The (not so) lucky country, with Adam Creighton

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

In this episode of "Fire at Will," Adam Creighton, a renowned columnist and economist, joins Will Kingston to discuss the recent Australian election and the political landscape. The discussion delves into Australia's transition into a "center-left" society, the economic and cultural challenges it faces, and the perception change globally due to its handling of societal issues. Creighton describes the shift in the Australian political scene and argues a need for tax reforms and reevaluation of the country's economic dependencies, particularly on natural resources. The episode offers keen insights into the notion of Australia's "lucky" country status and questions its future direction amidst evolving global challenges.

Highlights

Adam Creighton returns from the US, shocked by Australia's cultural shift. 🇦🇺
He notes a significant increase in taxes, dubbing Australia less attractive for entrepreneurs. 💸
Australia, known for its historical 'fighting spirit,' seems to have become more compliant. 🏴‍☠️
The discussion highlights a parliamentary dependence on natural resources and looming economic challenges. ⛏️
Potential for new political movements in response to Australia's current socio-political state. 🚀

Key Takeaways

Australia's recent election reveals its 'center-left' leaning with economic and cultural shifts. 🗳️
The country's 'lucky' status is at risk with economic dependency on dwindling resources. 🌏
Leadership quality in politics is perceived to be at a low, impacting socio-economic policies. 🤔
Australia's stringent tax policies pose challenges for attracting and retaining global talent. 🤑
The global perception of Australia has shifted, driven by its socio-political actions and policies. 🌐

Overview

Adam Creighton joins the show fresh from his stint in the US, highlighting the stark cultural changes in Australia, particularly its turn towards what he terms a more 'woke' society. From Aboriginal names to higher taxes, Adam reflects on the country's shifting identity and what it means for its global perception. 🇦🇺

Discussing the political and economic landscape, Creighton and Kingston unpack the implications of Australia's newfound 'center-left' stance. With economic struggles on the horizon, particularly concerning natural resource dependency and high taxes, there's a call for urgent policy reforms to maintain Australia’s competitiveness. 📊

This lively exchange digs deep into Australia's identity crisis within its political parties, questioning the future of the right and pondering if a reformative political movement could stir change. The dynamics between traditional structures and potential new movements point to an intriguing future. 🤔

Chapters

00:00 - 01:30: Introduction and the "Seinfeld Election" The 'Introduction and the Seinfeld Election' chapter dives into the nature of discussions on the 'Fire at Will' show, introduced by host Will Kingston. The chapter starts with a mention of Kingston being requested by GB News to discuss a topical issue or theme, setting the scene for a broader discussion likely centered around media, politics, or societal observations presented through the lens of candid, possibly controversial, dialogue. The introductory tone is inviting yet provocative, aiming to set up a space where conventional views are challenged and debated.
01:30 - 04:30: Australia's Cultural Shift and Economic Challenges The recent Australian election has been described as a 'Seinfeld election,' characterized by a lack of substantial content or vision. There was a notable absence of charisma from the candidates and a lack of clear differentiation between the political parties. This scenario is concerning as Australia is currently at a pivotal point in its development, suggesting an urgent need for clearer direction and leadership.
04:30 - 09:00: Australian Identity and External Perceptions The chapter explores the theme of Australian identity as viewed internally and externally, focusing on economic, geopolitical, and cultural dimensions. It reflects on Australia's image as 'the lucky country' and contemplates the nation's political climate, its current state, and future trajectory. The discussion features insights from Adam Kryton, a columnist for the Australian and chief economist at the Institute of Public Affairs, who provides expert commentary on the political events that have shaped Australia recently. The dialogue emphasizes Australia's ability to navigate complexities in global and domestic contexts.
09:00 - 15:00: Structural Political and Economic Issues The host welcomes a guest who has recently returned from the United States, where they served as the Washington correspondent for the Australian. The conversation is setting up to discuss the election and Australian politics but begins with broader reflections on the state of the country that the guest has returned to, which is Australia. The chapter sets the stage for discussions on structural political and economic issues with a focus starting broadly before zooming into specific topics.
15:00 - 20:00: Immigration and Integration in Australia The chapter discusses the speaker's observations on returning to Australia after four years in the US, noting significant social changes. The speaker is surprised by Australia's increased awareness and recognition of indigenous culture, as demonstrated by signage at Sydney airport using the indigenous word for Botany Bay.
20:00 - 30:00: Net Zero and Environmental Policy The chapter discusses the noticeable cultural shifts towards a more socially aware or 'woke' environment, particularly in media, referencing the introduction of Aboriginal titles by the ABC. It reflects on changes over the past four years, highlighting the difference in income tax rates between Australia and the US, which have personal implications for the speaker.
30:00 - 40:00: Political Landscape and the Liberal Party's Challenges The chapter explores challenges faced by the Liberal Party in Australia within the political landscape. It highlights economic concerns, particularly how tightening income tax could make Australia less appealing to ambitious individuals looking to start businesses, especially when compared to opportunities in the US. The discussion involves both cultural and economic perspectives, reflecting on how these factors may influence Australia's attractiveness over the next decade.
40:00 - 54:00: The Right's Identity Crisis and Future Directions The chapter delves into the perceived identity crisis within the right-wing factions in Australia. It opens with a reflective quote from Damian Kostas' book 'What Happened to the Lucky Country,' highlighting how traditional Australian values and identities have eroded over time. The text evocatively recalls iconic moments from the nation's history, such as the rum rebellion and the Eureka stockade, suggesting a departure from the spirited and rebellious past. The chapter invites reflections on how these shifts impact the current and future trajectory of right-wing ideology in Australia.
54:00 - 58:00: Conclusion and Recommendations for the Liberal Party This conclusion chapter reflects on the societal changes that have led to a perceived loss of community and national identity in Australia. By mentioning a hardware store owner, Frank Penelurak, who chose jail over complying with weekend trading laws, it illustrates a shift in values and freedoms. The text reminisces about a time when children played in the streets and people had communal practices like warning each other about speed cameras. The sentiment is both pessimistic and nostalgic, pondering whether these changes signify a loss of the 'Australia we loved.'

