WEBVTT - Albanese poses with India’s Modi in ‘striking contrast’ to One Nation 0:00:00.920 --> 0:00:04.439 Virginia Giuffre helped vanquish a prince and a millionaire. 0:00:04.760 --> 0:00:07.240 And I won't stop fighting. I will never be silenced. 0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:10.760 But one of her toughest battles was a very private one. 0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:13.880 It was the worst thing that could have happened to her. 0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.040 Her children were her life. 0:00:18.160 --> 0:00:21.960 Virginia, a podcast from the newsrooms of the age, The 0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:25.440 Sydney Morning Herald and WA today. Coming soon. 0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:33.040 I'm Jacqueline Maley, and this is Inside Politics from the 0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:36.960 newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and the age. We're 0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:40.239 very happy to have our very own chief political correspondent, 0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:43.200 Paul Circle, back in the country this week for the podcast. 0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:45.920 He's been at the Soccer World Cup. Paul, how was it? 0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:48.960 It was extremely fun, probably one of the best trips 0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:50.960 of my life. But I was wondering just in the 0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:53.920 prep for this podcast, if it was more ill advised 0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:57.560 to take off your excellent goalkeeper before a penalty shoot out, 0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:00.190 or if it was even more ill advised to joke 0:01:00.190 --> 0:01:03.430 about the Japanese prime Minister's melons on a podcast for 0:01:03.430 --> 0:01:04.670 the Australian Prime Minister. 0:01:05.150 --> 0:01:08.030 Nice segue there, because, of course, what Paul's talking about 0:01:08.030 --> 0:01:10.789 is the really the big talking point story of the week. 0:01:10.790 --> 0:01:14.069 That was this podcast that Anthony Albanese did. I think 0:01:14.069 --> 0:01:16.069 it came out late last week, but the controversy didn't 0:01:16.069 --> 0:01:18.550 really break until this week. Paul, tell us, what was 0:01:18.550 --> 0:01:19.710 that all about? 0:01:19.750 --> 0:01:22.550 It's called Bush Deep. A woman called Nikki Osborne, who's 0:01:22.550 --> 0:01:25.790 a former model and now a now podcaster, runs it. 0:01:25.790 --> 0:01:28.270 It's kind of it's full of double entendres. It's a 0:01:28.270 --> 0:01:31.390 bit bawdy. She calls herself a Bushi, which of course 0:01:31.430 --> 0:01:34.070 is also a double entendre, full of kind of sexual 0:01:34.069 --> 0:01:39.910 gags and light FM style Kyle Sandilands like content. I'd 0:01:39.910 --> 0:01:40.709 describe it as. 0:01:40.990 --> 0:01:43.429 The Prime Minister was doing his best to sort of 0:01:43.470 --> 0:01:45.830 keep up with her brand of bawdy humour, as you 0:01:45.830 --> 0:01:48.110 put it. What were the main things that he said 0:01:48.110 --> 0:01:49.270 that offended people? 0:01:49.470 --> 0:01:52.750 Well, the key one that generated news this week was 0:01:52.750 --> 0:01:56.550 a game of I always understood the game to be shag, marry, kill, 0:01:56.590 --> 0:01:59.020 but this one was perhaps a more PG version, which 0:01:59.020 --> 0:02:02.140 is shag marry date, which really doesn't create much jeopardy 0:02:02.140 --> 0:02:04.580 in the choices and the choices stakes. 0:02:04.620 --> 0:02:05.020 The stakes. 0:02:05.020 --> 0:02:06.180 Are. The stakes are way too low. 0:02:06.220 --> 0:02:07.020 For poor Sir Karl. 0:02:07.540 --> 0:02:09.460 And the options that the Prime Minister were given were 0:02:09.460 --> 0:02:12.660 Rhonda Burchmore, Nicole Kidman and Kylie Minogue. And the Prime 0:02:12.660 --> 0:02:15.380 Minister looked a little bit reluctant at first to engage 0:02:15.380 --> 0:02:17.380 in it. A little bit of a pause, but he 0:02:17.380 --> 0:02:21.260 agreed with the questioner's answer that Kylie might be the 0:02:21.260 --> 0:02:24.100 the top pick there. And so the idea of the 0:02:24.100 --> 0:02:27.340 Prime Minister giving preferences on who he would sleep with, 0:02:27.340 --> 0:02:31.620 while obviously tongue in cheek, probably inoffensive to a lot 0:02:31.620 --> 0:02:36.019 of Australians, is arguably unbecoming for someone in that role. 0:02:36.260 --> 0:02:38.540 I thought there were other elements of it that stuck 0:02:38.540 --> 0:02:40.180 out to me even more. Just as I read the 0:02:40.180 --> 0:02:42.340 stories on this this week, which was, I think the 0:02:42.340 --> 0:02:45.019 Prime Minister actually leant into this one a bit more 0:02:45.020 --> 0:02:48.700 than perhaps the shag, marry kill question, which was around 0:02:48.900 --> 0:02:53.620 the Japanese prime minister bringing melons and him joking about 0:02:53.620 --> 0:02:56.720 melons in a in a physical connotation. 