0:23:19.820 Yeah. But if I but I'm thinking about taxpayers and 0:23:19.820 --> 0:23:22.580 future taxpayers. No, it's a bad deal right at the 0:23:22.580 --> 0:23:24.180 moment because. 0:23:24.500 --> 0:23:26.060 Like, I'm thinking about real people. 0:23:26.100 --> 0:23:28.060 That's right. The deeming rate never used to be such 0:23:28.060 --> 0:23:32.020 a political hotbed. Yeah, up until we got into Covid, 0:23:32.020 --> 0:23:36.419 where it was changed and that made sense because cash 0:23:36.420 --> 0:23:42.740 rate collapsed, share markets really fell away. Um, and but 0:23:42.740 --> 0:23:45.899 then it became this political thing saying, oh, hold on. 0:23:46.580 --> 0:23:49.180 The it should have been changed in the, in the 0:23:49.220 --> 0:23:52.380 2022 budget. It wasn't it should have been changed in 0:23:52.380 --> 0:23:55.179 Jim Chalmers first budget. It wasn't. They've just let it 0:23:55.180 --> 0:23:58.619 go because they now go, oh God, if we change it, 0:23:59.180 --> 0:24:01.219 the politics of it is terrible for us. 0:24:01.340 --> 0:24:03.980 And yet, I have heard in the last week that 0:24:03.980 --> 0:24:07.459 it might get changed by both parties because. So I'm 0:24:07.460 --> 0:24:09.740 watching this one going, is anyone going to speak and 0:24:09.740 --> 0:24:11.900 are we just going to get a notification three days 0:24:11.900 --> 0:24:14.340 after the election that it's going up? Yeah. 0:24:14.500 --> 0:24:17.980 It wasn't in either costings of of the major parties. 0:24:18.180 --> 0:24:20.379 Okay. That's good to know. Yeah I'm glad you're reading 0:24:20.380 --> 0:24:23.300 below the below the line. Let's talk about the overarching 0:24:23.340 --> 0:24:25.939 Australian economy as we head into this election. What's the 0:24:25.940 --> 0:24:28.659 biggest risk that the next government will inherit? 0:24:29.260 --> 0:24:34.380 Two words Donald Trump. He's by far the biggest risk. Yeah, 0:24:34.420 --> 0:24:38.740 he's by far the biggest risk. Um, which, because of 0:24:38.740 --> 0:24:42.060 what he's doing. What how it affects China. That's an issue. 0:24:42.100 --> 0:24:46.940 Whether he has unleashed, uh, a whole new world of 0:24:46.940 --> 0:24:50.820 higher tariffs around the world, gumming up the way that 0:24:50.820 --> 0:24:56.060 we move goods and services and people around the world. Like, 0:24:56.100 --> 0:25:01.540 people complain about neo liberalism and globalization, but the world 0:25:01.540 --> 0:25:03.500 has got to a point where we have the fewest 0:25:03.500 --> 0:25:05.419 number of people in poverty as a share of the 0:25:05.420 --> 0:25:09.740 population in history. It has been good. Yes, we feel 0:25:09.820 --> 0:25:14.460 it's tough sometimes, but that's been the benefit of the last, 0:25:14.700 --> 0:25:19.780 like the last 60, 70 years of increased linkages between 0:25:19.780 --> 0:25:24.060 countries around the world economically. Donald Trump is trying to 0:25:24.740 --> 0:25:29.060 upend that. Go for it. But it comes at a 0:25:29.060 --> 0:25:34.140 huge cost. And that remains the by far the biggest 0:25:34.140 --> 0:25:39.020 single risk to every economy, not just either Anthony Albanese 0:25:39.020 --> 0:25:39.900 or Peter Dutton. 0:25:40.100 --> 0:25:43.060 And which government do you think is most experienced to 0:25:43.060 --> 0:25:45.940 be able to cope with that or able better positioned? 0:25:45.980 --> 0:25:47.500 Is there any real? 0:25:47.540 --> 0:25:50.540 I think you're almost like a bottle in the ocean, 0:25:51.020 --> 0:25:53.660 like you're bobbing around like we are a middle power. 