S1: Virginia Giuffre helped vanquish a prince and a millionaire.
S2: And I won't stop fighting. I will never be silenced.
S1: But one of her toughest battles was a very private one.
S3: It was the worst thing that could have happened to her.
S3: Her children were her life.
S1: Virginia, a podcast from the newsrooms of the age, The
S1: Sydney Morning Herald and WA today. Coming soon.
S4: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and this is Inside Politics from the
S4: newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and the age. We're
S4: very happy to have our very own chief political correspondent,
S4: Paul Circle, back in the country this week for the podcast.
S4: He's been at the Soccer World Cup. Paul, how was it?
S5: It was extremely fun, probably one of the best trips
S5: of my life. But I was wondering just in the
S5: prep for this podcast, if it was more ill advised
S5: to take off your excellent goalkeeper before a penalty shoot out,
S5: or if it was even more ill advised to joke
S5: about the Japanese prime Minister's melons on a podcast for
S5: the Australian Prime Minister.
S4: Nice segue there, because, of course, what Paul's talking about
S4: is the really the big talking point story of the week.
S4: That was this podcast that Anthony Albanese did. I think
S4: it came out late last week, but the controversy didn't
S4: really break until this week. Paul, tell us, what was
S4: that all about?
S5: It's called Bush Deep. A woman called Nikki Osborne, who's
S5: a former model and now a now podcaster, runs it.
S5: It's kind of it's full of double entendres. It's a
S5: bit bawdy. She calls herself a Bushi, which of course
S5: is also a double entendre, full of kind of sexual
S5: gags and light FM style Kyle Sandilands like content. I'd
S5: describe it as.
S4: The Prime Minister was doing his best to sort of
S4: keep up with her brand of bawdy humour, as you
S4: put it. What were the main things that he said
S4: that offended people?
S5: Well, the key one that generated news this week was
S5: a game of I always understood the game to be shag, marry, kill,
S5: but this one was perhaps a more PG version, which
S5: is shag marry date, which really doesn't create much jeopardy
S5: in the choices and the choices stakes.
S4: The stakes.
S5: Are. The stakes are way too low.
S4: For poor Sir Karl.
S5: And the options that the Prime Minister were given were
S5: Rhonda Burchmore, Nicole Kidman and Kylie Minogue. And the Prime
S5: Minister looked a little bit reluctant at first to engage
S5: in it. A little bit of a pause, but he
S5: agreed with the questioner's answer that Kylie might be the
S5: the top pick there. And so the idea of the
S5: Prime Minister giving preferences on who he would sleep with,
S5: while obviously tongue in cheek, probably inoffensive to a lot
S5: of Australians, is arguably unbecoming for someone in that role.
S5: I thought there were other elements of it that stuck
S5: out to me even more. Just as I read the
S5: stories on this this week, which was, I think the
S5: Prime Minister actually leant into this one a bit more
S5: than perhaps the shag, marry kill question, which was around
S5: the Japanese prime minister bringing melons and him joking about
S5: melons in a in a physical connotation.
S4: Yeah. The setup was that this woman, Bush deep. Nikki Osborne,
S4: asked him what was the strangest gift that he'd been
S4: given by a foreign leader. And he said, um, yeah,
S4: the Japanese prime Minister, Sanna Takaichi. AM I saying that right?
S5: Yeah, I think that's pretty much right.
S4: Yeah, yeah. Um, she brought melons to the lodge, and
S4: so he was sort of raising his eyebrows about it.
S4: And then there was a bunch of jokes about melons.
S4: She came in with two melons, Pamela Anderson, etc. so
S4: it's just like really predictable. I mean, I don't even know, like,
S4: I just find this stuff so wearying, that kind of humor.
S4: But for me, it was kind of like the Japanese.
S4: It's the Japanese prime minister. Like, isn't that a diplomatic
S4: incident to kind of mock her or to kind of
S4: gracelessly sort of cast aspersions on the gift that she brought.
S5: It's and she's, um, among many straight edged world leaders,
S5: she's perhaps one of the most straight edged. I don't
S5: think she'd appreciate that type of humor at all.
S4: Japan's an important ally. I just thought that was an
S4: odd thing to do in the context of the, the,
S4: a humorous podcast that's clearly going to get back to
S4: her through diplomatic channels anyway.