0:02:56.760 --> 0:03:01.280 Yeah. The setup was that this woman, Bush deep. Nikki Osborne, 0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:03.359 asked him what was the strangest gift that he'd been 0:03:03.360 --> 0:03:06.040 given by a foreign leader. And he said, um, yeah, 0:03:06.040 --> 0:03:09.120 the Japanese prime Minister, Sanna Takaichi. AM I saying that right? 0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:10.079 Yeah, I think that's pretty much right. 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.960 Yeah, yeah. Um, she brought melons to the lodge, and 0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:15.720 so he was sort of raising his eyebrows about it. 0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:17.880 And then there was a bunch of jokes about melons. 0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:20.400 She came in with two melons, Pamela Anderson, etc. so 0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:25.680 it's just like really predictable. I mean, I don't even know, like, 0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:28.480 I just find this stuff so wearying, that kind of humor. 0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:31.880 But for me, it was kind of like the Japanese. 0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:34.240 It's the Japanese prime minister. Like, isn't that a diplomatic 0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:36.880 incident to kind of mock her or to kind of 0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:41.640 gracelessly sort of cast aspersions on the gift that she brought. 0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:46.680 It's and she's, um, among many straight edged world leaders, 0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:48.760 she's perhaps one of the most straight edged. I don't 0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:50.800 think she'd appreciate that type of humor at all. 0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:52.760 Japan's an important ally. I just thought that was an 0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:55.310 odd thing to do in the context of the, the, 0:03:55.670 --> 0:03:58.510 a humorous podcast that's clearly going to get back to 0:03:58.550 --> 0:04:00.030 her through diplomatic channels anyway. 0:04:00.070 --> 0:04:02.510 It was. And I think there's a genuine question and 0:04:02.510 --> 0:04:05.070 a fair argument from conservatives, or at least a plausible 0:04:05.070 --> 0:04:08.670 argument that if this was a coalition prime minister, there 0:04:08.670 --> 0:04:11.150 would have been a quicker, more fierce reaction at a 0:04:11.190 --> 0:04:13.990 joke like that towards a female world leader. And then 0:04:13.990 --> 0:04:15.270 the last bit, and I know we want to move 0:04:15.270 --> 0:04:17.630 on from this because it's important, but at the end 0:04:17.630 --> 0:04:20.110 of the day, probably trivial, trivial in the terms of 0:04:20.150 --> 0:04:22.710 the governance of the country. There was some jokes from 0:04:22.710 --> 0:04:28.870 the Prime Minister around when he and his new wife would, um, 0:04:28.990 --> 0:04:31.230 you know, get into bed together. And this was a 0:04:31.230 --> 0:04:33.190 kind of back and forth on when, when the right 0:04:33.190 --> 0:04:35.510 moment was for them. And, you know, I get that 0:04:35.510 --> 0:04:40.110 we're in the highly difficult media environment to get your 0:04:40.110 --> 0:04:44.470 voice into the algorithm. Politicians across the world are grappling 0:04:44.470 --> 0:04:47.750 with this. You look at the feeds of Australian politicians, 0:04:47.750 --> 0:04:50.910 particularly on the left, and it's full of TikTok dances. 0:04:51.110 --> 0:04:53.860 It's full of these, um, you know, new formats that 0:04:53.860 --> 0:04:57.500 are kind of used physical humor and song to get 0:04:57.500 --> 0:05:00.460 into your, get into your attention and cause you not 0:05:00.460 --> 0:05:04.580 to scroll past this inevitably leads to some awkward moments. 0:05:04.580 --> 0:05:08.539 You've got to have a crack to get into people's algorithms. 0:05:08.540 --> 0:05:11.900 So there's risk there. And so I empathise with the 0:05:11.900 --> 0:05:14.620 Prime Minister. Um, and as I said earlier, I don't 0:05:14.620 --> 0:05:17.980 think the majority of Australians would have found this highly offensive. 