The (not so) lucky country, with Adam Creighton Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 [Music] Good day and welcome to Fire at Will, a safe space for dangerous conversations. I'm Will Kingston. I was asked on GB News last week to try and explain what
00:30 - 01:00 we just saw in the Australian election and I paused. In fact, I was I was temporarily lost for words. The best I could come up with was it was the Seinfeld election. It was an election about nothing. There was no real vision for the country. There was no real charisma from either leader. There was no real differentiation from either of the parties. And I think that's a concern because the country is at an inflection point
01:00 - 01:30 economically, geopolitically, and culturally. At the same time, Australia has always been the lucky country, and perhaps we will continue to muddle through. to help me understand what we just witnessed in Australian politics and perhaps an assessment of where we're at and where we're going. I am delighted to be joined by columnist for the Australian and senior fellow and chief economist at the Institute of Public Affairs, returning guest Adam Kryton. Adam, welcome back to Far at Will. Will, thanks very much for having me. Pleasure
01:30 - 02:00 to have you on. You're uh recording this from is it uh Sydney? From Melbourne. From Melbourne. Melbourne. see that that lovely skyline behind me. Yeah, it's a cracker. Uh you've of course just returned from uh the United States where you were the Washington correspondent for the Australian. We'll get into the the nitty-gritty of the election and Australian politics, but I do want to start with a a wider lens. What are your reflections on the country that you have returned to? Well, look, it's very
02:00 - 02:30 different, I think, from the one that I left uh four years ago. So, I was in the US for four years. And I came back um in January this year and you know I actually wrote a piece about this. I was just shocked leaving Sydney airport how kind of woke a society had become. There was this big sign over the road saying welcome to GA and I thought to myself what the hell is GA? And so I had to quickly Google it and sure enough that's the indigenous word for Botney Bay. Um and then I noticed the news bulletin on
02:30 - 03:00 the ABC had Aboriginal titles. Uh and I thought this you know that wasn't the case four years ago. Um, and so I guess they're just two two anecdotes to illustrate what I've seen since. It's just a much more woke culture, if you like. And look, I hate that word woke, but it has become a useful uh word to sum it all up. Um, so I noticed that and also the other big thing I noticed is that I started paying income tax again in Australia after US for 4 years and it's a lot higher here. A lot higher. And it just made me reflect on, you
03:00 - 03:30 know, if you're a young, you know, a young kind of ambitious, bright person in the US, why on earth would you ever even remotely consider moving to Australia to to start your business or or to work? And I think that's going to be a big challenge for Australia economically over the next 10 years if we continue to tighten that income tax uh noose around working people. Yeah. So there's a cultural strand there and then there's an economic strand. Let's take both in turn. the cultural strand uh reminded me of a tweet that I saw only a
03:30 - 04:00 couple of days ago and I've I've sneakily pulled it up as you were speaking there. It's a quote from uh a book called What Happened to the Lucky Country by Damian Kostas. I'd like to read you this quote and I'd want to get your reflections on it. Somewhere along the line that Australian character got lost. We lost our fighting spirit, our sense of the fair go, our relaxed attitude, our sense of fun. We lost the Australia of the rum rebellion and the Eureka stockade. We lost the Australia that protested the Australia card. And
04:00 - 04:30 where a hardware store owner named Frank Penelurak was so incensed by weekend trading laws that he went to jail rather than close his shop on Sundays. We lost the country where kids played in the street and drank water from the garden hose, where motorists would flash their lights to warn each other about a speeding camera up the road. In essence, we lost ourselves and in doing so lost the Australia we loved. Is there something to that or minus nostalgia? Very pessimistic, but I think there is definitely something to it. I mean, I think, you know, we had this idea of ourselves precoid as this,
04:30 - 05:00 you know, Steve Owen type country, you know, laranism. I think that's what that quote was was alluding to. I think certainly in the eyes of the rest of the world, we've lost that image. I would say with with good justification. I mean, one you asked me about my time in the US. One thing that does stick out was the number of Americans in 21-22 who would come up to me when they heard my accent and say things along the lines, "What the hell is going on in your country?" Uh, and not just ordinary people. Um, the governor of Florida, uh,
05:00 - 05:30 Ronda Sanders, gave a speech about how shocked he was at at what was happening in Australia. Uh, and I think it was that was late 21 or early 22. Um, so I think it Americans generally noticed what was happening in Australia. The images they saw coming out of Melbourne. Uh, the water cannons, the police, the you helicopters over the beach. I mean, it was all complete madness in well, it was at the time. It's even more so in hindsight. I think we lost our image there, I think, with the rest of the world. And I think we're trying to work out what our new image is. And you you
05:30 - 06:00 know, I think the explanation for this, you know, much much more obedient society. you know, we really have become extremely obedient to government. We have this idea that we're not, but we clearly are uh and not just obedient, but we'll do other people in if they're breaking the rules. We saw that through uh through co that was that was very upsetting to me. Um you know, what explains that? Well, I don't know. That's a very deep question. You could say Australia became very rich very quickly, I think, with the mining boom. Uh you know, dramatic. I mean, I think you're coming back to Australia. I still see a very wealthy country despite our
06:00 - 06:30 economic problems. the standard of buildings, the standard of living, standard of health care is still very very high uh uh despite stupid policies I would argue. Uh so we've become very rich and we're also extremely urbanized. I mean I think we're one of the most urbanized countries in the world. We're certainly more urbanized than the UK which is tiny country but in terms of the people living in big cities, way more here in Australia and certainly vastly more than the US. And so where where political parties in the US and certainly Donald Trump did this, you
06:30 - 07:00 know, they can tap into a real rural uh rage with with the establishment which is actually quite numerous. Uh whereas that doesn't exist in Australia really. It's very very tiny. And so politically it doesn't matter. And so uh you know both of the major parties have to cater to to the suburbs and and to urban people. And all around the world, uh, the more urban a country is, you'll see the more leftwing it is. That's just a fact. That's a really interesting point. Do you think structurally, and I think I
07:00 - 07:30 saw I can't remember who maybe said it, maybe Latica Burke, I think, said this on Twitter the other day. I think she said that structurally Australia is now a center-left country, and that obviously has a natural advantage for the center-left party being Labor. Do you think Australia is now structurally a center-left country? Look, it's certainly gone that way. uh you know I think I think whether you say a country is center left or center right does depend a lot on the on the political talent available and the the quality of leaders on either side you know I think we've seen in Trump's case
07:30 - 08:00 I mean as much as he's hated by you know by a large minority of people he's been a very successful very successful politician and you could and you could argue that he's kind of pulled the US to the right I suppose at least uh to the you know whatever that word right kind of means but you know what it means in the US um so I think you Well, I think if Australia had better leadership on the right, I think we could, you know, be a center-right country. But I think but I think at the moment we are a center-left country and so is Canada and
08:00 - 08:30 so is New Zealand. I mean, from what I've been reading, I think the New Zealand elections, you know, not I think it's this year, but but it looks like that Conservative government could be one term and uh you know, New Zealand will go back to being center left. So, strangely in the English speaking world outside the US, it's all very center left. uh and we don't seem to have in the sort of movements that are emerging in Europe, I would say France, Spain, Germany, large parties that are furious with the establishment. We don't seem to have those in our country and I don't kind of know why yet, but there's lots
08:30 - 09:00 to complain about, but uh but my forecast is they will come. They're just they're just taking a bit longer. Yeah, I agree with that. I think there is going to be a lane for a reform style party in Australia, but I think we're probably to your point not quite as far down the road compared to much of Europe and compared to the United Kingdom. And we'll return to what the future of the right again to use that word uh in Australia, what that will look like. But let's just keep that powder dry for the moment cuz I want to continue the the analysis of where we are as a country at
09:00 - 09:30 the moment. And I'll return to what is a favorite bug bear of mine on this podcast and that is the quality of leadership that we see in the country today which you just referred to. It does feel like we are at a low eb and we have been at a low eb for potentially since Howard now in terms of just the quality of talent we have in politics. Why do you think firstly do you think that's fair and secondly why do you think the quality of leadership that we have today is lower than what it was say in the days of the hawks the kitings the howards question I agree it's a it's a
09:30 - 10:00 fundamental question we're not getting the right people into politics in in the right numbers I you know I totally agree I mean as you'd well know and I'm sure your listeners know you know we have this culture of political staffers become MPs you know many of them have not worked outside politics their entire lives that's that's especially true on the Labour side but it's increasingly more true on the right as well. Uh so the reasons for that are well well one of the main ones I think and it's probably Mark Leam's fault and I think privately he even admits that
10:00 - 10:30 now but I think when he changed the pension arrangements for MPs in 2000 well sorry he forced Howard to do it I think in 2004. Uh so originally MPs in Australia like many countries had a sort of defined benefit pension that that was quite lucrative. You only had to be in parliament one term and then you got it. So if you lost, you weren't ruined basically. Uh so that was a great safety net for very bright QC's and KC's and lawyers and to to basically have a shot at being an MP. And even if they lost,
10:30 - 11:00 they'd still get this nice pension. So even if they couldn't revive their small business or their their chambers or whatever it was, they weren't financially going to be totally left out. Well, now they are. So, and this is not just my theory. This is uh you know, this is Nick Griner told me this. He said this was the case in state politics because I asked him this question in New York few years ago. I said, you know, we talked about the quality, you know, why don't we have leaders like you, Nick and Bob Carr anymore. Like I mean they were they were great state politicians and certainly I would argue of a higher caliber than most federal MPs are now.
