Political stitch up or compromise? The tale of two political deals – Back to Back Barries podcast

the Gavin advertising interview first, solving a political deadlock, coming up with a balanced outcome, or is that only the interpretation of two parties that are a little too comfortable with one another?Was it a political compromise or a stitch -up?

I've long felt we need to learn to argue better.I think the rise of Tony Abbott as an opposition leader started polarising the electorate.It's not just something we saw in Australia, we've seen it in other jurisdictions as well.But I think what people are looking for is consensus.And if we didn't have consensus, Costello would never have got the GST through.Peter Reith would never have got industrial relations reform through.

And what we've seen on both sides of politics, left and right, is where perfect is the enemy of the good.And we get purists.who insist on their way is the only way, and refusing to find compromise.People are seeing that politics is broken, that parties can't compromise, that they can't sort of work together for better outcomes for voters.And so that has, in some ways, driven some support towards One Nation, for these people who are voting for One Nation on the grounds of an issue with that because The difference here is they cut a deal not in the nation's interests, but in their own interests.

The two major parties were looking after themselves.Faced with a major social crisis, they did what they so often do, and they gave in to the powerful lobby groups.The broadcasters, the big sporting codes, the gambling industry.It's a classic case of the political classes looking after themselves.So I think that there's also the potential for this to drive votes away to one nation because they see what the political classes are up to.They see what the major parties have done.

Because this is a major social crisis.They can't deny the fact that it's a social crisis in the world around gambling.And in my view, what we listen to the sporting codes and say, well, this is going to impact on player salaries, or this is going to impact on junior sports or community sport or whatever, when the much bigger picture is that it's family breakdowns, job losses, overwhelming debt, distressing debt for a lot of young people, the most vulnerable of those between 18 and 25 when it comes to gambling.And what the advertising does, it just weaves the narrative of gambling into it.We've seen on the national side crossing the floor, but that opinion is shared by a lot of people within the political parties themselves.

Yeah, I think a three year review was part of the announcement, I think as well, which is encouraging because they can track how the reforms are going.

I accept what you say.

It's certainly not what you wanted.And I'm sure there's others who share that view as well.But I'm in the camp of consensus between political parties on policies is a good thing.It's something that's been lacking a lot in the political discourse for over a decade now.So I think, you know, uh, something is better than nothing.Uh, and I appreciate that it's, it's not what, um, many wanted, but, um, you know.

Arrangements from six o 'clock in the morning, the major broadcasters can run three ads every hour, all day.They have to stop a quarter of an hour before.the major games at night, or any of the major games, a quarter of an hour before all bets are off, or probably more accurately, all bets are on.Because after 8 .30, you can do what you like.The halftime show can contain political advertising.Now, how many teenagers give away their major game when they're watching their favorite team?

They give it away at halftime.They don't.They see it through to the end.It's just, it's a totally inadequate response.And you can't then cover that upunder the guise that, well, these are two major parties getting together and...

But you'd accept that people have a different view to yourself, wouldn't you?I haven't heard anybody argue for no action on political events.I haven't.I really do think they're out of touch, out of touch with community opinion on this one.And I do think that I line up on the side of where the community is at on this, because Parents are sick and tired of their kids being exposed to this stuff, and they can't see why it's necessary.At one stage, the Prime Minister said during question time that you can still have a punt.

Well, that was never the issue.Of course you can have a punt gamble when they want to.It's exposing the kids to this through advertising.In other words, promoting it, encouraging it, pushing it, pushing these kids into this kind of mindset.So I do think I'm on the side of public opinion on this one.On the NDIS, I think it is a different set of circumstances.

It's a different set of circumstances because you have to face up to the fact that the system was doomed to fail.It was too big, way too expensive.When you're talking $100 billion, that's getting into ridiculous numbers, unsustainable numbers.So I think in this case, were it to survive, it needed to be reined in.And what this does is that The two major parties agree on the rules.So that gives us the guaranteed structure, the guaranteed support that it needs going into the future.

And it should.

Yeah, I mean, NDIS, and that's another example of public policy failure over the last 10, 15 years, I think, two of the great loss and the coalition played along because they didn't want to have a political fight on it.And then many, many years later,later, the Coalition lied about AUKUS, and Labor knew it to be a lie, but they played along because they didn't want to have a political issue of it coming into the election.And now, of course, we're now dealing with the fallout of that, two of the biggest expenditure lines in the budget.When Morrison was in government in 2021, NDIS was costed at $21 billion.It's now $56 billion.