S5: It was. And I think there's a genuine question and
S5: a fair argument from conservatives, or at least a plausible
S5: argument that if this was a coalition prime minister, there
S5: would have been a quicker, more fierce reaction at a
S5: joke like that towards a female world leader. And then
S5: the last bit, and I know we want to move
S5: on from this because it's important, but at the end
S5: of the day, probably trivial, trivial in the terms of
S5: the governance of the country. There was some jokes from
S5: the Prime Minister around when he and his new wife would, um,
S5: you know, get into bed together. And this was a
S5: kind of back and forth on when, when the right
S5: moment was for them. And, you know, I get that
S5: we're in the highly difficult media environment to get your
S5: voice into the algorithm. Politicians across the world are grappling
S5: with this. You look at the feeds of Australian politicians,
S5: particularly on the left, and it's full of TikTok dances.
S5: It's full of these, um, you know, new formats that
S5: are kind of used physical humor and song to get
S5: into your, get into your attention and cause you not
S5: to scroll past this inevitably leads to some awkward moments.
S5: You've got to have a crack to get into people's algorithms.
S5: So there's risk there. And so I empathise with the
S5: Prime Minister. Um, and as I said earlier, I don't
S5: think the majority of Australians would have found this highly offensive.
S5: But what this kind of content leads to is, you know,
S5: riskier moments where you might fall into some traps. Reminds
S5: me of Peter Dutton, and some of his worst moments
S5: were on talkback radio with Ray Hadley. He'd get in
S5: these long winded back and forths with no challenging questions,
S5: and he'd let things slip. And just maybe just a
S5: final point. If we're in the era of where we've
S5: normalised Kyle Sandilands for as long as we have that
S5: kind of FM talkback content is not dissimilar to this
S5: bushy podcast really at all. So perhaps this is just
S5: the new world. Standards are lower. People move on very quickly.
S5: This is the internet.
S4: Yeah. I mean, I guess I have a few thoughts
S4: about it. Like you say, it's not offensive to the
S4: majority of Australians and I'm sure it's not. And on
S4: one reading, it's like, oh, you know, like he's just
S4: making this sort of off the cuff comment about Kylie Minogue,
S4: who's like pretty hot, let's face it. Um, I, I
S4: don't think that politicians should engage in that stuff. Maybe
S4: I'm a prude, but I also think, I think the
S4: rule for politicians is like 100 fold. The rule for
S4: just general people in any kind of professional workplace, which
S4: is just don't talk about don't talk about other people
S4: in a sexual context, particularly men. Don't talk about women
S4: in a sexual context. Just don't do it. Um, just
S4: avoid it. And I thought we were all on the
S4: same page with that stuff now. And it's not offensive,
S4: but it's exclusionary. I mean, I don't find that funny.
S4: I don't like women. Women aren't laughing along to like,
S4: oh yeah, you know, melons like Kylie Minogue. So hot. Yeah,
S4: I'd shag her. Women aren't women aren't laughing along to that.
S4: Like it's a, it's a it's a joke for men
S4: to men that excludes women and that that that's even
S4: notwithstanding the fact that it was a woman who asked it.
S4: The other thing that that I guess bugged me about
S4: the whole thing was just. It was so low brow
S4: and I, I don't want to be a snob, and
S4: I don't think I am a snob, but if that
S4: is the level of our sort of funny political debate
S4: or our satirical political debate in America, they have this
S4: amazing tradition of, you know, late night shows where they
S4: do really, really pointy political satire and they have politicians
S4: on sometimes, and they do a great job of satirizing them,
S4: but also joking with them. In England, they have a
S4: similar tradition. In France, they you know, as I said
S4: in my column, they literally have philosophers on television talking
S4: about politics. And like, if this is our cultural output
S4: and this is the kind of thing that politicians are
S4: cooperating with, like, Lord, help us. It's just so lowbrow.
S5: What do you think it means, Jack, for the Prime
S5: Minister's legacy on women's issues? Does it have a material
S5: effect on his legacy?
S4: So that's interesting. So I got a text message, like
S4: a very sort of robust text message from someone in
S4: the coalition world, shall I say. And they said, if
S4: this was Tony Abbott, like, you know, people would be
S4: calling for his resignation. And they and, you know, all
S4: the times that Tony Abbott sort of transgressed in similar ways. So,
S4: you know, he called Fiona Scott the candidate for, um,
S4: for the liberal candidate for Lindsay.
S5: Hot or sexy sex appeal.
S4: That's right. She said said she had sex appeal. He
S4: said sort of a similar thing about his own daughters
S4: or he said they were not bad looking daughters. Um,
S4: there was you know, there was also the famous incident
S4: where he was on ABC radio with Jon Faine in Melbourne,
S4: and a woman came on the line who was who
S4: said that she had sort of worked as a sex,
S4: as a sex worker on phone, phone, sex operator, because
S4: she was so hard up. And Tony Abbott was caught
S4: winking at Jon Faine in a sort of bawdy way. Right.