0:05:18.140 --> 0:05:22.420 But what this kind of content leads to is, you know, 0:05:22.460 --> 0:05:25.500 riskier moments where you might fall into some traps. Reminds 0:05:25.500 --> 0:05:28.620 me of Peter Dutton, and some of his worst moments 0:05:28.620 --> 0:05:32.300 were on talkback radio with Ray Hadley. He'd get in 0:05:32.300 --> 0:05:35.979 these long winded back and forths with no challenging questions, 0:05:35.980 --> 0:05:38.740 and he'd let things slip. And just maybe just a 0:05:38.740 --> 0:05:40.820 final point. If we're in the era of where we've 0:05:40.820 --> 0:05:43.940 normalised Kyle Sandilands for as long as we have that 0:05:43.940 --> 0:05:48.380 kind of FM talkback content is not dissimilar to this 0:05:48.380 --> 0:05:51.770 bushy podcast really at all. So perhaps this is just 0:05:51.770 --> 0:05:54.850 the new world. Standards are lower. People move on very quickly. 0:05:54.850 --> 0:05:55.810 This is the internet. 0:05:56.290 --> 0:05:58.250 Yeah. I mean, I guess I have a few thoughts 0:05:58.250 --> 0:06:00.050 about it. Like you say, it's not offensive to the 0:06:00.050 --> 0:06:02.050 majority of Australians and I'm sure it's not. And on 0:06:02.050 --> 0:06:04.770 one reading, it's like, oh, you know, like he's just 0:06:04.770 --> 0:06:07.290 making this sort of off the cuff comment about Kylie Minogue, 0:06:07.290 --> 0:06:11.210 who's like pretty hot, let's face it. Um, I, I 0:06:11.250 --> 0:06:14.370 don't think that politicians should engage in that stuff. Maybe 0:06:14.370 --> 0:06:16.770 I'm a prude, but I also think, I think the 0:06:16.770 --> 0:06:19.450 rule for politicians is like 100 fold. The rule for 0:06:19.450 --> 0:06:22.050 just general people in any kind of professional workplace, which 0:06:22.050 --> 0:06:24.450 is just don't talk about don't talk about other people 0:06:24.450 --> 0:06:27.369 in a sexual context, particularly men. Don't talk about women 0:06:27.370 --> 0:06:30.010 in a sexual context. Just don't do it. Um, just 0:06:30.010 --> 0:06:32.130 avoid it. And I thought we were all on the 0:06:32.130 --> 0:06:34.690 same page with that stuff now. And it's not offensive, 0:06:34.730 --> 0:06:37.810 but it's exclusionary. I mean, I don't find that funny. 0:06:38.010 --> 0:06:40.530 I don't like women. Women aren't laughing along to like, 0:06:40.570 --> 0:06:43.770 oh yeah, you know, melons like Kylie Minogue. So hot. Yeah, 0:06:43.810 --> 0:06:47.330 I'd shag her. Women aren't women aren't laughing along to that. 0:06:47.330 --> 0:06:49.720 Like it's a, it's a it's a joke for men 0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:53.640 to men that excludes women and that that that's even 0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:55.799 notwithstanding the fact that it was a woman who asked it. 0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:58.000 The other thing that that I guess bugged me about 0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:00.920 the whole thing was just. It was so low brow 0:07:01.400 --> 0:07:04.520 and I, I don't want to be a snob, and 0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:07.520 I don't think I am a snob, but if that 0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:10.360 is the level of our sort of funny political debate 0:07:10.360 --> 0:07:14.000 or our satirical political debate in America, they have this 0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:17.560 amazing tradition of, you know, late night shows where they 0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:21.800 do really, really pointy political satire and they have politicians 0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:24.520 on sometimes, and they do a great job of satirizing them, 0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:27.240 but also joking with them. In England, they have a 0:07:27.240 --> 0:07:29.480 similar tradition. In France, they you know, as I said 0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:32.360 in my column, they literally have philosophers on television talking 0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.000 about politics. And like, if this is our cultural output 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:36.920 and this is the kind of thing that politicians are 0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.920 cooperating with, like, Lord, help us. It's just so lowbrow. 0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:43.440 What do you think it means, Jack, for the Prime 0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:47.590 Minister's legacy on women's issues? Does it have a material 0:07:47.590 --> 0:07:48.630 effect on his legacy? 