October 23, 2025 • 29 mins
The week in federal politics could not have been more fun. We had Prime Minister Anthony Albanese travel to Washington, finally, for his meeting with US President Donald Trump. The meeting was a total hit, and Albanese came home with a deal on critical mineral supply and reassurances on the AUKUS submarine pact.
Jacqueline Maley is joined by chief political correspondent, Paul Sakkal and special guest Bill Shorten, former opposition leader and a cabinet minister. Bill Shorten is now Vice Chancellor at the University of Canberra.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. It's Friday, October 24th.
This week in federal politics could not have been more fun.
We had Prime Minister Anthony Albanese travel to Washington finally
for his meeting with the big dog that is US
President Donald Trump. The meeting was a total hit, and
(00:22):
Albanese came home with a deal on critical mineral supply
and reassurances on the Aukus submarine pact for some bonus entertainment.
We saw the president publicly scold Kevin Rudd. Kevin from Queensland,
former PM and now Australian Ambassador to the US, here
to help us process this momentous week. We have our
chief political correspondent Paul chuckle as usual and we have
(00:45):
a very special new guest. We have a guy named
Bill shorten, who of course is the former opposition leader
and a cabinet minister, a man who's made a huge
contribution to political and public life in this country and
who is now the vice chancellor at the University of Canberra.
Bill shorten, welcome to Inside Politics.
S2 (01:03):
Thank you for having me on. Morning, Jack.
S1 (01:07):
Bill, you're running a university now. We just want to
ask you about the transition from politics. And there must
be a part of you, a little tiny, tiny part
of you that looks at the events of the week
with Anthony Albanese in the white House and thinks that
could have been me, because you were very much a contender.
S2 (01:24):
Ah, I'd have to say that part of me you
would need a microscope to find. Really. I find it
incredibly interesting. And obviously I want Australia to do as
well as we can. So the biggest emotion I had
watching the week was one of relief. I think it
went as well as any foreign leader's visits gone with
(01:45):
The Donald. So yeah, I was just relieved for Anthony.
I was relieved for the government and even more importantly,
I was relieved for Australia.
S3 (01:53):
It felt a little bit absurd just having to sign
you into the Parliament as a guest. And the security
people looked at you and thought, how is this bloke
a guest? How does it feel being back in here?
And are you like some of the other politicians who
the weaning off politics is like getting rid of a
drug addiction.
S2 (02:08):
Are listen again to. You know, I must be more
in touch with my emotional side since I've come on
this podcast in the last 38 seconds. But what was
really nice is that the lady attendant said, oh, Mr. Shorten,
we need to see your ID but for me, I'm
a glass half full guy. So I thought, oh, she
still remembers my name. No. And the security guards are lovely. So, um. Yeah.
(02:32):
But I'm glad to see that, you know, they've got
a system for me, and. Yeah, it's it's fine. I
must get around to getting a pass, but I think
the the the question underlying it, Paul, you're asking me
is am I missing the joint? Uh, no. I think
what happens is really important. But I've now got this
fabulous new job leading the University of Canberra. Uh, and
(02:53):
I can still impact the national interests by helping ensure
that people get good education. We do good research. So
I now live in Canberra. Uh, having flown here as
a sort of parliamentary mining town, fly in, fly out
for 17.5 years. I now live here. I'm not sure
my family's totally happy about that, but I've come around
(03:14):
to the getting used to Canberra. No, but I like
my new job. And, um, I'm pleased to see that
the mesmerising roller coaster which is President Trump in the administration,
I'm pleased to see that, um, Anthony dance between the
raindrops and seemed to get some good outcomes for Australia
and the way through.
S1 (03:33):
Yeah. So let's get into that, because whatever politics you
might still have, we're happy to help you scratch, if
that doesn't sound too.
S2 (03:40):
I'm still interested.
S1 (03:40):
Yes, we want to get into Albo in Washington. It
was obviously the story of the week. It was pretty
much the story. I watched the whole press conference again
last night, and I was just so intrigued by the
body language and the theatrics of it, and the way
that Donald Trump sort of imposes his control over the
whole show by putting down journalists, notably our own Michael Koziol.
S4 (04:00):
Where do you come from? What? Who are you with?
S5 (04:03):
Sydney morning Herald.
S4 (04:04):
Nasty guy. Go ahead.
S5 (04:06):
Sorry.
S4 (04:07):
All right. Go ahead.
S5 (04:08):
On your tummy.
S1 (04:10):
Anthony Albanese's to me seemed quite nervous at the beginning.
He was fiddling with his pen. He was fidgeting his
hands like that was a real tell. What do you think? You've.
You've met, you know, world leaders. You've been in high
stakes negotiations. You've been in these kinds of rooms, if
not the white House itself. What would Anthony Albanese have
been feeling going into that meeting?
S2 (04:31):
He would have been hyper prepared. Uh, I think the government,
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the government would
have war gamed, uh, this meeting within an inch of
its life, as they should. But what I really thought
was good is the rare Earths deal was clever at
the end of the day. Whatever else people think about
(04:52):
the government in America, they know they need rare minerals,
rare earths. And we came with a deal which was
in their sweet spot. So I think it was a
smart deal. It was a smart arrangement.
S4 (05:05):
You know, the man on my right has a big advantage.
You know that, right? But I think he's doing a
really I think he's doing a really good job. And
we've had a very good relationship. I don't want to
compare one.
S2 (05:15):
It was interesting. I don't know how they do the
protocols of do you sit down in an armchair opposite
The Donald, or do you sit at the big table?
I thought the big table was much more professional looking. Yeah. Anyway.
And obviously.
S3 (05:26):
Couches.
S2 (05:27):
Even though Kevin got some free character advice from the
Donald on the way through, I think Kevin must have
done some good behind the scenes work. I thought that
was Australian diplomacy at its most professional. And so yeah,
I'm sure Anthony knew that for all a sort of
laid back nature. We'll see him when we see him.
That was an important meeting. And if you weren't, I
(05:48):
don't claim to understand if he was nervous or not,
but if you weren't feeling nervous, you wouldn't be human. Yeah. Because,
you know, President Trump, you know, sort of probably has
more changeability than Melbourne weather.
S1 (06:01):
Yeah, I thought I thought he seemed nervous only because
of the hands, but then he mastered those nerves very,
very masterfully. Paul.
S3 (06:08):
Body language expert. Jack.
S1 (06:09):
Yeah, I was I think the theatrics of it are
really interesting. And maybe it's the novelist in me, but
I'm just looking at the sort of interpersonal stuff as
well as the political. But so, Paul, the overwhelming consensus
was the meeting was obviously a roaring success. We got
the critical minerals deal. I mean, you cannot pick fault
with that. It's like this beautiful confluence of timing opportunity.
But what about the Aukus stuff? Let's talk about Aukus
(06:30):
because that was a significant matter as well. We got
a lot of reassurances. Michael Koziol, our own reporter, asked
Trump about it, and Trump gave all these reassurances. Paul,
I'll go to you first. I mean, how much can
we count on those reassurances? On on aukus. Like what?
When you drill down, did we actually get anything on
Aukus from Trump?