0:25:53.980 --> 0:25:57.859 What are we? The 12th largest economy in the world? Um, 0:25:58.540 --> 0:26:04.420 but ultimately, in this case, like Donald Trump is part 0:26:04.420 --> 0:26:06.460 of the problem with Donald Trump is that he he 0:26:06.460 --> 0:26:10.020 listens or deals with the the person he most recently 0:26:10.020 --> 0:26:13.939 listened to. That's his idea. And off he goes. And 0:26:13.940 --> 0:26:17.740 there's no rationale. He he's not he just doesn't understand 0:26:17.740 --> 0:26:20.180 how the economy works. He looks at it as a 0:26:20.220 --> 0:26:25.659 win lose mercantilist approach, which was great in the 17th century. 0:26:26.180 --> 0:26:27.500 Not in the 21st. 0:26:27.900 --> 0:26:31.140 Interesting times, isn't it? All right, so we're we're, uh. 0:26:31.140 --> 0:26:33.979 We're at the end. For someone undecided, what's the one 0:26:33.980 --> 0:26:37.860 economic issue you'd like to see them weighing up most 0:26:37.859 --> 0:26:40.100 heavily before they cast their vote? 0:26:41.060 --> 0:26:45.379 Uh, I should say productivity. But most people, they fall asleep, 0:26:45.420 --> 0:26:46.100 and you use. 0:26:46.300 --> 0:26:48.740 I think productivity is so important. 0:26:48.940 --> 0:26:52.140 It's very important. But trying to find the policies that 0:26:52.180 --> 0:26:56.540 improve productivity. Good luck with that. Absolutely. Good luck. 0:26:56.780 --> 0:26:59.859 Does it does it impact things like trade unions and 0:27:00.260 --> 0:27:02.860 construction and all these things that we see? Well, I'm 0:27:02.859 --> 0:27:04.540 up in Queensland and we've seen a lot of that 0:27:04.540 --> 0:27:05.420 grind to a halt. 0:27:06.020 --> 0:27:11.139 Yeah we do, but this is me being nerdy. 0:27:11.180 --> 0:27:12.820 The the I love nerdy. 0:27:12.820 --> 0:27:15.540 The Productivity Commission, about 6 or 7 weeks ago released 0:27:15.540 --> 0:27:22.500 a report on construction sector productivity and said it has fallen. Absolutely. 0:27:23.020 --> 0:27:26.300 But Australia's productivity in construction has not fallen by as 0:27:26.380 --> 0:27:30.139 much as the United States, as Britain, as Spain, as 0:27:30.180 --> 0:27:34.300 other parts of Europe. And part of it is people 0:27:34.700 --> 0:27:37.460 like think of the think of your splashback if you're 0:27:37.460 --> 0:27:41.820 building a new home. Okay, I go back 15 years ago, 0:27:42.900 --> 0:27:46.820 just plain old white tiles. Now people are demanding really 0:27:46.859 --> 0:27:52.540 upmarket levels of finishes to their their homes. That is 0:27:52.540 --> 0:27:55.900 coming at a cost in terms of productivity. So the 0:27:55.900 --> 0:27:58.260 homes that we are building, they are different to what 0:27:58.260 --> 0:28:01.140 we were building even ten, 15 years ago. And this 0:28:01.140 --> 0:28:04.780 is a global issue that that demand for a better 0:28:04.780 --> 0:28:08.700 quality is feeding into lower productivity. 0:28:09.580 --> 0:28:11.220 Where else are the productivity problems? 0:28:11.820 --> 0:28:16.980 Um, the we've seen like Covid blew that out as 0:28:16.980 --> 0:28:21.500 we saw like because of the the global supply chains, 0:28:21.500 --> 0:28:24.419 we are requiring more stuff to come in. 0:28:25.190 --> 0:28:27.510 So where are the ones we can control? Where is 0:28:27.510 --> 0:28:29.550 the productivity we can actually impact? 