0:07:48.630 --> 0:07:51.390 So that's interesting. So I got a text message, like 0:07:51.390 --> 0:07:54.550 a very sort of robust text message from someone in 0:07:54.550 --> 0:07:57.470 the coalition world, shall I say. And they said, if 0:07:57.470 --> 0:08:00.310 this was Tony Abbott, like, you know, people would be 0:08:00.310 --> 0:08:03.190 calling for his resignation. And they and, you know, all 0:08:03.190 --> 0:08:06.630 the times that Tony Abbott sort of transgressed in similar ways. So, 0:08:06.830 --> 0:08:09.710 you know, he called Fiona Scott the candidate for, um, 0:08:09.910 --> 0:08:12.030 for the liberal candidate for Lindsay. 0:08:12.110 --> 0:08:14.430 Hot or sexy sex appeal. 0:08:14.910 --> 0:08:17.230 That's right. She said said she had sex appeal. He 0:08:17.230 --> 0:08:19.110 said sort of a similar thing about his own daughters 0:08:19.110 --> 0:08:21.350 or he said they were not bad looking daughters. Um, 0:08:21.390 --> 0:08:25.030 there was you know, there was also the famous incident 0:08:25.030 --> 0:08:27.870 where he was on ABC radio with Jon Faine in Melbourne, 0:08:27.870 --> 0:08:29.830 and a woman came on the line who was who 0:08:29.830 --> 0:08:31.750 said that she had sort of worked as a sex, 0:08:31.790 --> 0:08:34.910 as a sex worker on phone, phone, sex operator, because 0:08:34.910 --> 0:08:37.630 she was so hard up. And Tony Abbott was caught 0:08:37.630 --> 0:08:40.189 winking at Jon Faine in a sort of bawdy way. Right. 0:08:40.390 --> 0:08:42.230 And he was slayed for that. Like he really was 0:08:42.230 --> 0:08:45.330 slayed for it. And this person was like, why is 0:08:45.330 --> 0:08:47.810 the media not treating this in the in the same way? 0:08:48.050 --> 0:08:50.610 Now I think we did. I think we did call 0:08:50.650 --> 0:08:53.810 Anthony Albanese out for it. But certainly all of the 0:08:53.809 --> 0:08:56.730 labor politicians who who were the foot soldiers who were 0:08:56.730 --> 0:09:00.010 sent out to defend him. So Tanya Plibersek and Richard 0:09:00.010 --> 0:09:03.250 Marles went on radio that morning. He'd apologised unequivocally, which 0:09:03.250 --> 0:09:04.810 I guess, you know, you've got to give him credit 0:09:04.809 --> 0:09:07.290 for that. Um and they all came out and said, well, 0:09:07.290 --> 0:09:09.170 look at what he's done. This is the best prime 0:09:09.170 --> 0:09:11.410 minister and the best government for women's rights. And I 0:09:11.410 --> 0:09:13.610 think that's probably the crucial difference. You could not say 0:09:13.610 --> 0:09:16.130 that about Tony Abbott, who famously only had one woman 0:09:16.130 --> 0:09:18.090 in his cabinet, and that he was sort of forced 0:09:18.090 --> 0:09:18.810 to have her. 0:09:18.850 --> 0:09:20.970 That's fair. If you're judging him on on the merits 0:09:20.970 --> 0:09:24.090 of that theme or that policy area. Surely the actual 0:09:24.090 --> 0:09:27.090 policy record matters to some extent. I did feel very 0:09:27.090 --> 0:09:29.770 sorry for Tanya Plibersek because I think it was Monday 0:09:29.770 --> 0:09:32.610 morning she went out on breakfast TV in a regular slot, 0:09:32.650 --> 0:09:34.650 which means that the Prime Minister's office is well aware 0:09:34.650 --> 0:09:37.130 that she's on at that time, and she had to 0:09:37.130 --> 0:09:40.050 grit her teeth and talk about the record on women's policy, 0:09:40.290 --> 0:09:42.770 but was not able to say that the Prime Minister 0:09:42.770 --> 0:09:45.559 had apologized or would apologize. And I think a short 0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:48.280 time later, perhaps hours. But I could be wrong on that. 0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:51.280 The Prime Minister put out a very clear cut and 0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:55.080 concise message, saying he unequivocally apologised. So spare a thought 0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:57.520 for Tanya Plibersek, who's not a not a close friend 0:09:57.520 --> 0:09:58.840 of the Prime Minister's in general. 0:09:58.840 --> 0:10:01.880 No, they they they're probably not simpatico at the best 0:10:01.880 --> 0:10:04.000 of times. So, I mean, I don't know what it 0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:06.679 says really, except that, yeah, it's very difficult for politicians 0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.280 to navigate traditional media in, you know, the things that 0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:12.480 they've always had to do, like go on 730, talk 0:10:12.480 --> 0:10:15.920 to Sydney Morning Herald and the Age. Um, you know, 0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:18.679 go on ABC radio. And now they have to just, there's, 0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:21.080 you know, people are so siloed, so they have to 0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:23.400 be able to reach people in all sorts of different ways. 0:10:23.600 --> 0:10:25.199 So I get that they would want to do this 0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:27.440 kind of stuff. I just think maybe you've got to 0:10:27.440 --> 0:10:30.240 exercise better judgment or, you know, at least go in 0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:32.719 there thinking, I'm not going to answer any sexual questions. 