S1: From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
S1: This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. It's Friday, February 21st. Well,
S1: the reserve Bank finally answered our fiscal prayers this week
S1: and announced an interest rate cut of 0.25%, providing relief
S1: to stretched mortgages across the land. But arguably, no one
S1: was sweating on the rate cut more than the Albanese government,
S1: which desperately needed a strong sign that the cost of
S1: living crisis has turned a corner. But what message did
S1: the reserve Bank send more broadly about the persistent problem
S1: of inflation? Will one rate cut be enough to make
S1: a difference for Australians? And if it does make a difference,
S1: will they reward the government by voting Labour at the
S1: next election? Joining me to discuss today we have our
S1: senior economics correspondent Shane Wright, and later in the podcast
S1: we will talk about the national security speech given this
S1: week by ASIO boss Mike Burgess. And for that chat,
S1: we will have our national security correspondent Matthew Knox. But
S1: for the time being. Hello, Shane.
S2: Well, you're starting with age rather than wisdom. Clearly in
S2: the lineup for this, I think.
S1: I think you can claim both of those things. Shane,
S1: talk to us like we're not economists, which most of
S1: us are. The reserve Bank gave us a 0.25% rate
S1: cut on Tuesday, but the message from the bank was
S1: rather mixed. What did the bank board say in layman's terms?
S2: Right. In Michelle Bullock's terms, yes, we've cut interest rates
S2: because we think a bit of inflation has come out
S2: of the economy, but we're not yet convinced it's dead
S2: and buried and cremated, to paraphrase a former prime minister.
S2: And so this was one of the most interesting aspect
S2: of this, because as the figures are showing, inflation is falling.
S2: There is no doubt about that, particularly if you're trying
S2: to build a house, which has been the big problem
S2: over the last 2 or 3 years. It's coming down. However,
S2: financial markets have been saying for ages, oh, we think
S2: the RBA is going to cut probably a full percentage
S2: point this year. Michelle Bullock went out of her way
S2: to say, no, we don't think that's right. She used
S2: the term unrealistic, saying they've got far more confidence than
S2: we do in how it's playing out. We've still got
S2: some concerns about certain parts of the economy. So she
S2: really tried to dampen the expectations that there would be
S2: more rate cuts. But the average mortgage is now a
S2: touch over 600 K. That's a bit over 100 bucks
S2: a month that you're saving. There's plenty of people who'll say,
S2: I'll pocket that extra 100 bucks a month, and I'll
S2: be happy for the moment.
S1: And how was the news of the rate cut greeted
S1: by the prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and also by the opposition?
S2: Well, I wouldn't say Anthony Albanese was cheering and dancing,
S2: but you could see it behind his eyes that he's
S2: pretty damn happy that this has occurred. It's been part
S2: of the government's hopes, wishes, desires, expectations that this would
S2: happen on their watch. So you can see both Albanese
S2: and Treasurer Jim Chalmers relieved that this has happened, because
S2: it helps feed into their narrative. Um, in terms of
S2: the opposition's, uh, response, I think it was Albanese who
S2: said that, uh, Angus Taylor, the shadow treasurer, looked like
S2: someone had run over the cat in his front yard.
S2: The the opposition knows as much as you try and say, well,
S2: this yes, this is welcome, but it's all still the
S2: government's fault that they're still at interest rates are still
S2: at 4.1%. Um, so yeah, it's a fine line. And
S2: we've seen, uh, Peter Dutton had to wind back some
S2: of his commentary from last week where he effectively said, oh, look,
S2: the bank may not be able to cut rates. It
S2: may have to lift interest rates again. And that came
S2: across as he was effectively telling the reserve Bank, oh,
S2: hold your fire. Uh, rather than saying, well, we'd love
S2: an interest rate cut for all those poor Australians out
S2: there with a mortgage. But still blame the government for
S2: everything else.
S1: The common wisdom is that the Prime Minister badly needed
S1: a rate cut to convince Australians that the worst of
S1: the cost of living crisis is over, and labor has
S1: actually managed the economy reasonably well through this tricky period.
S1: Will this rate cut actually deliver political dividends for the
S1: Albanese government? In terms of voter gratitude, do you think?
S2: Oh, gratitude might be a bit harsh, might be a
S2: bit aggressive in your description. Um, put it this way,
S2: if the bank had not cut interest rates, what would
S2: the or what would be the counterfactual? There would be
S2: people absolutely pointing the finger at the government accusing them of. Yeah.