S3 (06:49):
Yeah. Well, I think having him make a declarative comment
as he did was critical, even if there might have
been a bit of bluster in it, even though he
might have overruled his Navy chief sitting across the desk,
who said that there were still some tweaks with orcas
that needed to be looked at. Having Trump speak positively
about the deal, which has been up for review for
months now, was absolutely crucial because no matter what, Elbridge Colby,
(07:12):
the defense undersecretary in the Pentagon, thinks about the ability
for the US to give up subs in six years,
which had not been produced at a high enough quantity.
When you've got presidential authority, you put your seal on it.
So that was crucial for Australia. There are still obviously
big questions about how orcas lands in 5 or 6
years time. It's soaking up a lot of our defense budget.
(07:34):
There are still huge questions about whether the US will
give up subs in the end. And Bill, I thought
I'd just move to where we wanted to go next,
which was with these questions still looming over orcas and
how a future president might deal with Australia and whether
they'll be willing to hand these over. Do you think
there is still scope for an Australian government to do
(07:54):
more examination of the orcas deal? Would you have signed
up to orcas as quickly as this labor government did,
almost without review.
S2 (08:03):
Um, well, I think the first part was the importance
of President Trump endorsing orcas. I mean, the MAGA movement
which sustains Donald Trump's electoral success, the Make America Great
Again has a very strong isolationist tendency that they don't
want to get involved in the rest of the world's problems.
(08:25):
Leave them alone. And sometimes that aspect of President Trump's
policies emerges. But what I thought we saw on display
was the, I think for Australia, the more reassuring internationalist,
more classical republican play that they've got a role in
the world and without, you know, overhyping the China America
(08:48):
rivalry the Americans were giving at their most senior level, uh,
reassurance that Aukus is part of this MAGA administration. So
I think that was not to be underestimated. In terms
of your point about the scrutiny of the deal, like
this deal is going to be scrutinized for the next
(09:10):
20 years, like it's the auditing of this orcas scheme
and value is going to spawn university degrees and industries
of auditors.
S3 (09:20):
But the government hasn't examined it.
S2 (09:22):
I think you'll find the government does examine a lot
of its expenditure. Um, and the Americans have an expression
about momentum in politics, and they call it the big Mo.
And I think the orcas got some big Mo again
this week. And, you know, and the atmospherics of there's
(09:43):
no bigger circus or show on earth at the moment
than the Trump White House. It doesn't mean it's the
only thing happening in the world. It's obviously not. But, uh,
that was Australia's sort of 15 minutes in the big circus,
and we got out with our skin intact and a
deal done. So I yeah, I think this week was
(10:04):
quite remarkable.
S1 (10:05):
I note as well, I looked at the New York
Times website this morning and the, the, the main story
on the New York Times website is about America's sort
of deals on critical minerals. And you click through and
there's a big old photo of Anthony Albanese. So, I mean,
it's not often that that we would make international news
in that way or that an Australian prime minister would.
I want to ask you both about this other comment
that Trump made, though, kind of related to Aukus, where
(10:27):
he was asked about China and the threat of China
and whether or not China has any interest in invading Taiwan.
And he said, oh, I don't think we're going to
need it. When speaking about the Aukus pact, because he
doesn't think that President XI is going to make any
moves on Taiwan. And I thought that was an extraordinary
thing for an American president to say in the context
of having betted down this pact and, you know, made
(10:48):
sort of positive noises about this pact and then say, oh,
I don't think we're going to need it anyway. Paul,
why would he say that? Was it just bluster or
what's going on there.
S3 (10:56):
Yeah, I think he he said two things on orcas
in terms of its relation to China. He did say
explicitly that it was a deterrent and that that was
a key element of the orcas deal was to deter China.
But in the same breath, he made this comment that,
as you say, I don't think we're going to need
it because he has a benign view of President Xi's
intentions in relation to Taiwan. I think probably what you're
(11:18):
seeing there, it's a bit hard to read Trump. I
don't claim to have all the answers, but he's made
a bunch of different comments over his administration and in
his first term about his ability to through his unpredictability,
his kind of mercurial nature, and his threats to use
hard US power, his ability to keep people like XI,
like Putin, like actors in the Middle East, like Kim
(11:39):
Jong UN from North Korea, to keep them calm and
and through his kind of force of nature, stop them
from taking drastic action that might hurt us interests. I mean,
I don't think he was reflecting the strategic reality of
the relationship with China. The balance of power is much
more contested than he suggested. He said the US has
much more military might than China. In the Indo-Pacific. That's
(12:00):
just not right. According to analysts and his own chief advisers,
Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio and the chief of the Navy,
who were sitting on the same table as him, have
all said in recent months that China's threat in the
Indo-Pacific in relation to Taiwan is potentially imminent and a
crucial topic for concern of US strategy. So I think
there's Trump trying to keep the relationship with China from
(12:23):
not boiling over, particularly as he's about to meet XI,
as this trade war is becoming more real over critical minerals.
I think that was more politics and bluster than reflecting
US strategy.
S1 (12:35):
Bill, what did you make of that comment?
S2 (12:37):
I think, um, Western strategists almost have a twin track
strategy about China and Taiwan. On one hand, it's certainly
the case that the defense establishment and our security agencies
are very conscious of Chinese espionage and their military expansion.
(13:00):
But on the other hand, we recognize that you never
want to put someone in a corner where they feel
there's only one option. Yeah. So I don't know if
there was any conscious strategy in what President Trump said
by sort of not always using bellicose language about China.
I mean, I recently had the opportunity to go to
Taiwan to visit with Taiwanese universities. And I was curious,
(13:22):
what is the sort of person in the street in Taiwan?
Think about China. And I can't pretend after five days
I worked that all out. But I think Taiwanese people
know they've got a neighbor who's very different to them.
But they weren't perhaps as obsessed about imminent Chinese conflict
as some of our Western agencies. But whether or not
(13:45):
that's because people have learned to sort of live with
their neighbor without necessarily fully trusting their neighbor, that could
be it. But I thought, I'm quite happy when I
hear world leaders not talk in a bellicose fashion. So,
you know, again, take your wins. And I think though,
the security establishments are still very mindful of China. And
(14:08):
I think one of the big challenges for Western leaders
is that a lot of Western leaders and politicians operate
on personal relationships and negotiations, whereas I think some of
the more autocratic countries, it's not just about personal relationships.
And I think sometimes Western liberal democracies struggle with the
(14:28):
notion that you might have people or nations who just
don't care about the rule of law. I'm not putting
China fully in that category. But take, for instance, Russia.
You could have a personal relationship with Putin, but I'm
not sure that changes any facts on the ground about
Russian expansionism.
S3 (14:44):
Do you think the PM struck up a did it
look like a real rapport with Trump? Do you think
Trump would call the PM if he's wondering about China strategy.
S2 (14:51):
Even accepting my rubric that perhaps we sometimes deal with
dictatorships and authoritarian countries for whom personal relationships aren't the
sort of meat and potatoes of politics. I think with Trump,
personal relationships is important. I also think that Trump has
a worldview and, you know, whether or not you agree
(15:12):
with it or not, he seems to like winners. Anthony's
victory in May of this year was pretty decisive.