11:00 - 11:30 They were great speakers. They were great intellects. Where the hell have they all gone? And Nick's answer was well pension arrangements basically. And I thought that was really really interesting. Um but it's not just pension arrangements. I think uh the scrutiny the media puts on on politicians private lives and public lives or whatever is so much more intense than it used to be that a lot of great and talented people have somewhat crazy private lives just like well
11:30 - 12:00 Winston Churchill was an alcoholic right I mean that would not be tolerated now okay I mean you not even have a drink barely in politics it's so puritan I mean you know we think we're so you know so accepting of diversity, but actually the media enforces a great puritanism in public life. Say even the slightest things that's that that even could be perceived as sexist or racist or whatever, even if it happened 20 years ago. I mean, remember the story about Don Perere dressing up as something when he was 20. That was a huge story. I mean, it's and and it was very damaging
12:00 - 12:30 to him. Uh well, at least well, I don't know. It certainly wasn't damaging to him from my point of view. I thought it was I thought it was funny. But, uh that just goes to show you the puritanism of of the modern media. And if you've done anything wrong in the past, you would definitely think twice. And you know, I say wrong in inverted commas, by the way. If you've done anything wrong, you'd think twice about going to politics. And a lot of bright people have done wrong things in the past. So they won't go anywhere near the career. Uh whereas they may have 20, 30, 40 years ago. Um and so there are two I
12:30 - 13:00 think really uh big reasons why the quality is full. Oh, also I think No, one more. I'll add one more. I'm just thinking of it right now, but and this maybe pertains to Australia in particular, but politics is a very lucrative business in Australia. You get paid very well compared to politicians in other countries. I mean, I'm pretty sure senior staffers earn more than the British prime minister in the in in you know, in the Australian system. Um, and that's not just salary. The, you know, business class flights, I mean, all the allowances, travel allowances, I mean,
13:00 - 13:30 it's extraordinary. In fact, just yesterday, you know, it's always annoyed me. The Australian media likes to say, you know, what are MPs salaries? And they say, oh, it's 240,000. It's not. I mean, I used to work in the system. It's much much higher than that. It's just that they class a lot of the things. They call it different things. So, I asked Grock and as I as I chat GPT to work out what the actual equivalent salary is for a federal back pension, and it's $330,000 a year. Okay? Because you get because you get the car allowance, you get the electric allowance, you get all these untaxed allowances, you get travel allowances, not taxed. It's an enormous
13:30 - 14:00 sum. I mean, what does a British MP earn? £70,000 probably something like that. Something 70 80. So you're talking about triple here, right? Um and so so how is that a reason about why the quality is so low is because people get in at a young age because it's so lucrative and they just stay in it their whole career. They won't go in. There's no there's no in and out, right? You stay in it. You hold on as long as you can. And I think that also means winning is much more
14:00 - 14:30 valuable than it used to be, right? because if you win, you get a lot of power and you get a lot more money. Um, you know, there was this big drama in Australia recently about Mark Drafus and Ed Husk being dumped from cabinet. And I, you know, because I'm such a cynic, I kind of think, look, this is just, you know, people are winging about who's getting 500,000, who's getting 300,000. That's what this is, that's what this is about. If you're a cabinet minister, you're on $500,000. If you're not, you're on $300,000. So, quite honest, you know, quite obviously, you'd be really you'd be really annoyed if you got a $200,000 pay cut. But that's what all this is kind of about. I'm not just
14:30 - 15:00 a pay cut, you know, they probably went from 15 staff to five, right? So I mean, so if so, so let me get back to the point. If winning is super important, you will say or do whatever your principles out the door. You will say or do whatever to get in. Whereas, you know, I remember Arthur Cowwell, well I don't because I wasn't alive, but he used to be a Labour opposition leader for a very long time during menses, I think almost the entire period. And he used to say things like, you know, I don't care if we lose every time. I'm not I'm not changing what we stand for
15:00 - 15:30 and that right I mean is an unheard of idea right I mean you know Arthur certainly took it to the extreme because he never won mens he's always one but you got to credit a politician like that for actually believing believing in something right yeah that's interesting I've given you three reasons and I think that third reason is interesting and counterintuitive as well I've often thought let's just raise MP salaries as a way to incentivize good people to come in from the private sector. But that's
15:30 - 16:00 an interesting point to say, well, that actually may uh minimize the meritocratic and competitive element of politics by just keeping mediocre people there. Really interesting. Um let's let's turn to the economic side. Uh because to me it would appear that Australia is facing systemic structural economic challenges, really big challenges. Some of which are particularly when it comes to debt and deficit mirrored in other western countries and some which are unique to Australia particularly our reliance on natural resources and and what will
16:00 - 16:30 happen if that tap is turned off with geopolitical instability with China for example. Explain to me where we sit as a country economically and whether that concern is justified. No, look, I think the concern is justified and I think what's what's been extraordinary, what I've what I find interesting, I want to write a column about it in a few weeks, is just how no one's really talking about the end of the resource boom in Australia. Like we certainly talked a lot about when it started, you know, 1015 years ago and we talked about it, but you know there are signs that that
16:30 - 17:00 China's demand for iron ore is starting to wayne. Okay, we're still selling lots. The boom is still going. We're still making a lot of money from our resource sales uh both energy sales and also our to China. But China is actively looking for other sources of iron ore around the world in Africa and South America. It has been for quite some time because it doesn't like being dependent on Australia, right? You know, it's when they crack down on our exports, the Chinese, they they they left iron ore alone because they really really need it, right? They can't get it anywhere else, at least not at not at economic prices. But there are signs that both
17:00 - 17:30 the Chinese economy is slowing, as I'm sure your listeners know, and it may slow even faster if you know a bit of the tariff war with the US. That's that's that's not great for Australia. And not only that, but they're looking for elsewhere. So, you know, Australia should be quite concerned that our biggest export, the revenues from it are going to slowly dry up or maybe rapidly, who knows? Uh, so I think that's a real concern because, you know, that's kind of how we pay our way in the world. The the the sales of energy and and resources to the rest of the world. You certainly the left doesn't like that
17:30 - 18:00 fact, right? Then they they don't like the industries, but ultimately that's what sustains their their living, you know, their very nice living standards in Melbourne and Sydney. Uh so um so I think it is a big problem that we're not talking about that. There's the there's a real head in the sand attitude I find in Australia that oh we're just going to remain rich all the time. But you know we're falling down the league table pretty rapidly. I mean I, you know, growing up in my, you know, kind of when I was in my 20s and started traveling the world, I was really proud of Australia climbing up that GD the GDP
18:00 - 18:30 per capita ladder. And we were, you know, because if you go back to the '9s, we we were we were a rich country, but we weren't as rich on paper, at least as the US, many European countries. Then we started to accelerate. The boom happened, and you know, remember our currency went to A12 US. I still remember shopping in New York in 2014 feeling like, you know, that I was from, you know, from Qatar or something. I was so rich, you know, because I had the Australian dollar, but it's certainly not the case now. If you uh you know, at
18:30 - 19:00 the moment, I just checked this morning, the Australian dollar is 48, which is just pathetic. And uh and 64 US cents, which is not great either. And mind you, we got those exchange rates when the boom is still going. The resource boom is still going. So just imagine what they're going to be when it ends, right? and and the rest of the world marks marks down our value, you know, and they will commenurately. So, so I think there needs to be, you know, more discussion about what our next great export industries are going to be. Uh, and look, you know, resource and energy are going to be important for decades, but