S4: And he was slayed for that. Like he really was
S4: slayed for it. And this person was like, why is
S4: the media not treating this in the in the same way?
S4: Now I think we did. I think we did call
S4: Anthony Albanese out for it. But certainly all of the
S4: labor politicians who who were the foot soldiers who were
S4: sent out to defend him. So Tanya Plibersek and Richard
S4: Marles went on radio that morning. He'd apologised unequivocally, which
S4: I guess, you know, you've got to give him credit
S4: for that. Um and they all came out and said, well,
S4: look at what he's done. This is the best prime
S4: minister and the best government for women's rights. And I
S4: think that's probably the crucial difference. You could not say
S4: that about Tony Abbott, who famously only had one woman
S4: in his cabinet, and that he was sort of forced
S4: to have her.
S5: That's fair. If you're judging him on on the merits
S5: of that theme or that policy area. Surely the actual
S5: policy record matters to some extent. I did feel very
S5: sorry for Tanya Plibersek because I think it was Monday
S5: morning she went out on breakfast TV in a regular slot,
S5: which means that the Prime Minister's office is well aware
S5: that she's on at that time, and she had to
S5: grit her teeth and talk about the record on women's policy,
S5: but was not able to say that the Prime Minister
S5: had apologized or would apologize. And I think a short
S5: time later, perhaps hours. But I could be wrong on that.
S5: The Prime Minister put out a very clear cut and
S5: concise message, saying he unequivocally apologised. So spare a thought
S5: for Tanya Plibersek, who's not a not a close friend
S5: of the Prime Minister's in general.
S4: No, they they they're probably not simpatico at the best
S4: of times. So, I mean, I don't know what it
S4: says really, except that, yeah, it's very difficult for politicians
S4: to navigate traditional media in, you know, the things that
S4: they've always had to do, like go on 730, talk
S4: to Sydney Morning Herald and the Age. Um, you know,
S4: go on ABC radio. And now they have to just, there's,
S4: you know, people are so siloed, so they have to
S4: be able to reach people in all sorts of different ways.
S4: So I get that they would want to do this
S4: kind of stuff. I just think maybe you've got to
S4: exercise better judgment or, you know, at least go in
S4: there thinking, I'm not going to answer any sexual questions.
S4: Like it's a really, really low bar. Yeah.
S5: And you, you would think he'd he's learnt his lesson.
S5: There was a slip up in a similar moment in
S5: a not, not quite exactly the same, but a similarly
S5: open conversation with, I think, a News Corp newspaper editor
S5: a few months ago. And it was one of those
S5: forums where they give you, uh, they demand a one
S5: word response to another person's name. They said grace tame.
S5: And he said difficult. He had to apologize for that
S5: as well. So these forums are really hard for politicians. Um,
S5: but if the, if the overall aim is to try
S5: and get your voice into the mix and say something
S5: compelling enough or funny enough or entertaining enough to get
S5: eyeballs onto it, I'd argue that not enough of our
S5: politicians are making compelling policy arguments or points about the country,
S5: or making controversial, um, entrances into interesting, important debates to
S5: get their voice heard.
S4: Yeah, I think it goes back to authenticity. It's like
S4: this sort of weird thing where they they do this
S4: sort of stuff because it's like, oh, I've got to
S4: be relatable and authentic, and I want to be seen
S4: in a forum where I'm a normal person, not speaking
S4: like a political robot. But then you go into that
S4: forum and like Anthony Albanese has basically just had to
S4: backtrack on all the stuff that he supposedly said in
S4: an off the cuff, casual way, in a sort of
S4: the real him kind of way. He apologised unequivocally for it,
S4: and all of his ministers were like, well, that's not
S4: really what he's done in, in, in his actual public
S4: life in policy. So was it authentic or was it not?
S4: I mean it, yeah. I mean, I don't know what
S4: the solution is. I don't know if I was a
S4: media adviser to a politician, what I would tell them
S4: to do or not do. But surely it has to
S4: be in keeping with your own value system and in
S4: keeping with what you're comfortable out of on a personality level,
S4: you know, because people, people will see through it. Okay,
S4: let's switch gears now to the economy. Deloitte Access Economics
S4: has released a report this week about the economic conditions
S4: of different OECD countries. And it found that Australia has
S4: very sluggish growth. We've got much higher inflation than most
S4: OECD countries, and our living standards are going backwards. What
S4: else did it say, Paul?