It's obviously unsustainable.Whether these reforms deliver the savings that's projected, of course, what's projected or forecast is a very different story to what actually happens, because for many budgets now, Coalition and Labor have been predicting less ambitious forecasts, and they've been wrong every single time.And it was a rushed policy, and there was a review done into it, which I thought was very objective, just said that Gillard wanted to get it through before they lost government.And they rush through a lot of the governance procedures and a lot of the processes to make sure that a lot of the problems that have eventuated from it wouldn't emerge.And of course they have.And now we're all sort of trying to deal with getting a better outcome without hurting people, which is the most important element of it as well.

It's hard not to get caught up in the emotion of when you're putting something like this together, I think, and probably earning on the side of, erring on the side of generosity, but not if it's unsustainable.The challenge now is to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks who desperately need this kind of support.And the second is that the states take up some of the slack.And that's the tough part.Because the states have been assigned certain responsibilities now, and it's up to them as to whether they pick it up or not.And Queensland have already said, well, we're not.

We're not doing it.We think it's a federal responsibility.

And state governments haven't met their obligations for quite a while now on the original NDIS proposal.So I'm highly sceptical the states will follow through.

Yeah.What did you make this week of the, and it sort of dominated question time in a way, was over the argument over rents.Very early in the week, the opposition came at the government over quoting the NAB and saying that the government's changes are going to cause rents to go up by 30%.NAB said, no, that's not what we said.We didn't say that.Two days later, they came back and said, Ray White says rents will go up by 30%.

Ray White had to put out a statement saying, well, that's not exactly what we're saying.What they are saying is that that presumes that if house prices stay static and those coming into the industry, because you're only talking here about newcomers, because everybody in the past, all the landlords are still negatively gearing.They're grandfathered and they can go into new housing as well.So to talk about and an impact of that size when these new investors haven't even entered the market yet, or if they have, there'd be only a handful of them, was just ludicrous to begin with.But if prices stayed static and these new investors want to make the same profits that the previous investors did, then they would have to raise rents by 30%.Well, that's just so hypothetical.

And it's ridiculous anyway, because renters haven't got that capability of paying 30 % on the rents they now pay.It's just, it was a nonsensical argument and it surprised me that they kept coming back with it.

Well, time will tell.I mean, obviously, yes, the coalition did conveniently omit some of the figures from the NAB report.And mind you, in the same way that Jim Chalmers, you know, casually omitted some details as well this week, he said they inherited a $78 billion deficit, but in actual fact,they inherited the $32 billion deficit.That was forecast.And of course, this was during the COVID.

So, you know, everybody was just guessing back then, and Treasury was using a straight line calculation on many outputs.So both sides guilty of a bit of overreach, whilst we just sort of gave them bouquets for working together on certain policy outcomes.You know, they'll still, obviously, there's always going to be playing games.But The 2 % Treasury forecast as well, a little bit ambitious perhaps.But also this week the Nightly reported that Richard Holden from University of New South Wales, who's done some modelling for this on labour in the past on negative gearing, He floated the idea that rents could go up 10 % to 15 % over the next 18 to 24 months.But again, there's a lot of crystal balling going on here, and we don't know how markets will respond.

That's the big thing here, how investors will respond, whether the market will absorb that.Everybody likes to increase their prices if they can get away with it.And you can't.You simply can't.Yeah.I mean, I think, you know, I'm not going to make a fearless prediction on it, but I think, you know, Jim Chalmers will be anxious.

Yeah.I just think a little bit of credibility dies every time you go into such overreach as that.And the renters must be thinking, either they would be shocked and anxious about it, but on the other hand, they'll be saying, but I can't do that.I can't pay 30 % on what I pay now.

Yeah.I'm not making a forecast on it, but yeah, there's, there are, you know, reasons to believe that rents will go up more than 2%.Now, whether it does or not, we'll see.But the coalition then will have a target to hit, and then Jim Chalmers is going to have a real problem explaining why it's more than 2%.

All right, we'll take a short break.Welcome back.All right, we're now going to a special fan of the show.Neil from Bendigo, who's living with major neuron disease.Here's his audio question.

Anthony Albanese has led the Labour Party since May 30, 2019, assuming, of course, that the government is returned in 2028.That will see nine years of elbow as the face of the Labour Party.Of course, this would include six years as PM.If his personal polling numbers continue to be poor, do you think a third term could see a whisper in Albo's ear to step aside for someone like Mark Butler?I understand that Jason Clare has no leadership aspirations.What do you think?

probably unusual in that respect.There are others with leadership ambitions and not just Mark Basler.They all do.But look, I think this is a really interesting question because I think times have changed.Both political parties have learned the lessons of chopping down prime ministers during their time in office.I take Neil's point, though, that you can always whisper in somebody's ear and say, you know, your time is up.