19:00 - 19:30 maybe not in the same quantity, especially if the world does, you know, does pursue this kind of net zero idiocy in my view. Uh, they will try to phase out our energy exports because of their, you know, their future carbon emissions. That's that's what the Greens want to do here. Um, so I don't know how they know that. I don't think they understand economics because, you know, we we need income from somewhere and tourism is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. Uh, and also you don't want to be a nation whose main export is tourism. I mean, that's just embarrassing, right? I mean, that's, you know, like Italy and Spain,
19:30 - 20:00 you just become a museum for rich foreigners. That's really, really bad, I think, for uh, so we don't want that. Um but yeah, look the e the you know the economic facts you know we had the biggest fall in living standards measured living standards in the OECD since 2022 uh which is pretty staggering stuff and I haven't looked at those league tables I just mentioned before but we would have dropped down without a doubt a few rungs without a doubt um and the gap between the US and us in terms of wealth is growing it's getting bigger and
20:00 - 20:30 bigger and you know so what are the solutions to this well I think the government seriously needs to to you know lower income tax to try to attract bright people and get Australians to work harder and invent things and you come up with new businesses and so forth because at the moment there's very little incentive to do that. I mean, there was this great article in Reuters I tweeted last week, and it was about how how the uh the top marginal tax rate in the US, Trump's considering lifting it to 40% for those earning more than $2.5 million US a year, right? And then I thought, okay, 40% at 2.5 billion US.
20:30 - 21:00 So, we have 47% at $122,000 US, right? That's when our that's just crazy, right? The difference is extraordinary. And then, of course, people like, "Oh, but state taxes." Well, Florida and Texas don't have any state income tax. So, if you live in those two enormous states, each of which is, you know, a larger or about the same size as Australia, you know, that's your tax rate. You hardly pay any income tax. So, that's where you'd go. And people do go there. They move there. You know, I know Australians who've moved there from here because they just don't want to,
21:00 - 21:30 you know, be paying such an absurd amount of income tax. Um, you know, we have great weather in Australia, but lots of places have good weather. So, uh, you know, we shouldn't think that's, you know, that's going to keep people here. Sorry, I'm just waffling. You'll have to should tell me to stop. No, not at all. I think this is interesting particularly around the tax side. Um, and you see this in the UK as well, where we we know uh from hundreds of years of economic history, thousands of years, that the way that you grow an
21:30 - 22:00 economy is by lowering taxes. It's by reducing regulation. It's by having a smaller state. And yet if you look at the UK which is probably even in a worse state I would say economically than Australia uh they just seem to be in this death spiral of low growth uh a bigger tax or a bigger burden coming through benefits as a result of that they raise taxes as a result of that more people leave and so therefore the total tax revenue goes down I agree how do you try and tell the
22:00 - 22:30 growth story now because it doesn't seem like both Australia or the UK are capable of doing it well it's a more serious problem for Australia because unlike the European countries that have all those problems you've just said they're all next to each other so they all so you can't really easily leave I mean so if what's so you're upset with the UK you go to France I mean it's kind of like you may as well just stay in the UK they're all as bad as one another basically whereas Australia is surrounded by countries with much much lower tax rates now I get you know they're not as nice you know Indonesia no one's going to move there but in the
22:30 - 23:00 in the you know from Australia that's not going to be a place to go but the the taxes are a lot lower And eventually that will be a factor as those countries get richer. I mean one fact I always like to mention is that China's top marginal income tax rate is lower than ours right it's theirs is 45%. Ours is 47%. You know and we constantly say China's communist country. Well so what does that make us then? I mean one of the things Karl Marx talked about in his in his work is that the you know a sign of a of a good communist state is a is a
23:00 - 23:30 very progressive tax system. Sorry progressive income tax system. So, you know, so ours is more progressive. So, so maybe we're the communist ones. I don't you I don't know. I'm being facicious, but that should uh you know, it should make people think, hang on, what, you know, why is it so high in Australia? Uh how do you tell the growth story? Look, sadly, uh I don't think people want to listen to it at the moment. In Australia, you've got huge numbers of people, influential people employed directly or indirectly in the public sector. you know, uh, you know,
23:30 - 24:00 they don't care about economics because ultimately their jobs are not based on economics. They're based on kind of regulatory fiat or legislation or whatever. Uh, their salaries certainly aren't free market salaries. They're set by the state, you know, in a communist fashion. Um, and you know, they don't want to hear about the growth story because if if it was if it was free market, their jobs might not exist. Uh so I think I think we'll notice more when the you know the boom starts to end that I referred to earlier the resource boom the currency falls more there's
24:00 - 24:30 more concern in the press about about economic risk people start to get a bit scared maybe uh you know you know I wish people were taking more notice now but you know Labour just had this emphatic victory and you know I try to look at the silver linings for that victory it's very hard um but I am quite pessimistic about you know the next three years I mean the this This Labor Party now is not the Labor Party of the 80s at all. And although I've been a bit heartened by some of the promotions, Andrew Charlton and and Daniel Molino, both you know, good economists, they've been
24:30 - 25:00 promoted. Uh ask uh you know, is that enough? You know, I don't know. I think the the uh the incentives of modern labor, you know, is to is to govern in its, you know, in its own interest, not the country's interest. And and to be fair, that's that's true of all political parties. Um but so that means there's going to be more industrial regulation which means less productivity. It means we're going to be flooded with more immigrants because they tend to vote for Labor ultimately. Uh and you know that's that's very depressing to me. Uh and is there going
25:00 - 25:30 to be you know any kind of microeconomic reform? Well Jim Charas just this week said basically not a lot. I mean he said yes we're interested in productivity but it's going to take six years. Well I mean you know we don't have six years really. I mean they have a big majority. They should do tough things right away and they should do things that upset their base like reform the tax system. You know, like I've always argued, it's really only center left parties that can cut income tax. It's very hard for parties with the right to cut income tax because they will get viciously attacked
25:30 - 26:00 right from the left. And it's it's hard to do. I mean, I as much as I'd like this this new coalition to, you know, to advocate for a top uh lower marginal rate of income tax, it would be political suicide. Absolute suicide. I mean, can you imagine the next election if Susan Lee's right, right, we're going to cut it to 40%. It they'd lose. They'd lose the election in my view because Labour would mount this ferocious campaign based on jealousy, which would work. Uh whereas if the left does it, the right just agrees. So, you know, my So, that's where it's got to
26:00 - 26:30 come from. So, that's why I'm trying to be hopeful that some rational people in Labor may say, "Hey, this noose is now too tight, right? Even for us, right? We need to loosen it." I want to pick up on your comment on immigration in that answer. We've seen in the last 48 72 hours in the UK the most extraordinary shift in the Overton window after a speech from Kiss Dharma uh in which he basically has said the quiet part out loud which well no one on the left wanted to say in the UK but so
26:30 - 27:00 many people on the right have been saying for a long time that mass migration has led to cultural fracture. Uh it has been a net detriment economically. Uh it has turned the country into an island of strangers or at least risk turning the country into an island of strangers. Yeah, it's extraordinary. I agree. It was extraordinary. It is extraordinary. Uh and and that is largely driven by the pressure coming from reform uh the new I would argue center-right political party in the UK. uh despite Australia on a per capita level having uh a considerably