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:34.680 Like it's a really, really low bar. Yeah. 0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:37.520 And you, you would think he'd he's learnt his lesson. 0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:39.560 There was a slip up in a similar moment in 0:10:39.559 --> 0:10:44.349 a not, not quite exactly the same, but a similarly 0:10:44.350 --> 0:10:47.710 open conversation with, I think, a News Corp newspaper editor 0:10:47.710 --> 0:10:49.910 a few months ago. And it was one of those 0:10:49.910 --> 0:10:52.670 forums where they give you, uh, they demand a one 0:10:52.670 --> 0:10:55.830 word response to another person's name. They said grace tame. 0:10:55.830 --> 0:10:57.829 And he said difficult. He had to apologize for that 0:10:57.830 --> 0:11:02.750 as well. So these forums are really hard for politicians. Um, 0:11:02.750 --> 0:11:06.350 but if the, if the overall aim is to try 0:11:06.350 --> 0:11:09.829 and get your voice into the mix and say something 0:11:09.830 --> 0:11:13.670 compelling enough or funny enough or entertaining enough to get 0:11:13.710 --> 0:11:16.630 eyeballs onto it, I'd argue that not enough of our 0:11:16.630 --> 0:11:22.550 politicians are making compelling policy arguments or points about the country, 0:11:22.550 --> 0:11:27.790 or making controversial, um, entrances into interesting, important debates to 0:11:27.790 --> 0:11:28.870 get their voice heard. 0:11:28.910 --> 0:11:31.429 Yeah, I think it goes back to authenticity. It's like 0:11:31.429 --> 0:11:33.429 this sort of weird thing where they they do this 0:11:33.470 --> 0:11:34.790 sort of stuff because it's like, oh, I've got to 0:11:34.790 --> 0:11:37.070 be relatable and authentic, and I want to be seen 0:11:37.070 --> 0:11:39.030 in a forum where I'm a normal person, not speaking 0:11:39.030 --> 0:11:41.900 like a political robot. But then you go into that 0:11:41.900 --> 0:11:44.340 forum and like Anthony Albanese has basically just had to 0:11:44.380 --> 0:11:46.660 backtrack on all the stuff that he supposedly said in 0:11:46.660 --> 0:11:49.179 an off the cuff, casual way, in a sort of 0:11:49.220 --> 0:11:52.300 the real him kind of way. He apologised unequivocally for it, 0:11:52.300 --> 0:11:53.939 and all of his ministers were like, well, that's not 0:11:53.940 --> 0:11:56.380 really what he's done in, in, in his actual public 0:11:56.380 --> 0:11:59.339 life in policy. So was it authentic or was it not? 0:11:59.380 --> 0:12:02.179 I mean it, yeah. I mean, I don't know what 0:12:02.179 --> 0:12:03.740 the solution is. I don't know if I was a 0:12:03.740 --> 0:12:06.020 media adviser to a politician, what I would tell them 0:12:06.020 --> 0:12:07.660 to do or not do. But surely it has to 0:12:07.660 --> 0:12:10.459 be in keeping with your own value system and in 0:12:10.460 --> 0:12:13.939 keeping with what you're comfortable out of on a personality level, 0:12:13.980 --> 0:12:17.340 you know, because people, people will see through it. Okay, 0:12:17.340 --> 0:12:20.260 let's switch gears now to the economy. Deloitte Access Economics 0:12:20.260 --> 0:12:22.900 has released a report this week about the economic conditions 0:12:22.900 --> 0:12:26.380 of different OECD countries. And it found that Australia has 0:12:26.380 --> 0:12:29.140 very sluggish growth. We've got much higher inflation than most 0:12:29.300 --> 0:12:31.900 OECD countries, and our living standards are going backwards. What 0:12:31.900 --> 0:12:32.939 else did it say, Paul? 0:12:33.220 --> 0:12:36.740 Yeah, totally grim set of economic data. The AFR reported 0:12:36.740 --> 0:12:40.690 on Monday that Australia's 3.6% underlying inflation rate was the 0:12:40.690 --> 0:12:44.250 equal highest among developed countries. Then there was the Deloitte 0:12:44.250 --> 0:12:46.970 report you refer to, which says that the country's on 0:12:46.970 --> 0:12:52.290 track for its first consecutive sub 2% growth era since 0:12:52.290 --> 0:12:55.370 the 1990s, recession in the very early 90s. And then 0:12:55.370 --> 0:12:58.650 there was the OECD report, which said that Australian real 0:12:58.650 --> 0:13:01.569 wages have fallen by 5% over the past five years, 0:13:01.570 --> 0:13:03.290 which is one of the worst results out of the 0:13:03.290 --> 0:13:07.730 38 member nations. Pretty jarring time for that set of 0:13:07.730 --> 0:13:10.570 data to come through, given the government has adopted quite 0:13:10.610 --> 0:13:14.970 a triumphalist economic tone post its budget passing the parliament. 0:13:15.170 --> 0:13:18.410 There are obviously historic reforms to the housing market, but 0:13:18.770 --> 0:13:21.810 the counter to the or the criticism of the budget 0:13:21.809 --> 0:13:25.570 was that the CGT changes might actually stifle the economy further. 