S5: Yeah, totally grim set of economic data. The AFR reported
S5: on Monday that Australia's 3.6% underlying inflation rate was the
S5: equal highest among developed countries. Then there was the Deloitte
S5: report you refer to, which says that the country's on
S5: track for its first consecutive sub 2% growth era since
S5: the 1990s, recession in the very early 90s. And then
S5: there was the OECD report, which said that Australian real
S5: wages have fallen by 5% over the past five years,
S5: which is one of the worst results out of the
S5: 38 member nations. Pretty jarring time for that set of
S5: data to come through, given the government has adopted quite
S5: a triumphalist economic tone post its budget passing the parliament.
S5: There are obviously historic reforms to the housing market, but
S5: the counter to the or the criticism of the budget
S5: was that the CGT changes might actually stifle the economy further.
S5: At a time when we've been through a period of
S5: sclerotic growth.
S4: Yeah. I mean, the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, did sort
S4: of say, I think at the last rates decision, a
S4: slow run in the economy is sort of what we need,
S4: because we need that inflation to come down. So, you know,
S4: it's not what anybody wants to hear, but I suppose
S4: it's hard to mount any kind of economic triumphalist argument,
S4: as you say, if inflation is this high because inflation
S4: just ruins everything. It just bites. There's no point getting
S4: a salary increase or the wage increases that the government
S4: has managed, managed to get for low paid workers, because
S4: it all just gets eaten up when you go and
S4: do supermarket shopping or you pay rent or whatever. So
S4: it kind of ruins the whole economic pie. What did
S4: Treasurer Jim Chalmers say in response to these data points?
S5: Well, the treasurer talks about the fact that real wages
S5: have grown for quite a significant period of this government's life.
S5: There's been a better record than the previous government on
S5: that issue. There's some really interesting data that some research sorry,
S5: that our colleague Liam Mannix, our science reporter, published yesterday
S5: on how inflation affects people's psyches and political cycles. And
S5: there's strong data that now suggests that over a period
S5: since 1948, over, I think nearly 400 elections, when inflation
S5: rises well above expectations, extremist and populist parties have a really,
S5: really good time. Because when people see higher prices than
S5: they can afford, that creates a sense of general unfairness,
S5: and people look to alternatives. And the issue with our
S5: inflation trajectory at the moment is that even when our
S5: economy just starts to tick up into some higher than
S5: expected growth numbers, we see inflation tick up again, because
S5: our low productivity economy means that we can't sustain high
S5: levels of growth. So we're kind of locked into this
S5: locked into this moment of low growth, high inflation at
S5: the moment or relatively high inflation. And it's kind of
S5: unclear how we break the cycle. AI is one clear opportunity. Uh,
S5: our GDP has been propped up by big investment in
S5: data centers, and the prospect of AI filtering out across
S5: the economy could be our first high productivity moment in
S5: a long time, but then we're going to run into
S5: all these other challenges around social license for data centers, unions, um,
S5: urging more involvement in the AI rollout and still trade
S5: offs there as well.
S4: And copyright as a, as an author. I mean, they
S4: just rip off these large language models, just rip off
S4: books and just steal people's content. The data center thing,
S4: certainly the government is trying to, um, represent it as
S4: a is a huge economic opportunity and a big boom
S4: for us. And maybe it will be, but the RBA
S4: actually warned this week that those data centers might add
S4: to inflation pressures. Because if you have all this demand
S4: coming into the economy, so demand for labor workers and
S4: particularly energy, and because our productivity is not great, we
S4: just can't handle the demand. So it all gets sucked
S4: up by the data centers. Everybody else loses those resources
S4: and prices go up. So even though AI might be better,
S4: hopefully will be better for productivity in the long run.
S4: In the short term, it might make inflation worse.
S5: Yeah, there's a big political firestorm coming over data centers
S5: where we're in the a handful of countries in the
S5: world on investment. We have great land and energy resources. Uh,
S5: Ed Husic, the former industry minister who was dumped by
S5: the prime minister, is far more gloomy on AI and
S5: its role in Australia than than the ministers in charge
S5: at the moment. And Husic has been saying this week
S5: that at a time when main nation building goal is
S5: to build housing will be diverting construction resources to build
S5: data centres, which he says are merely a function of
S5: AI firms trying to justify their huge share market valuations
S5: rather than actually building. Uh, you know, centres that are
S5: going to be required to, um, feed into our, our,
S5: our economies. So he's saying we're effectively building data centres
S5: because tech tech firms in America need to find land
S5: at the same time as we're struggling to build enough houses.
