Whose economic summit is it anyway?

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hey folks, PK's on her way, but I'm Erin Park, host of the new podcast series, Expanse, Nowhere Man.

This story has taken me from the searing heat of the great sandy desert to the freezing heart of Alaska as I try to understand why American Robert Baguki plunged into the Australian wilderness on purpose, pushing himself to the brink of death.

You can binge the entire series now.

Expanse.

Nowhere, ma'am.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in a sensible centre, but our Liberal Party reflects a range of views.

Politics is the brutal game of arithmetic, but no one's going to vote for you who don't stand for something.

We've always been about the planet, but we've got to make sure that people have their daily needs met.

People are starting to see that there is actually a different way of doing politics.

Hello and welcome to the party room.

I'm Patricia Carvallis and I'm joining you from Rundry Country in Melbourne.

And I'm Fran Kelly on the Gadigouland of Eora Nation here in Sydney and PK productivity is the name of the game in political circles at the moment.

Never thought I'd sound so excited to be saying that.

This all comes ahead of next week's economic roundtable.

Even the RBA rate cut that had the treasurer dancing in the aisles was overshadowed by the productivity crisis, the Reserve Bank governor really coming out with it and sort of knocking the edges off the Treasurer's joy, warning that our living standards are going backwards, our productivity rate dropped to even lower than forecast.

So, you know, take that Treasurer.

But, you know, I guess that's why we need Jim Chalmers round table.

So in a way, it's really great timing.

We've got to start dancing with this dragon.

But before we get into all the signs around this summit, PK, the week kicked off with an historic, and this really was a momentous announcement by the Prime Minister.

Not altogether surprising, of course, because there'd been a lot of things leading up to it, but really quite a momentous announcement that Australia will recognise Palestinian statehood.

I can confirm that at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September, Australia will recognise the state of Palestine.

Australia will recognise the right of the Palestinian people to to a state of their own, predicated on the commitments Australia has received from the Palestinian Authority.

Now, as I say, no great surprise given our friends and allies in France and Canada and the UK had just done the same thing, but the announcement kicked off a really heated political debate here in Australia.

And we're going to go through all that with our colleague, Mel Clark.

Radio National Breakfast Political Correspondent, of course.

So we're going to talk about all that in a moment.

But PK, when it comes to politics for the aficionados, there were breakouts of tensions in the government this week that got people talking, not talking overthrow, but talking, you know, it certainly looked certainly looked from the outside a bit of an arm wrestle over the messages coming from the Prime Minister and the messages coming from the Treasurer ahead of the roundtable.

I mean, first question, I guess, is whose baby is this?

Well, it was the Prime Minister's original baby, as in he tasked the Treasurer with this idea of putting people together on a sort of productivity roundtable idea.

So gave him the job, if you like.

And then the treasurer went and started that job.

The treasurer being a guy who is very ambitious, wants to do big things, doesn't like this reputation that he feels, well, he rightly feels

is

shrouding, overcoming the government, which is that they are timid or frightened

too incremental.

He He doesn't mind a bit of incremental because you've got to be reasonable.

And so, you know, he kind of widened its remit and wanted it to be the place where big, bold ideas, and that's where taxation and bigger economic ideas came through, not just

the low-hanging fruit that the Prime Minister now talks about.

And so there appeared to be, well, not appeared, there were, a different form of words being used by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister.

Now, the Press Gallery, and you know i was a member of those guys for a long time i also spent a lot of the sitting weeks in canberra so i'm kind of a de facto member absolutely um the press gallery loves a bit of a dispute between a treasurer and a prime minister you can go through many governments many generations where they exist and where the press gallery gets excited about reporting on them not that they're not true the press gallery is correct in reporting on them i want to be clear about that but something delicious about the two dudes and sadly still dudes

sadly broadly you know across many governments always dudes having this kind of tension often there's a very much a leadership lens on it too that people put you know the treasurer think Keating think Costello being hungry and eager for the top job wanting to do something that a prime minister who's keenly thinking about the politics, i.e., if we go too far, people will reject us or we'll have problems selling it.

And so all of a sudden, it became a bit of a vibe that there was an internal issue.

And then all of a sudden, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer started being...

pretty much hammered with questions in many ways about the tension.

The Prime Minister was with Sam Brulee and got questioned about, you know,

does he talk to the Treasurer every day?

And he got really like, I talk to him, whether it's a message or, you know, every day we have contact.