0:13:25.570 --> 0:13:27.730 At a time when we've been through a period of 0:13:27.730 --> 0:13:28.690 sclerotic growth. 0:13:28.730 --> 0:13:31.490 Yeah. I mean, the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, did sort 0:13:31.490 --> 0:13:34.130 of say, I think at the last rates decision, a 0:13:34.130 --> 0:13:37.160 slow run in the economy is sort of what we need, 0:13:37.200 --> 0:13:40.040 because we need that inflation to come down. So, you know, 0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:44.240 it's not what anybody wants to hear, but I suppose 0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:47.679 it's hard to mount any kind of economic triumphalist argument, 0:13:47.679 --> 0:13:51.000 as you say, if inflation is this high because inflation 0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:53.720 just ruins everything. It just bites. There's no point getting 0:13:53.760 --> 0:13:57.320 a salary increase or the wage increases that the government 0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:00.199 has managed, managed to get for low paid workers, because 0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:02.560 it all just gets eaten up when you go and 0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:05.640 do supermarket shopping or you pay rent or whatever. So 0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:08.800 it kind of ruins the whole economic pie. What did 0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:12.439 Treasurer Jim Chalmers say in response to these data points? 0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:14.800 Well, the treasurer talks about the fact that real wages 0:14:14.800 --> 0:14:19.280 have grown for quite a significant period of this government's life. 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:22.400 There's been a better record than the previous government on 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:26.480 that issue. There's some really interesting data that some research sorry, 0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:30.080 that our colleague Liam Mannix, our science reporter, published yesterday 0:14:30.280 --> 0:14:35.620 on how inflation affects people's psyches and political cycles. And 0:14:35.620 --> 0:14:40.340 there's strong data that now suggests that over a period 0:14:40.340 --> 0:14:44.940 since 1948, over, I think nearly 400 elections, when inflation 0:14:44.940 --> 0:14:49.300 rises well above expectations, extremist and populist parties have a really, 0:14:49.300 --> 0:14:52.260 really good time. Because when people see higher prices than 0:14:52.260 --> 0:14:55.660 they can afford, that creates a sense of general unfairness, 0:14:55.660 --> 0:14:58.460 and people look to alternatives. And the issue with our 0:14:58.460 --> 0:15:02.580 inflation trajectory at the moment is that even when our 0:15:02.580 --> 0:15:05.620 economy just starts to tick up into some higher than 0:15:05.620 --> 0:15:08.900 expected growth numbers, we see inflation tick up again, because 0:15:08.900 --> 0:15:12.260 our low productivity economy means that we can't sustain high 0:15:12.260 --> 0:15:14.460 levels of growth. So we're kind of locked into this 0:15:14.660 --> 0:15:18.220 locked into this moment of low growth, high inflation at 0:15:18.220 --> 0:15:21.140 the moment or relatively high inflation. And it's kind of 0:15:21.180 --> 0:15:26.180 unclear how we break the cycle. AI is one clear opportunity. Uh, 0:15:26.340 --> 0:15:28.820 our GDP has been propped up by big investment in 0:15:28.820 --> 0:15:31.820 data centers, and the prospect of AI filtering out across 0:15:31.820 --> 0:15:35.570 the economy could be our first high productivity moment in 0:15:35.570 --> 0:15:37.210 a long time, but then we're going to run into 0:15:37.250 --> 0:15:41.290 all these other challenges around social license for data centers, unions, um, 0:15:41.330 --> 0:15:44.690 urging more involvement in the AI rollout and still trade 0:15:44.730 --> 0:15:45.570 offs there as well. 0:15:46.130 --> 0:15:48.530 And copyright as a, as an author. I mean, they 0:15:48.530 --> 0:15:51.890 just rip off these large language models, just rip off 0:15:52.130 --> 0:15:56.250 books and just steal people's content. The data center thing, 0:15:56.250 --> 0:15:58.970 certainly the government is trying to, um, represent it as 0:15:59.010 --> 0:16:01.450 a is a huge economic opportunity and a big boom 0:16:01.450 --> 0:16:03.770 for us. And maybe it will be, but the RBA 0:16:03.850 --> 0:16:06.330 actually warned this week that those data centers might add 0:16:06.330 --> 0:16:09.010 to inflation pressures. Because if you have all this demand 0:16:09.010 --> 0:16:12.210 coming into the economy, so demand for labor workers and 0:16:12.210 --> 0:16:15.730 particularly energy, and because our productivity is not great, we 0:16:15.730 --> 0:16:17.730 just can't handle the demand. So it all gets sucked 0:16:17.730 --> 0:16:21.450 up by the data centers. Everybody else loses those resources 0:16:21.450 --> 0:16:24.570 and prices go up. So even though AI might be better, 0:16:24.570 --> 0:16:26.970 hopefully will be better for productivity in the long run. 0:16:26.970 --> 0:16:30.010 In the short term, it might make inflation worse. 