27:00 - 27:30 higher number number of immigrants over the last uh five five five or so years u it doesn't feel like we're we're at that point that ground swell yet. Um do you think do you think it is a concern that should be being raised uh in a stronger way uh in in the political sphere? Uh well look I think it will be eventually. I mean the first thing to say firstly is just the cynicism of politicians. I mean, as you say, suddenly Karma is anti-immigration purely because of political pressure from reform and because he's looked at the polls. So,
27:30 - 28:00 does he actually believe anything? I don't know. I don't know what he believes. Obviously, wants to stay in power and I guess the next general elections kind of getting closer and they're getting worried about there being another wipeout against them this time. Um, but I think it's obvious that that was going to come. I mean, you know, you raised a good point that Australia's, you know, the share of our population who was born overseas is much, much higher than the UK. Um, and yet there's, you know, there's certainly disquite here with high levels of immigration, but it's nothing like in in the UK or France or places like that or Germany. We haven't reached that that
28:00 - 28:30 level. Um, and I think, you know, why is that? Well, Australia has just been such so successful at integrating people for many decades from all around the world. You know, we, you know, I think it's, you know, it's a it's a cliche, but I think we, you know, we have we have done multiculturalism better than any other country. I would say probably if you just look at the empirical facts it's a fairly harmonious country of course we there's we certainly have our moments and you know the Israel Palestine thing is a good example of that you know we've imported these these foreign conflicts into Australia and you know who knows
28:30 - 29:00 what's going to happen with India and Pakistan we've certainly imported a lot of people from both of those countries too um but it's been very successful so far and I think people are proud of that so they don't want to criticize it yet uh but you the rates of immigration over the last few years are quite extraordinary. I mean I think something like in 3 years 1.3 million a net overseas immigration to Australia. I mean we that's far more than the UK I would say. I mean I don't have the figures here but I would bet it is and the UK has three time you know two and a
29:00 - 29:30 half times the population of Australia. So I mean you know I don't know what they're complaining about over there because we have a it's much greater here. Uh but well you know that's that's another thing walking around you coming down to Melbourne coming back to Sydney the uh share of population that's from China and India is much much higher noticeably for me coming back I mean you know I've moved to South Bank in Melbourne uh you know the share of the population there with Chinese ethnicity would be you know would be over half I
29:30 - 30:00 think I would say um it wouldn't have been that way four years ago 5 years ago so it is so the so the cultural makeup of Australia is is is certainly changing rapidly, but we just haven't reached the point where where people are too upset about it yet. Sure, you have your One Nation party saying, "Let's let's slash immigration, but you know, neither major political party in the election really said anything about immigration." The Liberals said a bit, but they wouldn't specify how much they'd cut it. And frankly, looking at the track record of the coalition, they're just as bad as Labor, basically. I mean, you know, we
30:00 - 30:30 had massive immigration before co, you know, much of it driven by the higher education sector because they want all their juicy fees. Uh, and I think there's a real naivity in Australia that these people are coming here, you know, for our wonderful educational standards. Uh, no, I don't think so. They're coming because they can, you know, the universities are basically selling, you know, selling citizenship ultimately. uh they're kind of laundering laundering it, you know, and and they and they clip the ticket in a really big way and that's why you have all these, you know, vice chancellors on $500,000 a year
30:30 - 31:00 because or more uh because there's just so much revenue. Um and so that's a very corrupt system. But look, you know, I' that's a very long way of saying I don't know why we haven't reached the UK point of disgruntlement yet, but it will certainly happen, I would say. It's just that we're that we're lagging. Yeah. Well, one one reason I would suggest is uh the mix of immigrants is on balance uh more conducive to integration. uh the the again elephant
31:00 - 31:30 in the room when it comes to immigration to the UK is uh a huge number of people coming from fundamentalist Islamic countries coming from third world countries coming from Africa where it is plain as day that you're not going to be able to integrate them or at least integrate kind of uh many of those people. Uh I think Australia particularly with the immigrant mix coming from Asia there there at the very least there are less problems again on balance. Um yeah that's a good point. Yeah, but we are seeing a rise of
31:30 - 32:00 Islamic sectarian politics in Australia. Um, is that something as well that we should be concerned about? Uh, yeah. Look, I mean, you know, it's interesting your point about fundamentalist Islamic countries. Um, I mean, I think Australia has a lot of, you know, a lot of immigrants proportionately from from Islamic countries too. I mean, um, you know, India, Pakistan, you we have a lot of immigrants from those countries. Are they as, you know, as fundamentalist as other countries? I don't know. I'm not an expert on that. Uh the African segment of immigration is growing
32:00 - 32:30 rapidly uh I think into Australia and that's caused some friction in Melbourne actually. I believe the Sudanese community has rightly or wrongly being blamed it's its youths for the for a spate of crime. Um you know I don't know the details of that but certainly that's been the view in the press. Um, so, uh, yeah, look, I think I think you're right. The the composition is is is probably better here. Um, but look, I mean, I I just don't
32:30 - 33:00 have the stats on it. I don't know. Um, before going to to the uh the political landscape more more on a more granular level, I'd be remiss if I didn't pick up on your mention of net zero earlier. Uh, this is another one I struggle with and why this somehow is enduring in the uh in a bipartisan way when there are some obvious facts that we all know and that is that you cannot grow without cheap reliable energy. Uh and you add into
33:00 - 33:30 that that the change that Australia can make to the global climate is negligible. You know, this is a symbolic exercise and yet still uh I understand the ideological capture on the left, but the right in Australia continues to push this net zero agenda. Why? Uh well, I think most people think net zero is this nice sounding thing and it means less pollution. You know, I think most people don't know what it actually entails and
33:30 - 34:00 it is popular. Uh you know, 60 70% of people, you know, Chris Bowen had a piece in the Australian Today. I haven't actually read it yet, but but the headline was everyone loves renewables. And sadly, from my point of view, that's true. The word renewable is very appealing. It's a brilliant brilliant marketing on the part of of the climate change uh people. Um and so is net zero is it sounds like zero pollution even though it's actually got nothing to do with smog. It's about carbon dioxide, which is hardly a pollutant, but that's that uh but people think it is. So, look, it's been great marketing that's
34:00 - 34:30 made it very popular. I saw your I saw your tweet on that article. had said something to the effect of everyone loves cigarettes before they realized the harm that they did. That's right. That's right. I mean, that's right. Uh, you know, cigarettes were popular, too, until people realized the damage they cause. And I think they will realize the damage that has caused. I mean, the UK is a good reference point, right? Because I think you guys are further down the renewable path than uh than we are um uh in Australia. And even Tony Blair, you know, a very sensible kind of elder statesman of the Labour Party, has
34:30 - 35:00 looked at the figures rationally, as anyone you can do if you've got a few hours. And you realize that not only is net zero not going to happen, trying to get there is going to be unbelievably costly and damaging and it will hurt. The people that will hurt the most are poorer people who who traditionally vote for Labor because their their cost of living will go up so much. And of course, as you're seeing already in Australia, the government tries to hide that by by, you know, quasi nationalizing people's electricity bills, right? Uh, and I think you're
35:00 - 35:30 going to see more of this, which for people who don't want net zero is bad because the government's realized they have to cover up the damage being done, right? They have to basically directly lower everyone's power bills, everyone's, all the time, more and more. And that's going to be very expensive, but hey, just put on the national credit card, just just, you know, borrow a bit more. So, no one feels the cost of rising energy. That's what they're going to do, I think. And that's that's unfortunate. Means more debt, more deficit, uh, you know, worse for the future. Um, but that said, I'm, you