S4: Yeah. Because a lot of people are saying that they've
S4: overinvested basically in this technology and they need to recoup
S4: some some of that investment. Um, yeah. I mean, and
S4: that is a good point about diverting. I mean, we're
S4: already having enough trouble building enough houses and we've got
S4: a labor shortage and we've got supply shortages that are
S4: contributing to that. Yeah. I don't know how it all works,
S4: but it'll be interesting. Hey, listen, um, just quickly, the
S4: Prime Minister has been in Fiji this week, and then
S4: we had obviously a missile launch from China following. We
S4: signed a mutual defense pact with Fiji. And sort of
S4: in a petulant display, you might say China immediately launched
S4: this missile. What was what was that all about?
S5: Yeah. Another important moment on the government's Pacific strategy. It's
S5: been a real win for this government over a period
S5: of years. Now, how many deals they've been able to
S5: sign with Pacific nations as intense competition with China in
S5: that region to gain ascendancy and build, build security and
S5: defence relationships with these, uh, geographically important nations. And we
S5: just keep having wins. The J one was a surprise announcement,
S5: and the depth of the agreement was also a surprise.
S5: And then, as you said, I think it was a
S5: day later, China fired a nuclear capable ballistic missile across
S5: the Pacific without giving much notice. And we saw for
S5: the first time in quite a while, Australian ministers language
S5: ratchet up towards China. There's the, you know, agree where
S5: we can disagree, where we must mantra. We saw a small, um,
S5: reversion to some more hawkish language given China's, as you say,
S5: petulant action which really annoyed our Pacific neighbours is an
S5: assertion of Chinese dominance. Uh, another sign for the Pacific
S5: that they are dealing with a nation that has huge
S5: military might, big expansionary intent that yes, it might build
S5: any building or freeway or port that these Pacific nations
S5: would like, but they adopt this aggressive stance and remind
S5: the Pacific and the world. This has made waves in
S5: Europe and America as well, that they that they do
S5: have an aggressive edge. So it was an important week
S5: in China relations, which we don't have enough time to
S5: go in into.
S4: Yeah, yeah. There are always sort of teetering on the
S4: edge of aggression, it seems. And then Narendra Narendra Modi,
S4: the hugely popular Indian prime minister, at least he's hugely
S4: popular with the diaspora here in Australia. He's in Australia
S4: this week. The Prime Minister is trying to sort of
S4: bask in his limelight, if you like. They'll be at
S4: the Marvel Stadium in Melbourne with people from the Indian
S4: diaspora who live down in Melbourne, and it'll be a
S4: fun time. Anthony Albanese is going to be there. He's
S4: he's done this before with Narendra Modi, where he kind of.
S4: This was in Sydney and I think it was during
S4: the election campaign. And he sort of said, you know,
S4: the only other person that gets this kind of reception
S4: is Bruce Springsteen, the boss. So it was a mutual
S4: love fest. It's kind of like, um, it's going to
S4: be good press, surely, for Anthony Albanese.
S5: Great press. I suspect there'll be no mention from Anthony
S5: Albanese about Narendra Modi's quite questionable. Human rights record. Uh,
S5: there's two there's two elements to this. There's the geopolitical
S5: hedge against China. India is a really important player there
S5: in that region. And a, and a big block that,
S5: you know, is not in in the pro-China world. It's
S5: not quite in the pro America world either. So it's
S5: crucial to keep India on side. So there is that
S5: important geopolitical task. But the Indian diaspora in Australia means
S5: that relations with India are also a domestically important issue.
S5: And it's a really key part of Labor's voting coalition.
S4: And surely this is um you know, it's a bit
S4: of a sort of he's he'd be making a bit
S4: of a point, sort of standing alongside the Indian Prime Minister,
S4: as you say, in front of Indian born voters or
S4: people of Indian background, voters, at a time when his
S4: main political competitors coalition, the Coalition and One Nation, are very,
S4: very reluctant to even say that they support multiculturalism. So
S4: it's a bit of a statement in that sense.
S5: Very striking contrast, I agree.
S4: Yeah, Paul, that was really interesting. It was a big
S4: news week and it's really good to have you back.
S4: We'll see you next week. Who knows what might happen then.
S4: Maybe we should. Um, I don't know. Maybe we should
S4: get more bawdy on our podcast.
S5: I actually love Kylie Minogue. She's one of my favorite.
S5: Like her dance music is fantastic. Yeah, we're highbrow and
S5: people probably think we're annoying and distasteful. So that's the world.
S4: Yeah. Okay, let's be annoying. Distasteful. Let's keep doing that
S4: next week.
S6: See Jack.
S4: You can read all of our political news on our
S4: website dot com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by
S4: Kea Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our
S4: podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before
S4: you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for
S4: us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you
S4: for listening.