S2: Effectively hurting so millions and millions of Australians. So having
S2: a rate cut. I haven't I can't recall a government
S2: of any persuasion being upset or voters being upset with
S2: an interest rate cut that none readily come to mind.
S2: And so and that's the thinking inside government based on
S2: decades of, uh, of where this of tracking where this
S2: comes from.
S1: Yeah. And it makes sense, but it is a slightly
S1: confusing picture because the economic fundamentals are a bit all
S1: over the place. Unemployment is extraordinarily low, isn't it? But
S1: growth is also very low. So why is the jobs
S1: market so strong. What's going on.
S2: Well, this is the thing that's flummoxed. The reserve Bank
S2: utterly flummoxed the reserve Bank. Um, so there are much
S2: smarter people than me and you who are struggling to
S2: come to terms with this. Some of it is in
S2: my mind. It's because we're catching up, because we hadn't
S2: employed enough people in certain sectors disability, veterans, aged care.
S2: And that's where a lot of the jobs growth has been,
S2: because as a community, we absolutely shafted these sectors by
S2: not employing enough people. And we've had we've had none. Surprisingly,
S2: we've had three royal commissions into those, those areas, and
S2: they've all come up saying, you just don't have enough
S2: people to provide the services that are being demanded or
S2: absolutely a measure of civilization. So that's part of it. Um,
S2: just the way that business in this country has gone about,
S2: they're not investing enough. Partly. And so if you've got
S2: a choice between a new piece of kit or a
S2: worker who might actually be cheaper than buying the new
S2: piece of kit, or taking a punt or doing something different,
S2: that may give you big rewards. The business sector is
S2: probably a bit shy at the moment, and this has
S2: been a problem for the last 1015 years. That's why
S2: there's a lot of focus, say, on whether the productivity
S2: boosts from artificial intelligence is going to come along and
S2: change everything. But this is this isn't just an Australian problem.
S2: This is a global problem. And that's why we've seen
S2: job rates, unemployment rates falling pretty well across the world
S2: over the last few years.
S1: Yeah. And what about household consumption? Because that's really the
S1: driver of economic growth, isn't it? And economic activity is
S1: just what everyday Australians like you and me buy at
S1: the shops. How's that going?
S2: Well, that's been falling in per capita terms for the
S2: best part of a year. Um, even with really with interest, like,
S2: put it this way, the cash rate at 4.35. John
S2: Howard said interest rates will never be lower when they're
S2: about three and a quarter like we are in historically.
S2: Interest rates are not that high. They and some people
S2: will scream and cry and everything else, but they are
S2: demonstrably not.
S1: I'm sorry to cut across you there, but isn't that
S1: sort of a false measure these days, given that household
S1: debt is huge, mortgages are enormous and we have a cost.
S1: We have a housing crisis, an affordability crisis.
S2: Well, I'll cut across to you here, to my friend
S2: and just say we have made a we have made
S2: a decision as a community to spend a lot on
S2: our housing, and you and I could do a whole
S2: podcast on the fact that my views about the problem
S2: with how much money you, me and everyone else are
S2: bidding up housing and what that does to productivity, what
S2: that does as a community. We've said, right, we value
S2: bricks and mortar when we could be valuing other things.
S2: That's that's a that's a that's a huge debate which
S2: a lot of people don't like going down that because
S2: they say, I love my house, I get that. But
S2: if you're willing to take on the average mortgage in
S2: New South Wales is $811,000.
S1: Um, I think that's another podcast for another time, that
S1: whole debate. But I would like to do that. Let's
S1: bookmark that. Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said that households are
S1: the ones who've done the work to bring inflation down.
S1: He said that households have been tightening their belts, but
S1: the government has been splashing too much cash. So this
S1: goes to the criticism that the opposition has launched at
S1: the government that their cost of living relief, what they
S1: call their cost of living relief, is actually just put
S1: more cash into the economy and worsened inflation. Is there
S1: any truth to that claim? I mean, hasn't hasn't the
S1: reserve Bank sort of danced around a similar point?
S2: They well, they talked a bit about this in their
S2: monetary policy statement, which was also released on the day
S2: of the cut. And that is yep, government spending has increased,
S2: but some of that government spending is what has actually
S2: driven down prices. The government say the subsidies for electricity
S2: or Commonwealth rent assistance that has reduced the headline rate
S2: of inflation, that is actually counted as government spending. Absolutely right.
S2: The RBA also noted there'd been a big increase in
S2: defense spending. Trying to argue that that is inflationary, I
S2: think would challenge just about any politician.