S1 (15:19):
And he mentioned that. I mean, he really mentioned that
he's aware of that. Um, yeah, Trump mentioned that. I mean.
S2 (15:26):
Whether or not you think that's the right logic to have.
I mean, also, apparently Trump likes people who are physically pleasing,
you know, and, uh.
S3 (15:33):
His elbow physically.
S2 (15:34):
Pleasing, you know.
S1 (15:35):
Well, I don't think we can accuse our prime minister
of that, but let's not make personal comments about people's looks.
S2 (15:42):
No, no, no, I was talking about Trump. But mind you,
talking about personal comments, one of the sort of sideshows
of the whole visit was the media's sort of love
hate with The Donald.
S1 (15:53):
You know, I know.
S2 (15:54):
As much as I'm sure journalists hate being told off
by them. I feel that they must sort of swagger
back into their media rooms in Australia and say, hey, yeah,
he insulted me. So. Oh yeah, it's a sort of
a sort of bondage relationship.
S1 (16:07):
It's like a badge of honour, I reckon. Now it's
all good for business if you're a journalist.
S2 (16:11):
Yeah, it's a bit like it's right up there with
being blacklisted by the Russians.
S1 (16:15):
Yeah, yeah. So it's all good for business.
S3 (16:17):
I wanted to ask you about something. Sean Carney, our columnist,
wrote today. He talked about the elements of luck and
circumstance that have led to the Prime Minister being in
the position he's in. He's often been quite critical of
the Prime Minister, I should say. He mentioned that the
PM was in the UK talking about our lack of
illegal immigration being a key reason we don't have a
populist right movement. The Prime Minister obviously fought very hard
(16:37):
against that policy in 2015. When you shifted Labour policy
on that question in response to the turn back policy,
you've also, as a leader of the Labour right, fought
against Albaneses left faction since you were at university in
terms of how the Labor Party should relate to the
US and how strongly it should support the US Alliance,
someone who's known him for a long time. The Prime
(16:58):
Minister said to me last week that he's growing in
the role because he's turning into someone who puts stewardship
of the country and nurturing of our institutions ahead of
his personal ideology. Do you see him growing into the
role in that way?
S2 (17:12):
You watch people get elected and some shrink and some grow.
And I think Anthony's clearly in the he's doing better.
Each experience builds his confidence. And also just you learn
valuable lessons. You can't really understand leadership until you've been there. And, um,
(17:33):
whilst I haven't been prime minister, I know what it's
like to lead the party. And you just see he
backs his own judgement a fair bit. And I think
that's what a leader actually has to do. When you're
a leader of a mainstream political party in this country,
you get a lot of advice. You get a lot
of people saying, don't do this, don't do that. And
sometimes that advice can be crippling. You wouldn't get out
(17:54):
of bed in the morning. You'd pull the doona over
because everyone says, do this, do that. And what I
see is, uh, Anthony certainly backing his judgment. And so
I think he is stepping up in the job. And
I think there'd be conservatives who would say that, too. Yeah.
Having said that, you went back to that earlier point. Yeah.
There's no question that I've always supported the American Alliance.
(18:16):
And indeed I supported boat turn backs. And not everyone
in the party has. But hey, he mightn't have the job,
but it would seem that some of the positions I
took ten years ago seem to be the right call. So,
you know, that's.
S1 (18:28):
And hopefully on a future podcast, we're going to get
you back and talk about some of the sort of
more controversial economic policies you took to the 2019 election
and whether or not you're right on those, and you'll
be proven right one day. But that's, that's a, that's a,
that's a conversation for another time. We need to talk
about Kevin because speaking of Anthony Albanese backing in his
own judgment, Kevin obviously got a dressing down very publicly.
S4 (18:50):
Where is he? Is he still working for you?
S6 (18:52):
Yeah, yeah.
S4 (18:55):
You said bad.
S6 (18:57):
Before I took this position, Mr. President.
S4 (18:59):
I don't like you either. I don't, and I probably
never will. Go ahead.
S1 (19:04):
There might be many of Kevin's former parliamentary colleagues who
could relate to that sentiment. Rudd, I think, recovered pretty well. Paul,
you know that from your extended research that Rudd actually
did a lot behind the scenes to make this meeting
happen and to make the critical minerals deal happen? Isn't
that right?
S3 (19:21):
Yeah, I think there's that is absolutely right. There's a
there's a kind of paradox with Rudd and his work
in the US. There's a school of thought, and I
think there's some truth to it that he struggles with
access in parts of the white House. There are some
people around Trump who are not fans of Rudd, and
that does limit his access in some regards, where a
person like Joe Hockey or Arthur Sinodinos would not have struggled.
(19:42):
But in other regards, Rudd works the Congress incredibly hard.
He works Trump's cabinet incredibly hard. He's got good relationships
with Scott Bessent, with Jamieson Greer and with Howard Lutnick,
and he's also got fantastic contacts inside the State Department
with Marco Rubio and inside the Pentagon to this critical
minerals deal was faltering for months. In the early part
(20:04):
of this year, we put it on the table to
the Americans when Trump threatened tariffs. It fell over. Rudd
didn't stop working. He's been bringing miners and the heads
of BHP and Rio into the white House to meet
with Trump on some occasions, and he's just worked with,
from all reports, incredible energy night and day to convince
the Americans that we are the pathway through their issue
(20:25):
to their dispute with China. So I think he deserves
great credit. Tony Abbott gave him credit this week. Various
others did who you wouldn't consider typical allies of Rudd.
And I think Susan Lee's overreach calling for him to
be or effectively calling for him to be sacked also
really helped Albanese because even though there was that very
awkward moment with Trump that did cast doubt on Rudd's role,
the overreach meant that the criticism wasn't taken seriously.
S1 (20:48):
Bill, do you have anything to add to that?
S2 (20:50):
I think Kevin did well. He I agree with a
lot of Paul's analysis. Um, you know, was it a
bit gratuitous of the PM? Sorry, of the president to
sledge him? I don't know. You know, part of me
as an Australian doesn't want to see an Australian dressed
down by someone else. I don't care what party or
what you think of the Aussie. You know, you want
to stand up for the Australian. But listen, I thought, uh,
(21:13):
if this was Anthony's big success, I think it was certainly, uh,
some of it's due to Kevin, and I think he
deserves some credit for that. Love him or hate him,
you can't take away, I think, from Paul's.
S3 (21:25):
Should he be extended his term? It's up. Up next year.
S2 (21:28):
Uh, it's not up to me.
S1 (21:29):
Do you think? I mean, obviously you ousted him or
you were instrumental in ousting him from the prime ministership. Um,
if we don't want to rake over the past. But
it is on the public record.
S2 (21:39):
What is it about? If we don't want to rake
over the past, you then start raking over the past.
I'm just trying to work out the self-awareness question.
S1 (21:45):
These sort of nasty sort of, um, you know, um, skeletons.
S2 (21:48):
Our listeners, we're not torturing you to bring it up.
But anyway, we're not, like, tickling you with a feather
and making you just go there.
S3 (21:55):
I was secretly hoping she brought it up.
S2 (21:56):
What's been happening is that Kevin Rudd was a very
good prime minister, and we've done some remarkable things since
defeating John Howard. But I think you'd have to live
on the moon to think that this government wasn't off
track seriously, in the last few months. Certainly, I did
speak to the then deputy Prime minister, now our Prime minister,
and say that she should think about this.