And I think that's where it's at now.It's just a question of persuasion.I don't think anything more brutal than that would happen because we are now in a period of stable leadership.And I think people respect that.Anthony Albanese, what he has going for him in that respect too, is that he can say, and he often does, that he's never voted against a leader and therefore he shouldn't then become the victim of such actions.

I mean, every prime minister, premier wants to live on their own terms.They never want to see them bested by their opponents, internal or external.What was it like with Bob Hawke, who, you know, when he was at the top of his game, he was brilliant and untouchable?And then he was chopped down by his own party.Do you think he was considering pulling the pin or?

No.And that was the problem.He was digging in too hard.And there were too many people within the party that felt he'd had a fair go.Eight years was a long time.Yeah.

And had there ever been a period where there was such an alternative as Paul Keating?Yeah.And he was resisting that.So that was different.You know, he had eight years.Anthony Albanese, if he was to become the longest -serving Labor Prime Minister.

Say they go close to full term next time, into 2028.The difficulty there is that he would be two and a half years into that term, he would then overtake Bob Hawke.So they would pretty much have to commit to having Anthony Albanese for two more elections in order for him to do that.So at some stage, he's going to have to make a judgment about whether he wants a part in history or whether he puts the interests of the party first or whatever the judgment might be at the time.

And I think these guys are confidence players.He's got 94 seats.He has every reason to believe he's at the top of his game.The rational part of them, like with Howard, they sort of knew that their time was coming to an end, but they couldn't let go.So I think it's going to be really interesting to watch.Of course, Menzies remains such a gigantic figure in Australian politics, not just because he was the longest serving, because he was never bested.

I'm sure Albanese looks at his record.There's some parallels.Of course, Menzies was the beneficiary of the DLP -Labor split.And we're kind of seeing that right now with the coalition, their split.Their vote is split between one nation and what's left of the coalition.So I'm sure a lot of these things are ticking through Albanese's mind.

But I think if you want to really secure your status as a hero of the party, you go out at a time when your stocks are still high and you've got a ready -made successor.And so you go down as a leader that did the right thing.the party.

Deb has emailed.She says there's three reasons she's lost interest in Anthony Albanese's leadership.Not sure about the first one, but when asked if he was going to watch Pauline Hanson and the National Press Club, he said he had a State of Origin game to watch.The two didn't clash, but Anyway, wrong reason, she said.But the Bush -Tucker -Barbie's interview was a train wreck, and his total inability to acknowledge missteps was the other.He has since, of course, finally acknowledged the error of his judgment by doing the podcast.

What he hasn't done is he hasn't apologized because he insists that he didn't do what some people think that he did.Just on that, too, and we're looking at whether the Labor Party's got to be conscious that Things won't be always the way they are.The Secret Harbour by -election in Western Australia is coming up next Saturday, August the 29th.It's in an outer metropolitan seat in Perth.All of it is inside Andrew Hastie's federal electorate, which makes it interesting.But the thing that makes it particularly interesting is that even some Labor strategists feel as if one nation could win this.

Now, that's an extraordinary development, particularly in Western Australia, because the rundown of the parliament government, 46 seats, opposition 12, with one independent.They're at their political ascendancy.Is that about to turn around?Are the dominoes about to fall?Because there is still quite a dominant environment about the Labor Party in WA, and yet here is a serious threat from One Nation in a key by -election in WA.

Every time One Nation wins a seat, whether it be in the general election in South Australia, the coming Victorian election, the by -election in Farrer, and the by -election in WA, it helps legitimise their party.And so one of the things that holds back some voters and focus groups in supporting One Nation is their sense is it's a protest vote, wasted vote.You know, I'm not going to get the member elected, so I might as well just vote for the major parties.But every time they win a seat, it says to these voters, well, actually, they can win a seat.So it's not a wasted vote.So there is potential for them to grow their vote.

Now, you know, The alternative view is the more these characters are out there, they embarrass themselves in the party and they start sort of suppressing the One Nation vote.Now that's a theory.We haven't seen that apply just yet.Their vote is still at very high levels.The MP for Farrer has been in the job now for a couple of months.He hasn't embarrassed the party.

He's performing quite well.I mean, I don't think there's any sort of regret, voter regret in his seat.So it's a heroic assumption to assume that the One Nation vote will start capitulating like it has in the past.