S1: Mhm. The government you wrote this week is already hinting
S1: at giving further cost of living relief, whether or not
S1: that's inflationary. The opposition, for its part, has been very
S1: critical of cost of living relief, as we've just said.
S1: Hasn't the opposition sort of hemmed itself in a little
S1: bit with that? I mean, is it going to be
S1: able now to go into an election campaign and say,
S1: by the way, we're going to we're also going to
S1: give you these bits and pieces to low, low, lower
S1: your costs or electricity bills or whatever.
S2: Well, that's the electricity issue is really interesting because the
S2: RBA and everybody else is expecting this lift in inflation
S2: from the second half of the year as those energy
S2: subsidies roll off. And then you'll be going right if you're.
S2: Treasurer Angus Taylor you're saying right. No. You just have
S2: to put up with like a big lift, like three,
S2: $400 a year increase in your electricity bill. That'll be
S2: the politics around that are really interesting about whether that's
S2: whether they can maintain that. Because you've got Angus Taylor
S2: talking the tough talk about that. But ultimately Peter Dutton
S2: has to win an election, and telling people that would
S2: make people worse off. You can't have been arguing for
S2: three years. Higher electricity prices are terrible for people. Are
S2: we going to make a decision that will lift power prices?
S2: I think the politics of what they do are in
S2: that space, which it's unclear, is going to be really interesting.
S1: Yeah, it's sort of the principles of opposition versus the
S1: pragmatism of government and wanting to make the leap from
S1: one to the other. Shane. Fascinating as always, and we
S1: will have you back on again soon. You are our
S1: special guest star. Just like Heather Locklear in Melrose Place.
S2: Well, long standing Heather Locklear was a long standing special
S2: guest star all through Melrose Place. I'll take that as
S2: a compliment, my friend.
S1: She was a veteran. She was a she was a
S1: valued veteran, just like you. Thank you. See you Shane.
S2: See you mate.
S1: And now we welcome our very own Matthew not to
S1: talk us through Mike Burgess's speech on Wednesday. The speech
S1: is called his annual threat assessment. What did the ASIO
S1: boss say?
S3: Yes, this is basically the one time of year where
S3: we hear in a lot of detail from the head
S3: of ASIO, the nation's domestic spy agency. This is only
S3: the sixth of these annual addresses. Before that, it was
S3: common to see and hear very little from the head
S3: of ASIO, because what they do is incredibly secret. But
S3: I think there is a view in Mike Burgess has
S3: been noticeable in being a much more out there, much
S3: more media friendly for the head of ASIO. He believes
S3: that for ASIO to have the support of the public,
S3: for the government to want to keep funding it, ASIO
S3: needs to be a bit transparent about what it's doing.
S3: It's something that he's become very well known for, is
S3: he will talk about specific plots, he will talk about
S3: specific operations that ASIO has been involved with, but he
S3: will almost certainly never identify the country involved, for example.
S3: So there's a lot of guessing games the day after
S3: because he will say one foreign country are was kicked
S3: out of Australia for having a nest of spies last year.
S3: He talked about an unnamed politician who had been cultivated
S3: by foreign spies. This year he was talking about foreign intelligence.
S3: Operatives are trying to harm and possibly even kill people
S3: on Australian soil. But he's quite reluctant to go into
S3: where those people were coming from, which nations they come from.
S1: He talks specifically about state sponsored murder plots, which is
S1: a pretty headline grabbing phrase. What was the detail on that?
S1: And even though he didn't name countries, which of the
S1: foreign countries that we can surmise might be involved in
S1: these plots?
S3: Yes, he did go into quite a bit of detail
S3: about what was involved in these plots. For example, one
S3: of them was a foreign intelligence operatives are tricking a
S3: human rights activist into visiting another country.
S4: ASIO chief says nation state agents have been caught harassing
S4: and intimidating individuals who have migrated to Australia, but are
S4: still considered a threat.
S5: In one operation, a foreign intelligence service wanted to silence
S5: an Australian based human rights advocate. The scheme involved tricking
S5: the unsuspecting activists into visiting a third country where the
S5: plotters would be waiting. They planned to arrange an accident
S5: that was anything but accidental, with the objective of seriously
S5: injuring or even killing the activist.
S3: This wasn't the only one. There were other examples of
S3: foreign intelligence agencies wanting to harm and possibly kill a
S3: human rights activists here on Australian soil. He didn't go
S3: into the specific countries, but in in those examples. But
S3: he did name two countries as being of particular concern.