S7 (22:16):
When did you first do that? On Wednesday. And so
what has happened with this matter is that she gave
it a great deal of serious reflection. It's a serious issue.
S1 (22:27):
There is a point to my question or to me
bringing it up. You knew what his weaknesses were as
a leader and a prime minister, very obviously. Do you think, actually,
his idiosyncrasies and his talents are very well suited to
this kind of role, which is more wonky, which is
kind of putting people together behind the scenes and quietly working,
you know, Congress or quietly working cabinet or whatever.
S2 (22:47):
I think he's suited to this role. Yeah, I've watched
some of the, you know, more right wing people clutch
their pearls and hyperventilate over Kevin and Kevin's not some
sort of Mar a Lago drinking buddy of the president. Therefore,
you know, he doesn't play a round of golf like
Greg Norman. Is he the right guy to have there?
But I think Kevin's proved that he's more than stood
(23:10):
up as the ambassador to the US.
S1 (23:12):
Kevin's doing it Kevin's way.
S3 (23:14):
Bill, he's here to help.
S1 (23:15):
Exactly. He always has been. Bill, you've been an opposition leader, obviously.
Do you feel for Susan Lee at the present moment
because Albanese is riding so high? I mean, he's going
to come back from this trip completely triumphant. You know,
he's polling position couldn't be better. She tried to land
a punch on the prime minister over the Rudd thing.
It really didn't work. And then she had to back
(23:36):
off it. If you were in opposition right now, if
you were Sussan Ley right now, what would you be
focusing on, given that Albanese is in such a strong position?
S2 (23:45):
Go domestic. Don't play in the foreign affairs patch. You know,
sometimes an opposition leader will feel the need to say something,
to say anything, but you don't have to be out
there in the media every day and never fight on
your opponent's ground when your opponent's doing well on that ground. Yeah.
So if I was her, you just got to look
(24:05):
like she's batting for Team Australia and, um, then get
back to domestic issues or an issue, which she thinks
she's on better ground. But anyway, as you always know,
being opposition leader, everyone can do your job better than you,
and they will frequently tell you that. But don't fight
on your opponent's ground when your opponent's sort of kicking
with the breeze and doing really well.
S1 (24:27):
Okay, so what ground should she fight on then?
S2 (24:30):
Oh.
S1 (24:32):
Give her a few tips. Come on.
S2 (24:34):
Well, the first thing you've got to do is, uh,
deal with your own. Deal with the reasons why your
own party lost. See, if you don't do a bit
of a mea culpa and you don't deal with issues
of substance, that's why. Should anyone think you've learnt anything?
See if you don't recognise that you had policies which
(24:54):
are the reason why you lost. Then the electorate might
reasonably conclude you haven't worked it out and you don't
respect their verdict. And this was a pretty big verdict.
So I don't know. They've got themselves you know, they're
more lost than Burke and Wills on climate change. But
I don't think it's just that. I think you've got
to deal with your own baggage. And like in 2013, 2014,
(25:18):
we had three areas of baggage. We were not united.
We had a problem with the boats. We had a
problem with the carbon tax. So I made clear we
wouldn't be reintroducing a carbon tax. I talked to the
party conference, a view which said we would turn back
boats and we stopped talking about ourselves. So to some extent,
(25:43):
before you can engage the electorate, you've got to demonstrate
your teams united and deal with a couple of the issues.
You know, the libs have still got this soft underbelly
about workplace relations and that working from home policy was. Wow.
That was a you know, that was a it was
like the Titanic of policies.
S1 (26:02):
It was as though they had spoken to a working
parent anywhere around the country in sort of the life.
It was like they.
S2 (26:09):
Were listening to the Restaurant and Caterers Association in the CBD.
Who wants people in for lunch, and property developers who have,
you know, buildings in the city which were not as
full as they used to be, but that was a
cost of living issue for families. If you didn't need
to go into work five days a week, you were
not paying the tolls. You're not paying the petrol, you're
not paying the childcare. You know.
S3 (26:31):
How did you fix the because one of her biggest problems,
Susan Lee, is fixing the internal issues. And it looks
with so many of these bus stops she's having with
Hastie and Price and others. Yeah. There's no communication going
on in the party. The disparate groups aren't even talking
to one another. I mean, your chief rival in 20 1314,
when large part was the now prime minister, how did
you deal with the internal problems then? How did you
(26:52):
soothe that all? What are the lessons?
S2 (26:55):
Well, one of the things I did when I was
leader is I made sure that all the different views
were sitting at the shadow cabinet table. You got to
bring people in. You've also got to try and get
agreement on what went wrong. You don't have to like
each other, but you've got to an agreement on what
went wrong. And the borders issue had bedeviled Labour, and
we really did put that issue to bed in that
(27:18):
first term. And it wasn't easy. A lot of people
were upset. Uh, so I'm not saying if I was.
The coalition have to junk everything you believe in, but
I think they've got to deal with their here's a
they've got to pick out a couple of issues out
of the coalition. Too hard basket and deal with it.
And again, you know, there might be coalition supporters, diehards
(27:39):
listening to this podcast who say, well, Bill would say
what he's about to say, but I will say it anyway. Um,
they've got to do something about their women issue. And
by that I mean pre-selections like why the liberals are
turning themselves inside out over affirmative action. Like, these people
are really eagerly awaiting the arrival of the 20th century.
(28:01):
I know.
S1 (28:02):
I mean, I've written so much on that, and I
find it confounding because it's just it's just pragmatic. At
this point, it's like, we know.
S2 (28:09):
It.
S1 (28:09):
Works. Yeah, it's low hanging fruit. We know it works.
It'll get you where you need to go. Why wouldn't
you press the button? We have run out of time.
And Bill, we have to release you to go back
to being a fusty academic over at the University of Canberra.
S2 (28:21):
My brain is already bigger.
S3 (28:22):
Are they making you, professor?
S1 (28:23):
Like, you know, smoking a pipe and kind of. Have
you got one of those jackets with the leather patches
on the.
S2 (28:28):
Oh, I'll tell you what's alarming. Paul has got a
jacket which would fit him right in the school of
journalism or, you know, government. Uh, we've got to make
him an adjunct professor.
S1 (28:39):
He should, professor Paul.
S2 (28:41):
It's very.
S3 (28:42):
Academic. Not be valuable.
S1 (28:44):
All right. We've made too many personal comments on people's appearance.
This this podcast. We've got to stop.
S2 (28:49):
I've only been complimentary.
S1 (28:50):
You have nicely. Um, Bill, it's been such a pleasure
to have you. It was really fun. Um, we hope
we can get you back again. And thanks for thanks
for coming in.
S2 (28:59):
Thanks for asking my opinion. It's very flattering.
S1 (29:01):
And thanks to you, too, Paul.
S3 (29:03):
Professor Paul, hope that.
S2 (29:05):
Professor Paul. Alright, thanks. Cheers.