0:16:30.050 --> 0:16:33.440 Yeah, there's a big political firestorm coming over data centers 0:16:33.440 --> 0:16:36.080 where we're in the a handful of countries in the 0:16:36.080 --> 0:16:40.360 world on investment. We have great land and energy resources. Uh, 0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:43.280 Ed Husic, the former industry minister who was dumped by 0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:47.000 the prime minister, is far more gloomy on AI and 0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:49.880 its role in Australia than than the ministers in charge 0:16:49.880 --> 0:16:52.360 at the moment. And Husic has been saying this week 0:16:52.360 --> 0:16:55.560 that at a time when main nation building goal is 0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:59.280 to build housing will be diverting construction resources to build 0:16:59.280 --> 0:17:03.600 data centres, which he says are merely a function of 0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:09.440 AI firms trying to justify their huge share market valuations 0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:13.600 rather than actually building. Uh, you know, centres that are 0:17:13.600 --> 0:17:17.480 going to be required to, um, feed into our, our, 0:17:17.520 --> 0:17:20.760 our economies. So he's saying we're effectively building data centres 0:17:20.760 --> 0:17:23.560 because tech tech firms in America need to find land 0:17:24.000 --> 0:17:26.320 at the same time as we're struggling to build enough houses. 0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:28.880 Yeah. Because a lot of people are saying that they've 0:17:28.990 --> 0:17:31.790 overinvested basically in this technology and they need to recoup 0:17:31.790 --> 0:17:35.230 some some of that investment. Um, yeah. I mean, and 0:17:35.230 --> 0:17:36.949 that is a good point about diverting. I mean, we're 0:17:36.950 --> 0:17:39.910 already having enough trouble building enough houses and we've got 0:17:39.910 --> 0:17:42.070 a labor shortage and we've got supply shortages that are 0:17:42.070 --> 0:17:45.149 contributing to that. Yeah. I don't know how it all works, 0:17:45.150 --> 0:17:48.790 but it'll be interesting. Hey, listen, um, just quickly, the 0:17:48.790 --> 0:17:51.669 Prime Minister has been in Fiji this week, and then 0:17:51.670 --> 0:17:55.950 we had obviously a missile launch from China following. We 0:17:55.990 --> 0:17:59.190 signed a mutual defense pact with Fiji. And sort of 0:17:59.350 --> 0:18:02.869 in a petulant display, you might say China immediately launched 0:18:02.869 --> 0:18:04.870 this missile. What was what was that all about? 0:18:05.109 --> 0:18:09.150 Yeah. Another important moment on the government's Pacific strategy. It's 0:18:09.150 --> 0:18:11.510 been a real win for this government over a period 0:18:11.510 --> 0:18:13.389 of years. Now, how many deals they've been able to 0:18:13.430 --> 0:18:17.470 sign with Pacific nations as intense competition with China in 0:18:17.510 --> 0:18:22.590 that region to gain ascendancy and build, build security and 0:18:22.590 --> 0:18:27.420 defence relationships with these, uh, geographically important nations. And we 0:18:27.420 --> 0:18:31.220 just keep having wins. The J one was a surprise announcement, 0:18:31.220 --> 0:18:34.420 and the depth of the agreement was also a surprise. 0:18:34.780 --> 0:18:36.780 And then, as you said, I think it was a 0:18:36.780 --> 0:18:41.179 day later, China fired a nuclear capable ballistic missile across 0:18:41.180 --> 0:18:44.500 the Pacific without giving much notice. And we saw for 0:18:44.500 --> 0:18:48.060 the first time in quite a while, Australian ministers language 0:18:48.140 --> 0:18:51.219 ratchet up towards China. There's the, you know, agree where 0:18:51.220 --> 0:18:55.020 we can disagree, where we must mantra. We saw a small, um, 0:18:55.260 --> 0:18:59.700 reversion to some more hawkish language given China's, as you say, 0:18:59.740 --> 0:19:03.660 petulant action which really annoyed our Pacific neighbours is an 0:19:03.660 --> 0:19:08.700 assertion of Chinese dominance. Uh, another sign for the Pacific 0:19:08.740 --> 0:19:12.300 that they are dealing with a nation that has huge 0:19:12.300 --> 0:19:17.380 military might, big expansionary intent that yes, it might build 