And he got a bit shirty.

He He gets a bit like that, doesn't he?

He got a bit cranky about the questions.

Then the treasurer, you could hear, I can always tell, I've known the guy for a very long time,

fellow Gen Xer, I could hear, you know, his frustration too, that there's this lens.

We are aligned.

We have an ambitious agenda that we're focused on delivering.

And this economic reform roundtable is...

And now I feel like a bit kumbaya.

They've come full circle.

There's a bit more unity in the form of language they're using.

I don't think they enjoy that this is getting a bit out of control in the rhetoric.

That's how I understand it.

Is there a substantial difference between them?

I think there are differences, 100%,

but I don't think they're so substantial that the government is in any sort of crisis, Fran.

But it's a thing.

It's a bit of a thing.

Yeah, it's not a crisis.

Look, this is a sort of tale as old as time.

When I first, the first day I started in the press gallery many moons ago, there were posses of journalists literally running through Parliament House because the tensions were on between Paul Keating, treasurer, Bob Hawke, Prime Minister.

And that, you know, that ultimately bubbled up into a leadership thing that changed the leadership.

So these happened.

You know, there was the Paul Keating Placido Domingo speech at the National Press Club, which was many people interpreted as a leadership pitch from the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, because he was talking big ideas.

Jim Chalmers, as you say, likes to talk big ideas.

He writes op-eds in papers at the start of the year to give us a big idea.

He reads the book Abundance and gives it to

all and sundry because this is a big idea.

That's how he likes to be framed.

That's what he wants to be seen to be doing to shaping big ideas.

So, you know, ultimately, over time, this would, I think, inevitably come to some kind of real tension.

I don't think we're there yet at all.

You know, just remember, Paul Keating, back, way back

in the Hawke government, had a tax summit.

He had a tax summit.

It was his.

Bob Hawke came out and clobbered the big idea out of that tax summit over the head and said, no, we're not doing that.

It's what happens.

Prime Ministers have to look at winning and getting a whole lot, a breadth of ideas and policies coming up from all their cabinet ministers, sort of through the parliament, and the treasurers don't necessarily get to call a shot.

But, you know, the prime minister stood at the the press club just after they were elected this time and said, the commitments that the public voted for in May are the foundation of our mandate.

They are not the limits of our responsibilities or our vision.

So he doesn't want to be seen as the guy who's got no vision, no big picture, no reform.

And I think he made that clear in the same Sabra Lane interview this week, PK.

I'm up for big reform.

And we are a big reforming government.

The changes that we're putting in place.

And yet at the same time, then he goes and says some things like the only tax policy we're implementing is the one we took to the last election.

So there are tensions, but I think this is just path for the course when you've got a need in this nation to boost our economy, to boost productivity, to boost investment.

boost innovation.

We really have to do that.

And when the Treasurer says he wants all these people to come around the table and let 100 flowers bloom, he means that.

It's just that they're not all going to get taken up.

And we're getting a clearer and clearer picture now, what are we, a few days out from this roundtable of what is going to get taken up most likely?

And that's going to be around productivity, pure and simple.

I think it'll be around things like you know, regulation and getting more houses building by simplifying the building code, things like that.

I think there'll be a lot of ideas, and the government's going to start moving on a few of them, and it's pretty clear already where they're going.

I think we are finally hearing from the Prime Minister a really clear form of language on the the strategy too.

It's been refined and it seems closer now because they've clearly worked through it with the treasurer.

He talked about it, you know, in three stages basically.

The low-hanging fruit, that's next week.

You're right, that's the sign-off.

And we'll get to with Mel in a minute, the

leaked treasury document, which goes to that.

That's the sort of stuff I think that they can do more easily.

Okay, so there's that.

Then there's the budget process, stuff that's more intermediary and difficult.

And then the next term.

And he's put it that way.

He didn't originally so clearly.

And I think that's consistent with Jim Chalmers' broad view.

The difference that I still see is this.

I think the Prime Minister, and I will give this analysis before we ring Mel in, because I think it's a little bit,

you know, from speaking to a lot of people who are close to these people, you know, like lots of voices in the rooms, yeah?

Prime Minister's view broadly is that the success of this government has been the incrementalism, and we'll explain, the carefulness, the methodical carefulness of

that, right?

And that this landslide is linked to it, that it's because they didn't freak anyone out, that they built a consensus, for instance, around getting rid of the stage three tax cuts.

They didn't rush to it.