S1 (29:11):
Today's episode was produced by Julia Carr Katzel, with technical
assistance from Kai Wong and Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, with special thanks to Tom McKendrick and
Lisa Muxworthy. To listen to our episodes as soon as
they drop, follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere
else you listen to your podcasts. To stay up to
(29:31):
date with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The
Age and The Sydney Morning Herald website. To support our journalism,
subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. I'm
Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. It's Friday, October 24th.
This week in federal politics could not have been more fun.
We had Prime Minister Anthony Albanese travel to Washington finally
for his meeting with the big dog that is US
President Donald Trump. The meeting was a total hit, and
(00:22):
Albanese came home with a deal on critical mineral supply
and reassurances on the Aukus submarine pact for some bonus entertainment.
We saw the president publicly scold Kevin Rudd. Kevin from Queensland,
former PM and now Australian Ambassador to the US, here
to help us process this momentous week. We have our
chief political correspondent Paul chuckle as usual and we have
(00:45):
a very special new guest. We have a guy named
Bill shorten, who of course is the former opposition leader
and a cabinet minister, a man who's made a huge
contribution to political and public life in this country and
who is now the vice chancellor at the University of Canberra.
Bill shorten, welcome to Inside Politics.
S2 (01:03):
Thank you for having me on. Morning, Jack.
S1 (01:07):
Bill, you're running a university now. We just want to
ask you about the transition from politics. And there must
be a part of you, a little tiny, tiny part
of you that looks at the events of the week
with Anthony Albanese in the white House and thinks that
could have been me, because you were very much a contender.
S2 (01:24):
Ah, I'd have to say that part of me you
would need a microscope to find. Really. I find it
incredibly interesting. And obviously I want Australia to do as
well as we can. So the biggest emotion I had
watching the week was one of relief. I think it
went as well as any foreign leader's visits gone with
(01:45):
The Donald. So yeah, I was just relieved for Anthony.
I was relieved for the government and even more importantly,
I was relieved for Australia.
S3 (01:53):
It felt a little bit absurd just having to sign
you into the Parliament as a guest. And the security
people looked at you and thought, how is this bloke
a guest? How does it feel being back in here?
And are you like some of the other politicians who
the weaning off politics is like getting rid of a
drug addiction.
S2 (02:08):
Are listen again to. You know, I must be more
in touch with my emotional side since I've come on
this podcast in the last 38 seconds. But what was
really nice is that the lady attendant said, oh, Mr. Shorten,
we need to see your ID but for me, I'm
a glass half full guy. So I thought, oh, she
still remembers my name. No. And the security guards are lovely. So, um. Yeah.
(02:32):
But I'm glad to see that, you know, they've got
a system for me, and. Yeah, it's it's fine. I
must get around to getting a pass, but I think
the the the question underlying it, Paul, you're asking me
is am I missing the joint? Uh, no. I think
what happens is really important. But I've now got this
fabulous new job leading the University of Canberra. Uh, and
(02:53):
I can still impact the national interests by helping ensure
that people get good education. We do good research. So
I now live in Canberra. Uh, having flown here as
a sort of parliamentary mining town, fly in, fly out
for 17.5 years. I now live here. I'm not sure
my family's totally happy about that, but I've come around
(03:14):
to the getting used to Canberra. No, but I like
my new job. And, um, I'm pleased to see that
the mesmerising roller coaster which is President Trump in the administration,
I'm pleased to see that, um, Anthony dance between the
raindrops and seemed to get some good outcomes for Australia
and the way through.
S1 (03:33):
Yeah. So let's get into that, because whatever politics you
might still have, we're happy to help you scratch, if
that doesn't sound too.
S2 (03:40):
I'm still interested.
S1 (03:40):
Yes, we want to get into Albo in Washington. It
was obviously the story of the week. It was pretty
much the story. I watched the whole press conference again
last night, and I was just so intrigued by the
body language and the theatrics of it, and the way
that Donald Trump sort of imposes his control over the
whole show by putting down journalists, notably our own Michael Koziol.
S4 (04:00):
Where do you come from? What? Who are you with?
S5 (04:03):
Sydney morning Herald.
S4 (04:04):
Nasty guy. Go ahead.
S5 (04:06):
Sorry.
S4 (04:07):
All right. Go ahead.
S5 (04:08):
On your tummy.
S1 (04:10):
Anthony Albanese's to me seemed quite nervous at the beginning.
He was fiddling with his pen. He was fidgeting his
hands like that was a real tell. What do you think? You've.
You've met, you know, world leaders. You've been in high
stakes negotiations. You've been in these kinds of rooms, if
not the white House itself. What would Anthony Albanese have
been feeling going into that meeting?
S2 (04:31):
He would have been hyper prepared. Uh, I think the government,
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the government would
have war gamed, uh, this meeting within an inch of
its life, as they should. But what I really thought
was good is the rare Earths deal was clever at
the end of the day. Whatever else people think about
(04:52):
the government in America, they know they need rare minerals,
rare earths. And we came with a deal which was
in their sweet spot. So I think it was a
smart deal. It was a smart arrangement.
S4 (05:05):
You know, the man on my right has a big advantage.
You know that, right? But I think he's doing a
really I think he's doing a really good job. And
we've had a very good relationship. I don't want to
compare one.
S2 (05:15):
It was interesting. I don't know how they do the
protocols of do you sit down in an armchair opposite
The Donald, or do you sit at the big table?
I thought the big table was much more professional looking. Yeah. Anyway.
And obviously.
S3 (05:26):
Couches.
S2 (05:27):
Even though Kevin got some free character advice from the
Donald on the way through, I think Kevin must have
done some good behind the scenes work. I thought that
was Australian diplomacy at its most professional. And so yeah,
I'm sure Anthony knew that for all a sort of
laid back nature. We'll see him when we see him.
That was an important meeting. And if you weren't, I
(05:48):
don't claim to understand if he was nervous or not,
but if you weren't feeling nervous, you wouldn't be human. Yeah. Because,
you know, President Trump, you know, sort of probably has
more changeability than Melbourne weather.
S1 (06:01):
Yeah, I thought I thought he seemed nervous only because
of the hands, but then he mastered those nerves very,
very masterfully. Paul.
S3 (06:08):
Body language expert. Jack.
S1 (06:09):
Yeah, I was I think the theatrics of it are
really interesting. And maybe it's the novelist in me, but
I'm just looking at the sort of interpersonal stuff as
well as the political. But so, Paul, the overwhelming consensus
was the meeting was obviously a roaring success. We got
the critical minerals deal. I mean, you cannot pick fault
with that. It's like this beautiful confluence of timing opportunity.
But what about the Aukus stuff? Let's talk about Aukus
(06:30):
because that was a significant matter as well. We got
a lot of reassurances. Michael Koziol, our own reporter, asked
Trump about it, and Trump gave all these reassurances. Paul,
I'll go to you first. I mean, how much can
we count on those reassurances? On on aukus. Like what?
When you drill down, did we actually get anything on
Aukus from Trump?
S3 (06:49):
Yeah. Well, I think having him make a declarative comment
as he did was critical, even if there might have
been a bit of bluster in it, even though he
might have overruled his Navy chief sitting across the desk,
who said that there were still some tweaks with orcas
that needed to be looked at. Having Trump speak positively
about the deal, which has been up for review for
months now, was absolutely crucial because no matter what, Elbridge Colby,
(07:12):
the defense undersecretary in the Pentagon, thinks about the ability
for the US to give up subs in six years,
which had not been produced at a high enough quantity.