Yeah.With Andrew Hayes, should he, if One Nation was to win a seat within his federal seat, should he then suffer some sort of personal backlash as a result of that?I don't think so.He was asked this week on the ABC, Sean Carney quoted it in The Age.He said, he was asked whether he would stand up to Hanson and what's the future for the Liberals.And he said this, we have to focus on who we are as Liberals, lower taxes, cheaper power, cutting migration, building more homes, setting up a sovereign wealth fund using windfall profits from the resources sector to build the nation's infrastructure.

20 seconds.Didn't take much of your time, did it?20 seconds.There are half a dozen talking points there could go a long way.He has got that particular skill of distilling, distilling, distilling.arguments and presenting them.

Yeah.And I think he's prepared to take One Nation on.There's too many elements of the Liberal Party at the moment which are prepared to acquiesce or try and work with them or sort of, you know, you had sort of, you know, Angus Taylor said it, he, he criticizes One Nation with a heavy heart, which is mind blowing to me.And, um, you know, they are the, the, the opponents and Andrew Hearst, the retired former federal director, very smart and astute fellow just said, you know, they are the enemy.Don't think for a minute that they're on our side.They're not.

They're there to cut our lunch.And so Hastie recognizes that.And I think, you know, he's not going to go down.without a fight.That is his background.And so, you know, you compare that to, say, Alex Antic in South Australia, who seems to be wanting to go into a coalition or a merger with One Nation.

And what about this report in the Agence Sydney Morning Herald that the occlusive brethren have paid cash at the last election to professional agitators to disrupt Labor's campaign?to go around and track these people and then disrupt and heckle Labor candidates around the country.If it happened at the last election, I don't think it will now, now that it's been exposed.But it leads to this letter from Kim Cain, the Reverend Kim Cain.Has the Liberal Party's persistent pursuit of the religious right in Australia come back to haunt them?Are they now limiting the party's ability to pivot back to the center?

I'm not a defender of the Exclusive Brethren, but Having stood at many polling booths and being abused by union workers and volunteers, like, you know, polling booths are not a very pleasant place sometimes.They can be very, especially in marginal seats.So we'll wait and see how that plays out.I did hear many grunts.the ABC complaining about the conduct of these groups.Of course, her husband stole corflutes from the Liberal Party, so I'm not sure what her credentials are on this.

So there perhaps needs to be some reform about conduct in polling booths, whether it means no handing out how to vote cards, which is an idea that's floated sometimes.But of course now, and I was attracted to that idea some years ago.But of course now, you can digitise these things and promote your How To Vote card through social media and so forth.I'm not sure what the solution is there.

I do take your point that it cuts both ways, but this is the first time I've heard of cases where, and it's an allegation, and the church denies it, and the Liberal Party have no knowledge of it, but cash was changing hands.People were being paid to go out and do this thing.But I think what bothers me sometimes is that the media will latch onto this, no matter how few people turn up and do this, and no matter who they are, you know they're going to be a significant part of that broadcast.that night.And especially early in a campaign when the narrative is they're looking for the campaigns to be going off the rails, you know, getting off to a shaky start.

Well, there's a commercial relationship between the unions and Labor as well.So, you know, there are, and I'll tell you what, they're highly, highly organised, some of these union protesters, and they'll have organisations around, you know, so depending where John Howard or Tony Abbott might turn up, They've got a mobile team in the eastern suburbs, northern suburbs, western suburbs, you know.None of this is accidental.

And just finally, and surely it can't go without being recorded, is that the relationship with Israel took a new turn this week to the point where the foreign minister, Penny Wong, is now saying that it is a difficult relationship.And all this flows from the fact that the IDF cleared of wrongdoing, no criminal investigation into theirof Australian aid worker, Zomie Frankham.The convoy that was struck, the World Kitchen vehicles were bombed two years ago and seven humanitarian workers died and now there'll be no investigation.Interesting that it came at a week when others have been calling for an extension of the Royal Commission that exists in Australia into the Bondi attack.They want the Royal Commission to go harder and tougher.

And they wanted to include leaders like Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong.It's just worth mentioning, I think, in passing.There has never been a royal commission in Israel, even though there's been a huge internal debate in Israel.Never a royal commission into the Hamas attack.Netanyahu has always resisted it.And they want answers to things like, how did this happen?

Here is a country with some of the history of security expertise like no other, and yet this happened.That kind of inquiry is routinely resisted in the United States.So I would just like to say on this that Australian successive governments have had higher standards on these matters than the Netanyahu government ever will.Okay, that's the program for this week.Well, that's it for this week.This podcast was made on the sovereign lands of the Wurundjeri people.

It was produced by Daniel Simo and Bert Nguyen.

The executive producer is Hannah Parks.I'm Barry Cassidy.And I'm Tony Barry, and this is Back to Back Barries, a Guardian Australia podcast.