This is what he believes.

You're not saying he's uncomfortable, are you, Piquet?

I'm sort of saying that, actually, yeah.

The treasurer, however, and I've got this from sources close to him, right, like people who speak to him a lot, because I'm like,

what is this difference?

That's part of my, you know, trying to get to the bottom of it.

He thinks that, as he's told his, you know, colleagues that reported, and I trust some of these sources, he thinks that there's been an over.

over analysis that the landslide is linked to that that carefulness and that that won't that that's not the lesson that that's that's been over understood as the lesson so in some ways their political analysis which leads to the behavior is different about the history I reckon that's really interesting Fran because if your analysis on what's happened is so different then the what you want to do next can be quite different too do you do you see what I'm saying yeah I do um and ultimately of course the prime minister calls a shot and Jim Chalmers knows that and he knows that his job and the job of of all the cabinet ministers is to make the prime minister sort of look strong and front and centre and the government positive and moving forward so you know Jim Chalmers probably does have I'm sure you're right has a different reading on the election outcome but

you know, his job in the next few years is to persuade the Prime Minister of that, I guess, and he'll be doing what he can to get, you know, the sense of what the population wants and build that consensus.

And that's what part part of this bringing people around the table is all about.

Should we bring our guest in?

Yeah, let's do it.

Melissa Clark, ABC Radio National Breakfast Political Correspondent.

Welcome to the party room.

Thanks for having me back.

Mel, it's always great to have you and you have such busy mornings.

I'm always thrilled when you can spare us the time.

Mel, this week the Prime Minister stood up and announced Australia would recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September.

Now, Mel, just two weeks ago the PM said on Insiders that recognition wasn't imminent.

So was the timing of this announcement rather than the announcement itself, was it in the end quite a surprise?

Things seem to move to this point quite quickly, finally.

Yeah, I think there's two really critical things here.

One is the government's strategy and the other is what happened in those two weeks.

And I think when the government was talking two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was on Insiders, he was beginning a very concerted campaign of preparing the public for this shift.

And I think there were deliberate vagueness

around those ideas of there'll be certain conditions attached and how it might happen.

I think it was deliberately vague because at that point, the government just wanted the public to get used to the idea that a change was probably coming.

It was preparing the ground for it.

So I think there was deliberate ambiguity.

And then there's the what's happened in the last two weeks.

And the Prime Minister keeps pointing back to two phone calls in particular.

And they're phone calls with Mahmoud Abbas as the head of the Palestinian Authority and with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister.

I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about

the consequences.

He's been been quite firm in how he's described those calls and has sort of characterised them more than he normally does when he talks about discussions he has with other leaders and saying that he had been given these personal commitments from Mahmoud Abbas, which obviously echo commitments that the Palestinian Authority have been giving in their other talks internationally with the Arab League states, with France and other countries involved in that push ahead of the UN meeting in September.

So clearly he was satisfied to some extent with what he was hearing in that phone call.

And then the phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu where I think Anthony Albanese has been pretty loose about in describing this, is saying that Benjamin Netanyahu is in denial about the circumstances of the conditions that civilians are facing on the ground in Gaza and that he felt that Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't recognising that there had been no progress towards a political outcome over the last 12 months since they'd last spoken.

And that really seemed to cement his view that this was the right course of action.

Yeah,

I think that's really well explained, actually, in terms of the transition first to getting the public ready and then the extra elements.

But it has...

I think we should have always predicted this, but it's kind of got a little more difficult for the government, I think, in the last 24 hours, recording this on a Thursday as we do,

where

the way Hamas has framed this or well

one maybe person from Hamas help me out here Fran I mean that's more complicated too isn't it well yeah it is in fact you know we've just heard this morning here through the ABC through another senior Hamas official saying that that's you know that that's not there that guy is in prison and is not saying those things and you know so this is it's reported by the nine papers I'm not saying they're misreporting something but there is you know, dual stories coming out of Hamas here right now.

Yeah, about whether, just to go to the substance of it, about whether, you know, they're congratulating Albanese and other governments that have recognised Palestine, whether this is a win for the Hamas agenda.

Because the opposition, Mel,

is very much jumping on that to say, you know, that the Prime Minister has played into their hands.

This is what the terrorists want.

Look, this is something that the coalition has jumped on.

Prime Minister, if you've got a listed terrorist organisation cheering on your foreign policy, it might be time to admit that you got it wrong.