When you've got presidential authority, you put your seal on it.
So that was crucial for Australia. There are still obviously
big questions about how orcas lands in 5 or 6
years time. It's soaking up a lot of our defense budget.
(07:34):
There are still huge questions about whether the US will
give up subs in the end. And Bill, I thought
I'd just move to where we wanted to go next,
which was with these questions still looming over orcas and
how a future president might deal with Australia and whether
they'll be willing to hand these over. Do you think
there is still scope for an Australian government to do
(07:54):
more examination of the orcas deal? Would you have signed
up to orcas as quickly as this labor government did,
almost without review.
S2 (08:03):
Um, well, I think the first part was the importance
of President Trump endorsing orcas. I mean, the MAGA movement
which sustains Donald Trump's electoral success, the Make America Great
Again has a very strong isolationist tendency that they don't
want to get involved in the rest of the world's problems.
(08:25):
Leave them alone. And sometimes that aspect of President Trump's
policies emerges. But what I thought we saw on display
was the, I think for Australia, the more reassuring internationalist,
more classical republican play that they've got a role in
the world and without, you know, overhyping the China America
(08:48):
rivalry the Americans were giving at their most senior level, uh,
reassurance that Aukus is part of this MAGA administration. So
I think that was not to be underestimated. In terms
of your point about the scrutiny of the deal, like
this deal is going to be scrutinized for the next
(09:10):
20 years, like it's the auditing of this orcas scheme
and value is going to spawn university degrees and industries
of auditors.
S3 (09:20):
But the government hasn't examined it.
S2 (09:22):
I think you'll find the government does examine a lot
of its expenditure. Um, and the Americans have an expression
about momentum in politics, and they call it the big Mo.
And I think the orcas got some big Mo again
this week. And, you know, and the atmospherics of there's
(09:43):
no bigger circus or show on earth at the moment
than the Trump White House. It doesn't mean it's the
only thing happening in the world. It's obviously not. But, uh,
that was Australia's sort of 15 minutes in the big circus,
and we got out with our skin intact and a
deal done. So I yeah, I think this week was
(10:04):
quite remarkable.
S1 (10:05):
I note as well, I looked at the New York
Times website this morning and the, the, the main story
on the New York Times website is about America's sort
of deals on critical minerals. And you click through and
there's a big old photo of Anthony Albanese. So, I mean,
it's not often that that we would make international news
in that way or that an Australian prime minister would.
I want to ask you both about this other comment
that Trump made, though, kind of related to Aukus, where
(10:27):
he was asked about China and the threat of China
and whether or not China has any interest in invading Taiwan.
And he said, oh, I don't think we're going to
need it. When speaking about the Aukus pact, because he
doesn't think that President XI is going to make any
moves on Taiwan. And I thought that was an extraordinary
thing for an American president to say in the context
of having betted down this pact and, you know, made
(10:48):
sort of positive noises about this pact and then say, oh,
I don't think we're going to need it anyway. Paul,
why would he say that? Was it just bluster or
what's going on there.
S3 (10:56):
Yeah, I think he he said two things on orcas
in terms of its relation to China. He did say
explicitly that it was a deterrent and that that was
a key element of the orcas deal was to deter China.
But in the same breath, he made this comment that,
as you say, I don't think we're going to need
it because he has a benign view of President Xi's
intentions in relation to Taiwan. I think probably what you're
(11:18):
seeing there, it's a bit hard to read Trump. I
don't claim to have all the answers, but he's made
a bunch of different comments over his administration and in
his first term about his ability to through his unpredictability,
his kind of mercurial nature, and his threats to use
hard US power, his ability to keep people like XI,
like Putin, like actors in the Middle East, like Kim
(11:39):
Jong UN from North Korea, to keep them calm and
and through his kind of force of nature, stop them
from taking drastic action that might hurt us interests. I mean,
I don't think he was reflecting the strategic reality of
the relationship with China. The balance of power is much
more contested than he suggested. He said the US has
much more military might than China. In the Indo-Pacific. That's
(12:00):
just not right. According to analysts and his own chief advisers,
Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio and the chief of the Navy,
who were sitting on the same table as him, have
all said in recent months that China's threat in the
Indo-Pacific in relation to Taiwan is potentially imminent and a
crucial topic for concern of US strategy. So I think
there's Trump trying to keep the relationship with China from
(12:23):
not boiling over, particularly as he's about to meet XI,
as this trade war is becoming more real over critical minerals.
I think that was more politics and bluster than reflecting
US strategy.
S1 (12:35):
Bill, what did you make of that comment?
S2 (12:37):
I think, um, Western strategists almost have a twin track
strategy about China and Taiwan. On one hand, it's certainly
the case that the defense establishment and our security agencies
are very conscious of Chinese espionage and their military expansion.
(13:00):
But on the other hand, we recognize that you never
want to put someone in a corner where they feel
there's only one option. Yeah. So I don't know if
there was any conscious strategy in what President Trump said
by sort of not always using bellicose language about China.
I mean, I recently had the opportunity to go to
Taiwan to visit with Taiwanese universities. And I was curious,
(13:22):
what is the sort of person in the street in Taiwan?
Think about China. And I can't pretend after five days
I worked that all out. But I think Taiwanese people
know they've got a neighbor who's very different to them.
But they weren't perhaps as obsessed about imminent Chinese conflict
as some of our Western agencies. But whether or not
(13:45):
that's because people have learned to sort of live with
their neighbor without necessarily fully trusting their neighbor, that could
be it. But I thought, I'm quite happy when I
hear world leaders not talk in a bellicose fashion. So,
you know, again, take your wins. And I think though,
the security establishments are still very mindful of China. And
(14:08):
I think one of the big challenges for Western leaders
is that a lot of Western leaders and politicians operate
on personal relationships and negotiations, whereas I think some of
the more autocratic countries, it's not just about personal relationships.
And I think sometimes Western liberal democracies struggle with the
(14:28):
notion that you might have people or nations who just
don't care about the rule of law. I'm not putting
China fully in that category. But take, for instance, Russia.
You could have a personal relationship with Putin, but I'm
not sure that changes any facts on the ground about
Russian expansionism.
S3 (14:44):
Do you think the PM struck up a did it
look like a real rapport with Trump? Do you think
Trump would call the PM if he's wondering about China strategy.
S2 (14:51):
Even accepting my rubric that perhaps we sometimes deal with
dictatorships and authoritarian countries for whom personal relationships aren't the
sort of meat and potatoes of politics. I think with Trump,
personal relationships is important. I also think that Trump has
a worldview and, you know, whether or not you agree
(15:12):
with it or not, he seems to like winners. Anthony's
victory in May of this year was pretty decisive.
S1 (15:19):
And he mentioned that. I mean, he really mentioned that
he's aware of that. Um, yeah, Trump mentioned that. I mean.
S2 (15:26):
Whether or not you think that's the right logic to have.
I mean, also, apparently Trump likes people who are physically pleasing,
you know, and, uh.
S3 (15:33):
His elbow physically.