0:19:17.380 --> 0:19:20.219 any building or freeway or port that these Pacific nations 0:19:20.220 --> 0:19:23.980 would like, but they adopt this aggressive stance and remind 0:19:23.980 --> 0:19:26.010 the Pacific and the world. This has made waves in 0:19:26.010 --> 0:19:28.730 Europe and America as well, that they that they do 0:19:28.730 --> 0:19:31.250 have an aggressive edge. So it was an important week 0:19:31.250 --> 0:19:33.490 in China relations, which we don't have enough time to 0:19:33.490 --> 0:19:34.490 go in into. 0:19:34.570 --> 0:19:37.410 Yeah, yeah. There are always sort of teetering on the 0:19:37.410 --> 0:19:41.210 edge of aggression, it seems. And then Narendra Narendra Modi, 0:19:41.210 --> 0:19:44.810 the hugely popular Indian prime minister, at least he's hugely 0:19:44.810 --> 0:19:47.850 popular with the diaspora here in Australia. He's in Australia 0:19:47.890 --> 0:19:50.050 this week. The Prime Minister is trying to sort of 0:19:50.650 --> 0:19:52.970 bask in his limelight, if you like. They'll be at 0:19:52.970 --> 0:19:57.090 the Marvel Stadium in Melbourne with people from the Indian 0:19:57.130 --> 0:20:00.330 diaspora who live down in Melbourne, and it'll be a 0:20:00.330 --> 0:20:02.929 fun time. Anthony Albanese is going to be there. He's 0:20:02.970 --> 0:20:05.810 he's done this before with Narendra Modi, where he kind of. 0:20:05.850 --> 0:20:07.490 This was in Sydney and I think it was during 0:20:07.490 --> 0:20:09.410 the election campaign. And he sort of said, you know, 0:20:09.450 --> 0:20:11.530 the only other person that gets this kind of reception 0:20:11.530 --> 0:20:14.409 is Bruce Springsteen, the boss. So it was a mutual 0:20:14.410 --> 0:20:16.609 love fest. It's kind of like, um, it's going to 0:20:16.609 --> 0:20:18.969 be good press, surely, for Anthony Albanese. 0:20:19.170 --> 0:20:21.730 Great press. I suspect there'll be no mention from Anthony 0:20:21.730 --> 0:20:26.070 Albanese about Narendra Modi's quite questionable. Human rights record. Uh, 0:20:26.150 --> 0:20:29.590 there's two there's two elements to this. There's the geopolitical 0:20:29.910 --> 0:20:33.310 hedge against China. India is a really important player there 0:20:33.310 --> 0:20:36.230 in that region. And a, and a big block that, 0:20:36.270 --> 0:20:38.510 you know, is not in in the pro-China world. It's 0:20:38.510 --> 0:20:41.670 not quite in the pro America world either. So it's 0:20:41.670 --> 0:20:43.790 crucial to keep India on side. So there is that 0:20:43.790 --> 0:20:47.990 important geopolitical task. But the Indian diaspora in Australia means 0:20:47.990 --> 0:20:53.030 that relations with India are also a domestically important issue. 0:20:53.270 --> 0:20:55.869 And it's a really key part of Labor's voting coalition. 0:20:56.230 --> 0:20:58.510 And surely this is um you know, it's a bit 0:20:58.510 --> 0:21:00.350 of a sort of he's he'd be making a bit 0:21:00.350 --> 0:21:03.750 of a point, sort of standing alongside the Indian Prime Minister, 0:21:03.750 --> 0:21:06.110 as you say, in front of Indian born voters or 0:21:06.109 --> 0:21:10.109 people of Indian background, voters, at a time when his 0:21:10.109 --> 0:21:13.350 main political competitors coalition, the Coalition and One Nation, are very, 0:21:13.350 --> 0:21:17.429 very reluctant to even say that they support multiculturalism. So 0:21:17.590 --> 0:21:19.310 it's a bit of a statement in that sense. 0:21:19.350 --> 0:21:21.190 Very striking contrast, I agree. 0:21:21.380 --> 0:21:24.020 Yeah, Paul, that was really interesting. It was a big 0:21:24.020 --> 0:21:26.020 news week and it's really good to have you back. 0:21:26.580 --> 0:21:29.300 We'll see you next week. Who knows what might happen then. 0:21:29.300 --> 0:21:32.180 Maybe we should. Um, I don't know. Maybe we should 0:21:32.180 --> 0:21:34.140 get more bawdy on our podcast. 0:21:34.500 --> 0:21:36.980 I actually love Kylie Minogue. She's one of my favorite. 0:21:37.300 --> 0:21:40.060 Like her dance music is fantastic. Yeah, we're highbrow and 0:21:40.060 --> 0:21:42.939 people probably think we're annoying and distasteful. So that's the world. 0:21:43.460 --> 0:21:47.140 Yeah. Okay, let's be annoying. Distasteful. Let's keep doing that 0:21:47.140 --> 0:21:47.899 next week. 0:21:48.380 --> 0:21:48.980 See Jack. 0:21:51.980 --> 0:21:53.820 You can read all of our political news on our 0:21:53.820 --> 0:21:59.660 website dot com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by 0:21:59.700 --> 0:22:02.700 Kea Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our 0:22:02.700 --> 0:22:07.260 podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before 0:22:07.260 --> 0:22:09.940 you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for 0:22:09.940 --> 0:22:13.419 us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you 0:22:13.420 --> 0:22:14.100 for listening.