S3: He spoke about Russia and the threat that Russia poses
S3: to Australia, particularly in the context of sabotage. It was
S3: essentially saying that because of our support for Ukraine, You
S3: could imagine Russia trying to pull off something quite serious
S3: in Australia in terms of a major cyber attack, possibly
S3: in terms of attacking a nuclear submarine program. The Aukus
S3: program that we're involved with is making us a much
S3: bigger target for foreign operatives are the other country was Iran,
S3: which we have had experience about a lot of activities
S3: here in terms of harassing, uh, people from the Iranian diaspora,
S3: people who go to protests against the Iranian regime, that
S3: there have been threats and kind of stalking and, and
S3: social media harassment of those people. So they're two countries,
S3: a third country that wasn't named, but of course, is
S3: very relevant here. Is China very active in this space?
S3: There's quite a well-chronicled history of Chinese officials trying to
S3: lure people back to China where they might be disappeared
S3: or they go into imprisonment. But also India has also
S3: been very active in this space. We've seen examples in
S3: Canada that are really alarming about Sikh activists who have
S3: been targeted by what are allegedly Indian spies operating in
S3: over there. And so that's one possibility here as well.
S1: Mhm. What about home grown terror threats? What did Burgess
S1: say about that. Because he also spoke about the risk
S1: of terror attacks and how that's quite a sort of
S1: diverse risk. Are we talking about well organized terror plots
S1: on home on home soil, or are we talking about
S1: lone wolf actors or a bit of both?
S3: Yes, he did speak about this, and this is in
S3: the context of last year. Mike Burgess raised the terror
S3: threat level in Australia from possible to probable. So in
S3: recent years, he's been speaking a lot more about the
S3: issue of espionage and foreign interference. That became the number
S3: one threat. And it still is. But what he made
S3: clear last year with that threat assessment level was that
S3: terrorism is still very real, and it can happen here.
S3: And we've seen all the stories recently about caravans with
S3: explosives and whatnot in the context of anti-Semitism. So it
S3: very much is real. He went into some quite interesting,
S3: granular detail about the nature of extremism today, and about
S3: how lots of the old boundaries are breaking down. And
S3: it used to be relatively easy to categorize how extremists
S3: and potential terrorists thought and what they did. For example,
S3: ten years ago, it was very much quite controlled by
S3: a group like Islamic State from afar directing people to
S3: conduct attacks. He was talking about here. Now everything's becoming
S3: really muddled and mixed up, and people are cherry picking
S3: different extremist views and combining them in ways that weren't
S3: common before. So the internet's allowing people to cherry pick.
S3: So it's more individuals self-radicalizing on the internet picking different views,
S3: and they can pose a threat very quickly at less organized,
S3: less structured, less easy to keep an eye on than
S3: in the past.
S1: Yeah, but that doesn't mean they can't do damage. Apart
S1: from monitoring the threats. Is there anything that ASIO or
S1: the government more broadly can do to eliminate these threats,
S1: or at least mitigate them? Did he talk about that
S1: at all?
S3: He did speak about the operations they engage in. I
S3: think what's clear is that these threats mutate and change.
S3: They don't go away. Some of the things we were
S3: concerned about five years ago are not as relevant today.
S3: There would be a hope that all the action being
S3: taken on anti-Semitism that's really flared since the the war
S3: in Gaza won't be such a big issue in the future.
S3: So really, what he tries to go into, most of
S3: the things he spoke about are plots that have been
S3: disrupted by ASIO. So I think Mike Burgess sees this
S3: speech usually as a way to say, we're getting things done,
S3: we're keeping you safe. Bad things are going on. You
S3: don't hear about day to day, but we have a
S3: very active network that is working to disrupt these threats.
S3: So that's part of the point of the speech as well.
S1: There's a there's a PR component, dare we say it?
S1: Thank you so much, Laurie. That was absolutely fascinating. And
S1: we'll see you again soon, I'm sure.
S3: No worries at all.
S1: Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Tammy Mills,
S1: with technical assistance by Debbie Harrington and Josh towers. Tom
S1: McKendrick is our head of audio. Inside politics is a
S1: production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If
S1: you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism,
S1: subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to
S1: support what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash,
S1: subscribe and sign up for our Inside Politics newsletter to
S1: receive a comprehensive summary of the week's most important political news,
S1: analysis and insights in your inbox every week. Links are
S1: in the show. Notes. I'm Jacqueline Maley, this is inside politics.
S1: Thank you for listening.