S2 (15:34):
Pleasing, you know.
S1 (15:35):
Well, I don't think we can accuse our prime minister
of that, but let's not make personal comments about people's looks.
S2 (15:42):
No, no, no, I was talking about Trump. But mind you,
talking about personal comments, one of the sort of sideshows
of the whole visit was the media's sort of love
hate with The Donald.
S1 (15:53):
You know, I know.
S2 (15:54):
As much as I'm sure journalists hate being told off
by them. I feel that they must sort of swagger
back into their media rooms in Australia and say, hey, yeah,
he insulted me. So. Oh yeah, it's a sort of
a sort of bondage relationship.
S1 (16:07):
It's like a badge of honour, I reckon. Now it's
all good for business if you're a journalist.
S2 (16:11):
Yeah, it's a bit like it's right up there with
being blacklisted by the Russians.
S1 (16:15):
Yeah, yeah. So it's all good for business.
S3 (16:17):
I wanted to ask you about something. Sean Carney, our columnist,
wrote today. He talked about the elements of luck and
circumstance that have led to the Prime Minister being in
the position he's in. He's often been quite critical of
the Prime Minister, I should say. He mentioned that the
PM was in the UK talking about our lack of
illegal immigration being a key reason we don't have a
populist right movement. The Prime Minister obviously fought very hard
(16:37):
against that policy in 2015. When you shifted Labour policy
on that question in response to the turn back policy,
you've also, as a leader of the Labour right, fought
against Albaneses left faction since you were at university in
terms of how the Labor Party should relate to the
US and how strongly it should support the US Alliance,
someone who's known him for a long time. The Prime
(16:58):
Minister said to me last week that he's growing in
the role because he's turning into someone who puts stewardship
of the country and nurturing of our institutions ahead of
his personal ideology. Do you see him growing into the
role in that way?
S2 (17:12):
You watch people get elected and some shrink and some grow.
And I think Anthony's clearly in the he's doing better.
Each experience builds his confidence. And also just you learn
valuable lessons. You can't really understand leadership until you've been there. And, um,
(17:33):
whilst I haven't been prime minister, I know what it's
like to lead the party. And you just see he
backs his own judgement a fair bit. And I think
that's what a leader actually has to do. When you're
a leader of a mainstream political party in this country,
you get a lot of advice. You get a lot
of people saying, don't do this, don't do that. And
sometimes that advice can be crippling. You wouldn't get out
(17:54):
of bed in the morning. You'd pull the doona over
because everyone says, do this, do that. And what I
see is, uh, Anthony certainly backing his judgment. And so
I think he is stepping up in the job. And
I think there'd be conservatives who would say that, too. Yeah.
Having said that, you went back to that earlier point. Yeah.
There's no question that I've always supported the American Alliance.
(18:16):
And indeed I supported boat turn backs. And not everyone
in the party has. But hey, he mightn't have the job,
but it would seem that some of the positions I
took ten years ago seem to be the right call. So,
you know, that's.
S1 (18:28):
And hopefully on a future podcast, we're going to get
you back and talk about some of the sort of
more controversial economic policies you took to the 2019 election
and whether or not you're right on those, and you'll
be proven right one day. But that's, that's a, that's a,
that's a conversation for another time. We need to talk
about Kevin because speaking of Anthony Albanese backing in his
own judgment, Kevin obviously got a dressing down very publicly.
S4 (18:50):
Where is he? Is he still working for you?
S6 (18:52):
Yeah, yeah.
S4 (18:55):
You said bad.
S6 (18:57):
Before I took this position, Mr. President.
S4 (18:59):
I don't like you either. I don't, and I probably
never will. Go ahead.
S1 (19:04):
There might be many of Kevin's former parliamentary colleagues who
could relate to that sentiment. Rudd, I think, recovered pretty well. Paul,
you know that from your extended research that Rudd actually
did a lot behind the scenes to make this meeting
happen and to make the critical minerals deal happen? Isn't
that right?
S3 (19:21):
Yeah, I think there's that is absolutely right. There's a
there's a kind of paradox with Rudd and his work
in the US. There's a school of thought, and I
think there's some truth to it that he struggles with
access in parts of the white House. There are some
people around Trump who are not fans of Rudd, and
that does limit his access in some regards, where a
person like Joe Hockey or Arthur Sinodinos would not have struggled.
(19:42):
But in other regards, Rudd works the Congress incredibly hard.
He works Trump's cabinet incredibly hard. He's got good relationships
with Scott Bessent, with Jamieson Greer and with Howard Lutnick,
and he's also got fantastic contacts inside the State Department
with Marco Rubio and inside the Pentagon to this critical
minerals deal was faltering for months. In the early part
(20:04):
of this year, we put it on the table to
the Americans when Trump threatened tariffs. It fell over. Rudd
didn't stop working. He's been bringing miners and the heads
of BHP and Rio into the white House to meet
with Trump on some occasions, and he's just worked with,
from all reports, incredible energy night and day to convince
the Americans that we are the pathway through their issue
(20:25):
to their dispute with China. So I think he deserves
great credit. Tony Abbott gave him credit this week. Various
others did who you wouldn't consider typical allies of Rudd.
And I think Susan Lee's overreach calling for him to
be or effectively calling for him to be sacked also
really helped Albanese because even though there was that very
awkward moment with Trump that did cast doubt on Rudd's role,
the overreach meant that the criticism wasn't taken seriously.
S1 (20:48):
Bill, do you have anything to add to that?
S2 (20:50):
I think Kevin did well. He I agree with a
lot of Paul's analysis. Um, you know, was it a
bit gratuitous of the PM? Sorry, of the president to
sledge him? I don't know. You know, part of me
as an Australian doesn't want to see an Australian dressed
down by someone else. I don't care what party or
what you think of the Aussie. You know, you want
to stand up for the Australian. But listen, I thought, uh,
(21:13):
if this was Anthony's big success, I think it was certainly, uh,
some of it's due to Kevin, and I think he
deserves some credit for that. Love him or hate him,
you can't take away, I think, from Paul's.
S3 (21:25):
Should he be extended his term? It's up. Up next year.
S2 (21:28):
Uh, it's not up to me.
S1 (21:29):
Do you think? I mean, obviously you ousted him or
you were instrumental in ousting him from the prime ministership. Um,
if we don't want to rake over the past. But
it is on the public record.
S2 (21:39):
What is it about? If we don't want to rake
over the past, you then start raking over the past.
I'm just trying to work out the self-awareness question.
S1 (21:45):
These sort of nasty sort of, um, you know, um, skeletons.
S2 (21:48):
Our listeners, we're not torturing you to bring it up.
But anyway, we're not, like, tickling you with a feather
and making you just go there.
S3 (21:55):
I was secretly hoping she brought it up.
S2 (21:56):
What's been happening is that Kevin Rudd was a very
good prime minister, and we've done some remarkable things since
defeating John Howard. But I think you'd have to live
on the moon to think that this government wasn't off
track seriously, in the last few months. Certainly, I did
speak to the then deputy Prime minister, now our Prime minister,
and say that she should think about this.
S7 (22:16):
When did you first do that? On Wednesday. And so
what has happened with this matter is that she gave
it a great deal of serious reflection. It's a serious issue.