And I think that was fairly predictable, but of course they're going to point to something that underscores the argument that they have been making, that this is a reward for Hamas, that Hamas would welcome this.

And if you're doing something that is being praised by a terrorist group, you should probably rethink what you're doing.

That's been the line from Susan Lee as the opposition leader, Michaelia Cash as the foreign affairs shadow minister making the same point.

I do think it is

a strong point point at which politically we have the major parties butting head on what is an unusual and growing divide on a foreign policy issue.

Historically there have been very limited differences on most foreign policy issues between the two major parties.

So in that sense it's important.

But I think the Hamas statement, to be frank, I think it's a bit of grist for the mill that we'll have moved on from in 24 to 48 hours.

It was predictable that this kind of response would come.

I think the preparation work that the government had done in preparing people for this announcement, in that they probably, you know, your average person paying passing attention has probably considered that, oh, is this what Hamas wants?

I don't know.

I've already heard debate about it for two weeks.

Now it happens.

The opposition makes its criticism.

I don't think there's a lasting impact here.

I think for people who already have views on this issue, it will cement their views.

And I think for the average person that's only paying passing attention, a statement from Hamas

is not going to make an impact in the way the visuals that we have seen of

starvation and deprivation has had an impact.

So I think this will be a very short-term element.

Well, particularly when the Prime Minister's sort of statement had conditions that, you know, Hamas would have to give up his weapons, Hamas would have no part in running the future state of Palestine once it's established.

You know, that

this is a government and an election that would have to happen where Hamas can play no part.

So that's the government's point.

I mean, it's a fair observation, I suppose, to say what pressure can we bear to make sure those conditions are met.

But the opposition, Mel, went very hard, as you said,

with its criticisms and then went to the point saying the coalition, Susan Lee, the opposition leader, says the coalition would revoke recognition of a Palestinian state if it won government.

Now, Mel,

How realistic is that?

We're talking three years away for a start, but at least it's a bit premature to be promising something like that, isn't it?

Especially when our closest allies are on board with this at the moment.

Look, Fran, I don't even know what's going to happen in the next two weeks, let alone the next three years.

I know, it's so wild.

There's so many unknowns, right?

There's a lot of water, exactly.

There's a lot of water to go under the bridge.

I think we need to see what happens in the next couple of weeks, what happens when we get to the UN in September.

I think we need to see at what point President Donald Trump re-engages with the conflict in the Middle East, while his attention right now is very much focused on Ukraine and his forthcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin.

I think let's get through the next couple of weeks.

The idea of revoking something that hasn't even happened yet and who knows what's going to happen in the next three years at least,

yeah,

I can understand why they make that.

It cements, make that commitment, it cements their

criticism of the government.

Yeah, but it's extremely tainted, but it doesn't

it does feel very pie in in the sky.

It's a scenario that is well beyond the realms of what we can consider of the reality in front of us now with the international movements that are going on.

It is extreme.

I agree with you about the sort of wash-up of it for sure.

But I suppose it's one of those things that

this helps the coalition, I think, in trying to divert from the broader crisis to sort of go, look over here, when there has been the starvation crisis.

I just think

it's been a helpful intervention for them to kind of divert their attention.

I want to get one more comment from you, if I can, Mel, which I think is just interesting.

The other day, I'm sure she said it since, but I heard Susan Lee for the first time frame some language, which I was really fascinated by, which were a little Peter Dutton-esque

in relation to the Prime Minister being distracted by wars,

right?

Distracted, wars,

where have I heard this before?

And not being interested in the bread and butter issues, the cost of living issues for Australians.

Now, the reason it seemed a little piqued my interest is distracted?

I don't know, right?

Like there's a starvation crisis, 60,000 people have died, at least.

It's a pretty big issue.

The entire world is activated on it.

And at the same time, in terms of cost of living crisis, got inflation going down.

We've got unemployment levels.

Interest rates wonderfully going down for me, someone with a more

using the language,

like broadly, not identical, but of Peter Dutton at times to try and kind of quiz the Prime Minister's focus.

But interestingly, everything is different, I think.

Like the level of the crisis is different.

The level of

the sort of Australian situation is different.

What's going on?

Is she just trying stuff?

Well, Piquet, if I can jump in, Mel, too.

I heard that as well, and I just thought it sounded ridiculous.

I mean, a Prime Minister has to lead a nation across a number of fronts, including on the global stage.