35:30 - 36:00 know, I'm optimistic that, uh, that it's a that it's a that it's a fad. Um, and actually I I'm I'm kind of looking through Australia's budget papers recently over the last 10 years and, you know, looking for mentions of emissions and climate change and net zero. And what I did find interesting and, you know, I don't think it necessary reveals anything, but you saw, you know, since Labour was elected in 2022, mentions of net zero and and emissions just went from like 12 to 150 and the budget like just absolutely surged. Uh, bang bang. And then in the
36:00 - 36:30 but in the in the budget before the election uh sorry the budget yeah the budget before the election they didn't mention it anywhere near as much. So so I think there is quite rightly in my view and Labor are very good at politics. They know what's going on. I think they're taking the foot off the accelerator a little bit. Um and that's anyway that is that is my forecast with net zero. I think it's becoming less popular and I also think part of the
36:30 - 37:00 reason driving that and you know we don't want to talk about this but I think people are becoming more skeptical of climate change uh because more and more forecasts are wrong right and the longer you know the years go on people just keep saying hang on didn't you say the polar bears were going to die didn't you say the Arctic would melt blah blah blah no you know didn't you say that you know summers would be unbearable well no they're the same as they were 20 years ago and I think the more that that happens I I think people will think so you know why are we doing this crazy thing where as you pointed out you know I think I think
37:00 - 37:30 human you human induced emissions are 4% of the of global total Australia's 1% of that right and we're trying to reduce 1% of 4% I mean it's completely insane rationally it's a religion it's really a religion you got to look at it as a religion it's a state religion and people don't like heretics but it has all the hallmarks of religion like like you're doing this thing in a self flagagillating sense you know that it won't make a scrap of But but just for you know for for you know personal contentment that's that's
37:30 - 38:00 that's why we're doing this crazy policy. Um but like I say I think I think the the cost of pursuing it are they're increasing um increasing over time. You know that's you you have your wind and solar farms a little bit that doesn't cost much but you know as you start to you know make it more than 50% of the energy supply the costs become extraordinary and there'll be blackouts. It's the actual financial costs investment. So, so I think I think it will all collapse, but we just have to try to minimize the amount of damage on the way.
38:00 - 38:30 Well, that's just one of, you know, a laundry list of problems that we've identified over the last half an hour in this country. And help me out with this question which I have not answered well on the podcast I've been on and the TV I've been on recently where they've said, "Look, we hear you pointing out all these problems in Australia, both structurally and then also the short-term reduction in standard of living that you mentioned, worse in the world." And yet what we saw was the incumbent government win one of the most comprehensive victories in modern Australian political history. How did
38:30 - 39:00 that happen? Well, look, yeah, look at, you know, it was an incredible victory. I mean, I think I think Labour's going to have 94 seats or 95 even, which is more than John Howard got in 996 in that in that huge landslide. It's more than Tony Abbott got in 2013. But I would point out that Labour's primary vote, 35% is not, you know, particularly overwhelming. That's the number of first preference uh votes and it was lower than Julia Gillard got in 2010 when she only just won. So the point that I'm
39:00 - 39:30 trying to make is that it was very much an artifact of preference flows which is the you know which is the Australian system and actually I think it's a good system. I mean there's a lot of people on the right who's who say oh preferential voting is terrible and look I think it should be optional like it is in New South Wales. you shouldn't be forced to to rank your choices 1 to 7 or 1 to 8, you know, in the lower house. I think that's wrong. But some people might just not care. They just, okay, I want that and that's it. I think that would be a big improvement. But I think in general, the preferential system is
39:30 - 40:00 much better than the UK system, for instance, because you get all this strategic voting in the UK. You people are not voting who they, you know, for who they really want. They're voting based on who they think might win and, you know, whether they need the help or not. And so, you don't really get a good indication of what people actually want. Whereas in Australia, you do. Uh so I like our voting system except for the compulsion bit but that's a that's another story. Um so look why well I think the cost of living decline I think is really noticeable I think through inflation but I think people quite
40:00 - 40:30 reasonably in my personal view blame the coalition for it just as much as labor. Now I know we had that big 10% decline since 22 but what was the cause of that? It was the co response obviously at least anyone who's you know I don't think you need to be an expert or a commentator or or someone that thinks too greatly to understand where the inflation all came from around the world in Australia around the world it was obviously the response to co you know we did it there's a cost to everything and printing you know who would have thought printing hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars and pounds and euros is going to lead to you know huge
40:30 - 41:00 economic dislocation huge inflation and Australia did that in spades right I mean we we had some of the biggest money printing of any country. Um, and which government oversaw all that? Well, the coalition did. And it wasn't that long ago. And so I think I think the problem is the coalition, you know, was in power so recently for what 9 years, 10 years or something. Uh, yeah, 9 years, which is quite a long time. And a I think people remember that government and they don't look back on it particularly fondly. Uh, you know, especially the later iterations. Um, so I think I think
41:00 - 41:30 that was a problem. And you know, as I mentioned, I think that the living standards decline is blamed as much on on the coalition as Labor. And so, I don't think that really worked. And of course, the coalition in their campaign, they couldn't talk about CO because they did all the measures. So, they couldn't they couldn't use that to blame Labor because they introduced the measures. So, yeah, they so they could really just say, oh, cost of living, you know, but but they couldn't say why because the reason why is they caused it. Yeah. Um,
41:30 - 42:00 and it felt to me like they were trying to rely on that old brand equity in the liberals on the liberal side of politics around economic management and people weren't buying at this time. So, I I asked, for example, Michael Kroger on Spectator TV the other day about what does the long-term future of the Liberal Party look like and is it the existential risk? And he fell back on that old, I would say, trope of, "Well, no, because we still have that great brand equity and economic management, defense, and industrial relations
42:00 - 42:30 reform." And then I had to push him and say, "Well, Michael, what has the Liberal Party done on any of those areas since Howard? They're scared. They've still scared on industrial relations since work choices. I think the defense policy came out a week before the uh the election almost as an afterthought and there hasn't been any economic reform in well over 20 years and they were going to spend more than the Labour party in the uh the 2-year forecast uh following the election. Yeah, I know that is extraordinary. So, so I guess that to
42:30 - 43:00 pull that together, you know, what is the point of the Liberal Party anymore? And have they lost those traditional brand equities? Well, certainly very tarnished and I think that goes to the point of why Labour had that big victory. I don't think they have that reputation anymore. They had nine years in office. I mean, Josh Friedenberg's legacy is the biggest spending treasure in history uh by far. Biggest increase in, you know, in debt. Uh and that all happened on the Liberal party's watch. That's extremely embarrassing. You know, it's interesting you measure you mention IR. Nothing was said about that incredibly important
43:00 - 43:30 area of policy the entire campaign. And I'm not an expert in IR law, but I have I have some close friends who are who are IR barristers, and they say what what what Labour's done in the last three years is even worse than than what Julia Gillard did in the Fair, you know, the Fair Work Act more than 10 years ago in terms of reeregulating in a really micro way uh you know, not only wage rates, but all the other matters associated with with employment that that is that is going to slow employment growth and not just slow employment growth because let's face it, the
43:30 - 44:00 unemployment rate in Australia is pretty low and that's a good but uh just stifle innovation as you've got businesses having to worry about IR laws far more than they worry about their own you know their own expansion and so forth. So yeah, so there was no discussion of IR. There was no discussion of lower tax. And actually just on that, the Liberal party's policies on tax in my view were worse than Labour's, right? That's I mean Labour had, you know, a certainly certainly piddling and pathetic tax cut of $5 a week, I think. But at least they