S1 (22:27):
There is a point to my question or to me
bringing it up. You knew what his weaknesses were as
a leader and a prime minister, very obviously. Do you think, actually,
his idiosyncrasies and his talents are very well suited to
this kind of role, which is more wonky, which is
kind of putting people together behind the scenes and quietly working,
you know, Congress or quietly working cabinet or whatever.
S2 (22:47):
I think he's suited to this role. Yeah, I've watched
some of the, you know, more right wing people clutch
their pearls and hyperventilate over Kevin and Kevin's not some
sort of Mar a Lago drinking buddy of the president. Therefore,
you know, he doesn't play a round of golf like
Greg Norman. Is he the right guy to have there?
But I think Kevin's proved that he's more than stood
(23:10):
up as the ambassador to the US.
S1 (23:12):
Kevin's doing it Kevin's way.
S3 (23:14):
Bill, he's here to help.
S1 (23:15):
Exactly. He always has been. Bill, you've been an opposition leader, obviously.
Do you feel for Susan Lee at the present moment
because Albanese is riding so high? I mean, he's going
to come back from this trip completely triumphant. You know,
he's polling position couldn't be better. She tried to land
a punch on the prime minister over the Rudd thing.
It really didn't work. And then she had to back
(23:36):
off it. If you were in opposition right now, if
you were Sussan Ley right now, what would you be
focusing on, given that Albanese is in such a strong position?
S2 (23:45):
Go domestic. Don't play in the foreign affairs patch. You know,
sometimes an opposition leader will feel the need to say something,
to say anything, but you don't have to be out
there in the media every day and never fight on
your opponent's ground when your opponent's doing well on that ground. Yeah.
So if I was her, you just got to look
(24:05):
like she's batting for Team Australia and, um, then get
back to domestic issues or an issue, which she thinks
she's on better ground. But anyway, as you always know,
being opposition leader, everyone can do your job better than you,
and they will frequently tell you that. But don't fight
on your opponent's ground when your opponent's sort of kicking
with the breeze and doing really well.
S1 (24:27):
Okay, so what ground should she fight on then?
S2 (24:30):
Oh.
S1 (24:32):
Give her a few tips. Come on.
S2 (24:34):
Well, the first thing you've got to do is, uh,
deal with your own. Deal with the reasons why your
own party lost. See, if you don't do a bit
of a mea culpa and you don't deal with issues
of substance, that's why. Should anyone think you've learnt anything?
See if you don't recognise that you had policies which
(24:54):
are the reason why you lost. Then the electorate might
reasonably conclude you haven't worked it out and you don't
respect their verdict. And this was a pretty big verdict.
So I don't know. They've got themselves you know, they're
more lost than Burke and Wills on climate change. But
I don't think it's just that. I think you've got
to deal with your own baggage. And like in 2013, 2014,
(25:18):
we had three areas of baggage. We were not united.
We had a problem with the boats. We had a
problem with the carbon tax. So I made clear we
wouldn't be reintroducing a carbon tax. I talked to the
party conference, a view which said we would turn back
boats and we stopped talking about ourselves. So to some extent,
(25:43):
before you can engage the electorate, you've got to demonstrate
your teams united and deal with a couple of the issues.
You know, the libs have still got this soft underbelly
about workplace relations and that working from home policy was. Wow.
That was a you know, that was a it was
like the Titanic of policies.
S1 (26:02):
It was as though they had spoken to a working
parent anywhere around the country in sort of the life.
It was like they.
S2 (26:09):
Were listening to the Restaurant and Caterers Association in the CBD.
Who wants people in for lunch, and property developers who have,
you know, buildings in the city which were not as
full as they used to be, but that was a
cost of living issue for families. If you didn't need
to go into work five days a week, you were
not paying the tolls. You're not paying the petrol, you're
not paying the childcare. You know.
S3 (26:31):
How did you fix the because one of her biggest problems,
Susan Lee, is fixing the internal issues. And it looks
with so many of these bus stops she's having with
Hastie and Price and others. Yeah. There's no communication going
on in the party. The disparate groups aren't even talking
to one another. I mean, your chief rival in 20 1314,
when large part was the now prime minister, how did
you deal with the internal problems then? How did you
(26:52):
soothe that all? What are the lessons?
S2 (26:55):
Well, one of the things I did when I was
leader is I made sure that all the different views
were sitting at the shadow cabinet table. You got to
bring people in. You've also got to try and get
agreement on what went wrong. You don't have to like
each other, but you've got to an agreement on what
went wrong. And the borders issue had bedeviled Labour, and
we really did put that issue to bed in that
(27:18):
first term. And it wasn't easy. A lot of people
were upset. Uh, so I'm not saying if I was.
The coalition have to junk everything you believe in, but
I think they've got to deal with their here's a
they've got to pick out a couple of issues out
of the coalition. Too hard basket and deal with it.
And again, you know, there might be coalition supporters, diehards
(27:39):
listening to this podcast who say, well, Bill would say
what he's about to say, but I will say it anyway. Um,
they've got to do something about their women issue. And
by that I mean pre-selections like why the liberals are
turning themselves inside out over affirmative action. Like, these people
are really eagerly awaiting the arrival of the 20th century.
(28:01):
I know.
S1 (28:02):
I mean, I've written so much on that, and I
find it confounding because it's just it's just pragmatic. At
this point, it's like, we know.
S2 (28:09):
It.
S1 (28:09):
Works. Yeah, it's low hanging fruit. We know it works.
It'll get you where you need to go. Why wouldn't
you press the button? We have run out of time.
And Bill, we have to release you to go back
to being a fusty academic over at the University of Canberra.
S2 (28:21):
My brain is already bigger.
S3 (28:22):
Are they making you, professor?
S1 (28:23):
Like, you know, smoking a pipe and kind of. Have
you got one of those jackets with the leather patches
on the.
S2 (28:28):
Oh, I'll tell you what's alarming. Paul has got a
jacket which would fit him right in the school of
journalism or, you know, government. Uh, we've got to make
him an adjunct professor.
S1 (28:39):
He should, professor Paul.
S2 (28:41):
It's very.
S3 (28:42):
Academic. Not be valuable.
S1 (28:44):
All right. We've made too many personal comments on people's appearance.
This this podcast. We've got to stop.
S2 (28:49):
I've only been complimentary.
S1 (28:50):
You have nicely. Um, Bill, it's been such a pleasure
to have you. It was really fun. Um, we hope
we can get you back again. And thanks for thanks
for coming in.
S2 (28:59):
Thanks for asking my opinion. It's very flattering.
S1 (29:01):
And thanks to you, too, Paul.
S3 (29:03):
Professor Paul, hope that.
S2 (29:05):
Professor Paul. Alright, thanks. Cheers.
S1 (29:11):
Today's episode was produced by Julia Carr Katzel, with technical
assistance from Kai Wong and Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, with special thanks to Tom McKendrick and
Lisa Muxworthy. To listen to our episodes as soon as
they drop, follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere
else you listen to your podcasts. To stay up to
(29:31):
date with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The
Age and The Sydney Morning Herald website. To support our journalism,
subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. I'm
Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.