0:28:29.750 --> 0:28:32.429 Well this is it. Like this. Again the PC report 0:28:32.430 --> 0:28:34.310 actually pointed out part of the problem is that our 0:28:34.310 --> 0:28:38.710 building construction sector is just filled with really like mum 0:28:38.750 --> 0:28:42.510 and dad and son or mum and dad businesses, and 0:28:42.510 --> 0:28:45.510 they are never going to they don't drive productivity as 0:28:45.510 --> 0:28:48.070 much as people say. Small business is the saviour. It 0:28:48.070 --> 0:28:52.670 is not they. They don't have the ability or the 0:28:52.670 --> 0:28:57.190 scale to really improve productivity by like the the big 0:28:57.190 --> 0:29:02.630 hope is for, say us off site construction, like where 0:29:02.630 --> 0:29:06.510 you build modular, modular and stuff like that. Like the 0:29:06.510 --> 0:29:10.190 the during the campaign, someone actually visited a place out 0:29:10.190 --> 0:29:14.590 in Perth where they're using machines to build homes almost 0:29:14.590 --> 0:29:18.710 within a day, just laying bricks. That's that is not 0:29:18.710 --> 0:29:21.910 something a, like a team of bricklayers are going to do, 0:29:22.190 --> 0:29:27.470 for instance, that requires what we call capital deepening spending money, 0:29:27.590 --> 0:29:31.590 investing in new tech to make things more productive. But 0:29:31.630 --> 0:29:36.830 that's just construction part of the issue. We're trying to 0:29:36.870 --> 0:29:41.030 measure productivity in a world where 70 to 80% of 0:29:41.030 --> 0:29:46.270 the economy is services, and trying to improve productivity in 0:29:46.270 --> 0:29:51.030 the service sector is notoriously difficult and notoriously difficult to measure. 0:29:51.510 --> 0:29:56.110 Like we are living longer that. So that's a factor 0:29:56.110 --> 0:29:58.710 of the health system. But that is not a productivity 0:29:58.710 --> 0:30:00.550 that doesn't come up as productivity. 0:30:00.830 --> 0:30:02.310 So where do we vote for that? How do we 0:30:02.310 --> 0:30:03.030 vote for that? 0:30:03.070 --> 0:30:04.910 No I know. No I don't know if we can 0:30:04.910 --> 0:30:06.390 vote for it, but we can demand it. 0:30:06.950 --> 0:30:08.910 Well, what else you got to leave me with? One 0:30:08.910 --> 0:30:11.510 one issue people can vote for when they're when they're 0:30:11.550 --> 0:30:13.270 out there thinking about the economy. If we all want 0:30:13.270 --> 0:30:15.870 to fix the economy. What could we what could we 0:30:15.870 --> 0:30:16.550 vote for? 0:30:16.590 --> 0:30:20.870 Yeah, we'd only you would look at either the policies 0:30:20.870 --> 0:30:23.430 that you think are the best in terms of inflation 0:30:23.430 --> 0:30:24.670 or wages growth. 0:30:24.910 --> 0:30:25.190 Yeah. 0:30:25.510 --> 0:30:29.630 That's that's all policies that like I'm never going to 0:30:29.630 --> 0:30:30.870 tell someone how to vote because. 0:30:30.910 --> 0:30:31.950 No, none of us. 0:30:31.950 --> 0:30:34.670 Are so many different ways that people like. 0:30:35.270 --> 0:30:37.150 I just like to weigh up the smart stuff, you know? 0:30:37.190 --> 0:30:39.990 And you're you're the nerd. We get to speak to this. 0:30:39.990 --> 0:30:40.710 You tell us. 0:30:40.830 --> 0:30:43.550 This is about the 11th election campaign I've been on, 0:30:43.550 --> 0:30:47.390 like I spent a week with with Albanese, for instance. Um, 0:30:47.990 --> 0:30:50.510 and we were I still remember we were in at 0:30:50.510 --> 0:30:54.510 the seat of Deakin down in Melbourne, whereby this is 0:30:54.510 --> 0:30:59.310 trying to get, um, like there'd been a house there 0:30:59.430 --> 0:31:02.550 in this particular, this little cul de sac of a 0:31:02.590 --> 0:31:04.870 house that had been affected. It was at the end 0:31:04.870 --> 0:31:08.030 of its life. So social housing is going in there. 