44:00 - 44:30 were going to cut one of the marginal rates from 16 to 14 in in two years time. And they legislated it. So that's now law. So that's something. I mean, look, it's pathetic, but it's something. And not only that, they also had a standard tax deduction of, I think, $1,000 for all taxpayers. So again, that's out of the Henry Review. That's a good thing. I support a standard deduction. Reduces complexity. It's a benefit that goes to all taxpayers, not just the politically favored group. Um, and then the coalition said, "Okay, we're going to reverse the tax cut," which is very strange politics for the
44:30 - 45:00 coalition. We're not going to have a standard deduction and we're going to we're going to allow first home buyers to deduct interest against some first home buyers, just some for five years. Uh, and we're going to cut um we're going to cut fuel excise for 12 months. I mean, I think they were both they were really bad policies. They were not long-term policies at all. They were meant to bribe people electorally. It didn't work. Uh, and I think that's a good lesson for the coalition. 12 month, you know, 12-month cuts in taxes or 12-month handouts don't work. Let's not
45:00 - 45:30 do those. And you know, the other point I want to make is there's there's a lot of criticism from the moderates in the party and from other commentators that that you know, somehow they they they ran a right-wing campaign or a Trumpian campaign. I don't think there is any empirical evidence whatsoever that there was anything right-wing about about the Dutton campaign. Nothing. It was a labor light campaign as I argued the whole time. And you maybe if if you got Labor and Labor light, you go for the real thing. Vote for Labor. um because at
45:30 - 46:00 least they believe it whereas you know half the people in the coalition don't believe it but they have to say it. Um so you know it's going to be interesting it's gone. Well I was going to say you know I would have thought that the lesson would have been learned by now that you can't out labor Labor and you can't out teal the teals and yet what we saw from the Liberal party room yesterday was the election of Susan Lei as the new opposition leader. uh she has been described as a moderate in the
46:00 - 46:30 party. She probably looks closer to the the Malcolm Turble style of Liberal politics than than the uh the more conservative wing. Uh does that point to potentially the Liberal Party not having learned their lessons in or not having learned the right lessons? Yeah, look, uh Susan Lee's press conference is is worth worth watching. I thought she spoke really well yesterday. She came across well, I thought. I don't know Susan um that well, but I was shocked to learn that she's been in parliament so
46:30 - 47:00 long since 2005. So I and and I have no, you know, so when she won or when she was mooded as a as a leader, I'm like, what does Susan stand for? I don't really know, you know. So I think I think that suggests she doesn't, you know, she hasn't been a strong advocate for either the moderates or the or the right of the party. So I think she can probably believe anything, at least publicly. Um so that could be a good thing or a bad thing. I don't know. She was careful yesterday not to not to not to attach, you know, her flag to any particular policy yet. Uh she's not
47:00 - 47:30 ruling anything in or out. And that's that's fair enough. Um so I think it's not necessarily the case she's going to lead the party in a in a moderate direction because as I said, I think she'll do whatever she thinks is pragmatic and if she decides that the pragmatic path is to take it more right, she will. I think um I think there's enough in her past and her voting record to suggest that she could be a conservative liberal or she could be a moderate liberal. In fact, there were a lot of a lot of lefties on Twitter, you know, slamming how conservative she was.
47:30 - 48:00 So, you know, it depends on your vantage point. I mean, I wish her well. It's going to be really hard job. She only won by four votes, right? That's really close. So, that suggests the party's basically fractured in two. uh and she's got next to no chance of winning the next election. That's even if she lasts until then. Uh so it's, you know, it's not going to be fun for her. Um yeah. So, so I don't know. Look, I'm kind of heartened the National Party, and I
48:00 - 48:30 think we can credit Matt Canniban for this. I know he lost the leadership and and full disclosure, he's a good friend of mine. Um but I think he pushed the National Party um to dump net zero. Well, they haven't they haven't formally done it yet, but I think Little Proud's thinking of it. And I think that's because of Matt's agitation, okay? Even though he's, you know, he's lost the leadership, I think he's and I think if the Nationals dumped it, that would be good. I mean, the National Party, remember, did quite well in the election. They got swings to them in some seats. Uh they didn't lose any seats or maybe they lost one. I'm not
48:30 - 49:00 quite sure there, but they certainly did a lot better than the Liberal Party. Vastly better. And so in that, you know, in that historic partnership, they are now, you know, almost as strong as the Liberal Party. not not almost, but much much relatively stronger. And if I was leading the National Party, I'd be thinking about, hey, why aren't we running candidates against the Liberals in some seats? Cuz we might win them in the outer suburbs. And I reckon that's probably that might happen actually. Yeah. Do you think do you think the coalition will split? Well, that wouldn't necessarily Well, I suppose it would mean they split, but but if you're
49:00 - 49:30 running the National Party and you think you've got a better chance of winning these seats in the Liberal Party, in the interest of the party, you would you're trying to run the candidates. I think they might split or at least have a looser arrangement, but you know, I don't think that matters. I mean, I there's this obsession with unity. I just, you know, I wish there was more debate, not less, right? I think if there was a debate between the Nationals and the Liberal Party on net zero, that would be great. And if it was in the public, that's good because people will hear the arguments of both sides. I think, you know, parties are are a
49:30 - 50:00 necessary evil in the Westminster system or in in any system because they they lead to factionalism and and, you know, party hatreds and and not governing in the interest of the country, but governing in the interest of the party. Uh, you know, I wish we had a, you know, House of Reps of 150 independents. That'd be much better because they you'd have much more agreement and much more sensible policym. Uh well, I would have suggested that that the downside of that would be that nothing would ever really get done. But I think you could possibly argue that nothing's really getting done
50:00 - 50:30 at the moment. So, you know, there's always going to be parties form. It's just natural. They always do. But, uh but factionalism is a real problem both between and within parties. Uh and you know, I think more debate is good. I mean, the you know, it's a whole other debate, but you know, parliaments themselves used to be used to be debating chambers. They're not debating chambers now. They're complete waste of money. All of the arguments done in private within the parties and then they form their view. The public doesn't get to see that argument. It would be fascinating if you actually saw the debates in Labor caucus or Liberal Party
50:30 - 51:00 room, real debates when people are actually angry and yelling at each other. That's that's what you want to see as as someone paying all the, you know, as a voter paying all these salaries and instead you see this absurd display in the parliament in question time where, you know, people stand up and ask Dorothy Dixon. I mean, it's just pathetic. It's utterly pathetic. It's all for TV and it's extremely expensive and it doesn't you it doesn't enhance our democracy at all. Um anyway, that's a whole other debate. Uh anyway, I forgot what you asked me now. Well, no, so I think what you've just said I think
51:00 - 51:30 is interesting. I agree about the need for debate and discussion. I think you're right in saying that that unity is perhaps overrated. At the same time, it feels to me like there is an identity crisis on the right or again whatever that means. the conservative side of Australian politics and you can see that by a potential split in the coalition. You can see that by this existential conversation going on in the Liberal Party. You can see it by the mishmash of minor parties that have emerged on the
51:30 - 52:00 right of Australian politics. You know, the libertarians, the trumpet of patriots, whatever that that they believe, you know, Paul Hansen's one nation. Uh it feels to me that in the age of Trump where there's been a change in the right in the in the uh in the US in the age of in in the UK where the conservatives are very at very real risk of fading into nothingness there's this question of what what does it mean to be a conservative in 2025?