And when you've got all these other national leaders coming out, what we want our country to not be a part of these big debates and big discussions.

I just thought

it didn't land.

I'm thinking I'm agreeing with you.

It didn't land for all those other reasons you said, which I hadn't really thought about, about the the cost of living crisis, but also because it's inappropriate, I think, to think that our Prime Minister wouldn't be engaged in these courts of global debates.

What do you think, Mel?

Yeah, this is interesting because we've all heard the one thing, and I think we've all heard slightly different things.

Because when I heard Susan Lee make those comments, my first thought was, is she talking to the public or is she talking to her own party?

Because there has been a big emphasis post-the-election loss, concern that the Liberal Party had strayed too much into culture wars and not focused enough on cost of living and that contributing or being a contributing factor to their large election loss.

And in speaking to a lot of people in the coalition in recent weeks about this issue, there are many who want to talk on this issue, for whom they feel it's very important, that they want to talk about it, but feel that they need to also talk about their respective portfolio areas so that they don't get in trouble from

the Leader of the Opposition's office because it's not actually what they're meant to be talking about.

So when I heard Susan Lee talk about needing to focus at home, I wondered how much of that was directed at her own party.

That's really interesting.

I didn't hear it quite like that, but that is fascinating.

She's also focusing on it, though, isn't she?

Yeah, well,

I would say more reluctantly than many of her colleagues.

I think many of her colleagues are much more exercised about this and much more comfortable on this topic area than she is.

Mel,

just to bring it back home and the domestic agenda, which is what Susan Lee is saying we should focus on, we're caught up in the preparation for the productivity roundtable and Pika and I have been talking to sort of about the dynamics between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister ahead of this.

It's been renamed the Economic Roundtable.

This week the focus very much reverted to productivity focus, thanks to the RBA in particular.

Are we getting a clear idea of what the government wants to come out of this?

Is this a foregone conclusion or is that overstating the control factor?

Look, is it overstating?

That's a good question.

I think there is a degree of coordination going on and I don't think that's in any way surprising.

I think if you just got a whole bunch of people together, threw around ideas and weren't trying to shape it in one direction, it'd be a total mess.

So I'm not surprised that the government has pretty clear ideas about where it wants to go.

And to be clear, this is sort of the culmination.

You know, the three days of roundtable that we have next week is sort of the culmination of a process that has been underway for several weeks.

There's been sort of formal roundtables at lower ministerial levels that have been underway.

There's lots of discussion going on between participants who've already been invited and already understand what areas that they're sort of being invited to present on.

It's not surprising that there has already been shape to this.

Yeah, that work work always happens, right?

I mean that's...

Absolutely.

I do think there is room for things to be pushed more if there is coordination for that.

But I think the government is benefiting from the fact that many of the people involved in this process are all coming with their hobby horses and aren't necessarily coalescing in a way that really forces the government to address some of the bigger and broader ideas that they're doing.

What I think we have seen is Anthony Albanese in particular, but Jim Chalmers is too recognising that there does need to be limitations on what the expectations are coming out of this.

And I think some of the language from the Prime Minister was really instructive in saying this isn't about forming government policy, this is about informing the government as it considers policies.

So I think what we'll get is the several days of the roundtable that will then give the government a mandate to look for.

I mean, there might be some things they can immediately implement.

You know, I know you were talking about the National Construction Code, for example, as an example of something you could immediately say, give people a bit of certainty.

I think there's probably some things like, all right, we've got a backlog of planning approvals around housing or renewable energy projects where we're not proposing to change the EPBC Act right now, but what we can do is maybe throw a bit more money, get to try and speed up some of those assessments whilst we go away and do the harder work of thinking about how we get EPBC Act reform through.

And I think that's how they'll approach it.

What are the things we can do in the immediate short term as some wins whilst we then give ourselves time and space to do more substantive reform down the track?

I like that.

That's what the PM's talking about.

I mentioned with Fran before where he's sort of talking about the lower hanging fruit.

I love that term.

just as a term.

You know, the fruit, you just grab that.

That's what every politician wants.

It's just the chair in front of you and you're like, look at this delicious apple.

I'm just going to grab at this productivity apple.

And then the harder stuff down the road.

the harder stuff is the stuff that matters though right like if it's low hanging that means you know it's a piece of i'm not going to use a rude word but you know what i'm saying yeah i hear you i hear you and and where do things like road user charges or ai regulation is that low hanging fruit is that requirement of the street or is low hanging low hanging at the moment yeah i think that's low hanging fruit and i think that you can argue that you know there's a lot of people out there are thinking all these people buying electric cars now are getting off lightly so i think they're it's almost reaching critical mass where they've got that hey mel just before we go I'm an Adelaide girl.