0:31:08.030 --> 0:31:13.950 They're building two fairly quickly, two homes on the same block, 0:31:14.150 --> 0:31:19.510 which would suit a single parent. Okay. They're doing it 0:31:19.510 --> 0:31:23.190 relatively quickly, but ultimately that's better land use, which again, 0:31:23.430 --> 0:31:26.110 comes into productivity. And the fact that our housing sector 0:31:26.110 --> 0:31:29.150 is just a mess as well. Just where we build, 0:31:29.150 --> 0:31:32.030 how many people we're building. We've just we've fallen so 0:31:32.030 --> 0:31:35.100 far behind. That's another podcast that'll go for 5 or 0:31:35.100 --> 0:31:37.950 6 days about problems in the housing sector. But that 0:31:37.950 --> 0:31:42.990 is a that is an example of where government policy 0:31:42.990 --> 0:31:46.950 is actually doing something. And it's it's a cul de 0:31:46.950 --> 0:31:49.870 sac at a time. Like it's really difficult to measure. 0:31:49.870 --> 0:31:53.670 But you can see ultimately in the next like that, 0:31:53.830 --> 0:31:56.670 that site will be finished within the next three months. 0:31:57.150 --> 0:32:00.030 There'll be there'll be two small families living in there, 0:32:00.070 --> 0:32:02.030 in one in a site that there used to be 0:32:02.030 --> 0:32:04.790 just one in a house that couldn't be lived in anymore. 0:32:05.190 --> 0:32:07.190 So that that's. 0:32:07.190 --> 0:32:09.350 The speed we've got to operate at to fix these problems, 0:32:09.350 --> 0:32:12.469 isn't it? It's frightening. And and both parties have got 0:32:12.470 --> 0:32:13.070 to do that stuff. 0:32:13.230 --> 0:32:16.590 They do absolutely have to both get into that space. Yeah. 0:32:16.630 --> 0:32:19.550 Um, Shane, we're not going to tell anyone how to vote. 0:32:19.550 --> 0:32:22.030 Any last tips for people as they're heading to the polls? 0:32:22.350 --> 0:32:26.590 Get a sausage, get a sausage or or find something sweet. 0:32:26.590 --> 0:32:27.469 Whatever you like. 0:32:28.110 --> 0:32:30.470 We'll let you go back to the newsroom so that 0:32:30.470 --> 0:32:32.110 you can keep the news flowing to us for the 0:32:32.110 --> 0:32:34.830 next two days. We greatly appreciate you taking time out 0:32:34.830 --> 0:32:35.750 to come on the show. 0:32:35.790 --> 0:32:37.270 No troubles. Beck, have a good day. 0:32:37.310 --> 0:32:41.870 You too. Thank you for listening to Prime Time. Shane. 0:32:41.870 --> 0:32:44.430 Thank you for being such a wealth of knowledge. We 0:32:44.470 --> 0:32:48.070 hope this has given everyone some last minute ideas to 0:32:48.110 --> 0:32:51.510 take in as they approach the polls tomorrow. I'd love 0:32:51.510 --> 0:32:54.350 to hear from prime timers in an email. If you've 0:32:54.390 --> 0:32:56.350 got thoughts on what's going on out there and what 0:32:56.350 --> 0:32:59.190 should be important to everyone, please drop me a message. 0:32:59.350 --> 0:33:01.790 And don't forget to rate, review and follow us on 0:33:01.790 --> 0:33:07.110 your podcast platform and subscribe to our newsletter at Prime Timers. Net. 0:33:07.150 --> 0:33:09.430 My name is Beck Wilson. Stay tuned for our next 0:33:09.430 --> 0:33:12.870 episode and in the meantime, make your prime time count.