52:00 - 52:30 This is a choose your own adventure question, but but what does the future of conservatism in Australia look like or what should it look like? Yeah. Well, I think the big problem that parties of the right are facing all around the world and and and you know, you rais a really good point and you know, Trump's at the vanguard of this. He's been an instigator in many ways is there is all the intellectual kind of revolution if you like, happening on the right, not the left. Uh it's the rights both in Europe and and the US and increasingly here there's a lot of internal debate. You know, there's more there's more
52:30 - 53:00 debate within the right than there is between the the official right and left. You know, the so-called uni party basically agrees on everything, right? And that's the bulk of the Labour Party in Australian context, the bulk of the Liberal Party and maybe minority of the National Party. I would turn the uni party basically agree on everything. Just slight little differences around the edges, but it's red team, blue team, that's all. And it's just about winning. But but on the right side of politics, you do have these huge intellectual arguments about, you know, nationality, you know, ethnic identity, uh tariffs,
53:00 - 53:30 uh you know, tax policy, you know, there's far more debate within the Republican party in the US about about about tax policy than than in the Democratic party. I mean, and and half of Republicans want to increase tax on the wealthy. Actually, that's that that's often forgotten. But the Trump base is poor, right? They are the old Bernie Sanders left and they couldn't care less about Wall Street. And actually, I don't think Trump really cares less about Wall Street either, to be quite honest. I mean, he's painted as a friend of billionaires, but I don't
53:30 - 54:00 think he's I don't think he's been governing for them uh yet. Indeed, that the report I mentioned earlier, he wants to lift the top marginal tax rate, right? The Democrats didn't even do that. So, uh so I think there's a lot of intellectual debate on the right. And I think it stems from the fact too that the left which used to be the protest movement, you know, throughout most of the 20th century. It was rarely in office in Australia. I mean, you know, you think since 45, Labor's not not been in power much actually. If you, you know, if you add up all the years, I think they've only been in power 30 or 40% or something of the time. Um, but
54:00 - 54:30 now it's the establishment. The labor is the left is now the establishment. It it runs all the universities. It runs all the big corporations. Uh, you it runs the media. You know, you forget if you go back to the 1960s, the mainstream media was very conservative, you know, right? Very conservative and it still was even in in the 80s and 90s. Look at the City Morning Herald in the 1980s was still quite a conservative newspaper. Uh now the media is very leftwing, right? And it supports parties that are left. So my point is that the the protest parties
54:30 - 55:00 are now the establishment. And so we talk about conservatives. Well, that that implies they want to conserve, but actually they don't want to conserve because the current system is not what they want. So, the parties of the right are now the protest parties, right? They are against the establishment. And I think that is that is intellectually hard because there are remnants in the in the conservatives who are still very wealthy and they quite like the system as it is. And then there's your younger right-wing people who hate the system, right? and this is the Trump base and they want to tear it
55:00 - 55:30 all down and they would kind of just as easily fit in the old left actually you know I remember having a chat with Steve Bannon just oneonone and you know he's I think he's extremely impressive figure intellectually and you know a great force in the Trump movement and um you know he's like we have to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry this it's evil basically you know and I'm like wow okay that's not a that's not a that's not a very reagan or that position and also he said that he thinks income tax should be much higher on the wealthy than it currently is uh so that and yet
55:30 - 56:00 he's rightwing. So, you know, my point is there's a great deal of fluidity on the right. Um and you see that the tension between Bannon and and Musk over the visa issue in the US about immigration, a lot of tension over that as well. Um but on the left in Australia and and the Democrats, you don't see at least I don't see much debate at all. Right. Basically, just keep the status quo. Keep the status quo. And you know, anyone that wants to change the status quo is, you know, a fascist or or you know, a Hitler or something. I mean, because that that's the sort of language
56:00 - 56:30 they use to shut people down. Um, so yeah, so I think that's why to answer your question, why the rights in kind of dire straits is because there's so much intellectual debate. They don't know what they stand for and I don't know when that's going to be resolved. Well, in the maybe um in the the minute or two we have left, give them a hand, Adam. And I know the IPA has often uh in the course of its history been at the leading edge of uh right-wing thought or conservative thought, however you want to frame it in in Australian politics.
56:30 - 57:00 What advice would you give to the Liberal Party in 2025? Uh what does it need to be? What should that identity look like? How would you communicate that to them? Well, we have to keep the Liberal Party honest. I mean, of course, the you know, the IPA and the Liberal Party are totally separate institutions despite what some some of our critics say. Uh but you know we're certainly the preeminent uh conservative or libertarian think tank in Australia and I think we have to you know stay true to our principles of small government uh and uh you know individual liberty and
57:00 - 57:30 free speech. You know that's that's something we haven't discussed but but we probably should have but maybe that's for some for another time. Uh and we have to keep the coalition honest. Um, so I think I think we have an even more important role I would say in light of a Labour's victory than we did earlier because the Liberal Party risks, you know, risks going in this Labor direction and then what's left? Well, it's just going to be just going to be the IPA and the Australian basically on the on the right. Um, so let's hope that doesn't happen. But, uh, you know, we
57:30 - 58:00 have to keep the flame of those ideas alive. You know, advice to the Liberal Party uh would be dump net zero. Maybe not right away. Wait a year. But but that's the way the world is going, right? I mean, it definitely is. Look at what look what Tony Blair said. It's definitely going that way. But I wouldn't do it right away. I' I'd be more pragmatic. I'd kind of wait a year and then dump it you sometime before the next election and then really go hard on how it's causing the cost of living problem and just blame it for all of it. And I think that will be effective next
58:00 - 58:30 time because there'll be more inflation between now and then. There'll be more house price increases between now and then. and they can blame the whole thing on net zero and Labor I think will struggle with that. That's my advice. Well, let's just hope they listen. Uh Adam, an typically insightful, interesting conversation. Thank you very much for uh your contributions to the debate in this regard and thank you for coming on today. Okay, thanks all very much. I enjoyed it. [Music]