I love Adelaide beaches.

I want to talk about the algal boom that is washing up dead fish and dolphins on suburban beaches

because this issue really entered the political fray this week.

Susan Lee is right on this, I think.

The government was slow in its response on this disaster and the government knows it.

This is a government that is bidding, for heaven's sake, to host the COP climate conference for next year.

Why are our ministers suddenly apologising for being a bit late to the party?

We don't see that too often.

I think this is really interesting.

I think that we have seen a bit of a flat-footed response in part because of the novelty of the crisis that we're seeing with this algal bloom.

It's not something we have

a well-oiled response to, like we do with bushfires or tropical cyclones, where we have a lot of experience in managing them.

We have systems set up specifically for those sorts of disasters and sort of know which buttons need to be pressed.

I think some of that unknown factor had led to a delay.

I do think we're seeing cooperation between the federal and state governments.

I think Murray Watt has apologised.

Except that South Australians think that governments were too slow to respond to this event and for that I apologise.

Because that just became the question he was being faced with every time he spoke about it or was involved in it somehow and I think he just needed to cauterise that so that he could move on because it was becoming difficult for him to have any more substantive discussion because that kept being raised with him.

So, I think that was a bit of a strategic move by him to make the acknowledgement so that they can then get on with a more substantive discussion about well, what funding is actually needed, what is the best mechanism to deliver that and focus on that instead.

So, I think it was a strategic concession.

And the Prime Minister's going, what, next week is the plan?

Yes, and the opposition's been very critical of the Prime Minister not having been there since the start of the algal bloom and are making a big fuss of that.

I think that's surprising given Susan Lee is there at the moment for the first time, which therefore means it's also been five months since she has been there.

So I'm not sure how well that argument lands.

The point is...

I think what people in Adelaide want to see is not necessarily the Prime Minister there, but someone from the government with a big fat check saying this is a national disaster and getting action going on the research that they were warned about, you know, 18 months to two years ago that nothing happened on.

I just think they want...

real engagement and real help.

Yeah, that's right.

Engagement is pretty key and it's got to be beyond Murray Watt.

So let's see what the Prime Prime Minister has to offer and the sort of way that he handles this.

It will be fascinating.

Hey, Mel, you've been a great guest, but also not just a guest because boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

I don't know why I made that sound.

I do want to see.

We are now staff.

Yeah, that's why.

That's why.

That's our sound effects here.

Fran Kelly is going to be away for a little while, which makes us sad, but happy for Fran Kelly.

And Mel Clark will be my co-host here, won't you, Mel?

Yay, I'm very excited.

Look, I'm thrilled that this means I get to come back and we get to nerd out on politics every week.

Fran, I'm disappointed I won't get to hear you on the party room when I'm listening.

But enjoy the break.

I'll enjoy my break, but I will miss you all.

All right, see you, Mel.

Thanks, Mel.

Thank you.

Handing over.

Questions without notice?

Are there any questions?

Members on my rise.

The Prime Minister has the call.

Thanks very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, then I give the call to the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Prime Minister.

The bells are ringing.

That means it's time for question time and this week's question comes from Jamie who's written a question.

Now we always say we love the voice ones and we still do but the written word has always been a love of mine.

So Jamie I'm going to read your question.

Why are the needs or opinions of mainstream or the silent Australians never considered by our political class?

Labor's proposed productivity roundtable will convene representatives from business, unions, lobbyists, minority groups.

But where is the representation for the individual?

Where is the representation to push back on increasing pay-as-you-go or the GST?

Is it time for the population to form a union of sorts to represent the average worker and retiree so that our voices are heard and covered, Fran?

That is so funny.

Isn't that what unions were supposed to be originally?

The population to form a union of the average worker.

That's what a union was supposed to be.

But obviously, Jamie, I know what you're saying.

You feel like the unions are not representing your voice.

There are other groups, there are citizen groups, there are, I'm not sure if Seniors Australia is there, I don't know that actually, I haven't looked that far down the list, but a lot of groups are represented around the table.

You know, I'm not sure how you do that.

You can't just go out in the street and grab someone and think that they're going to be the voice.

So I think it's a logistical thing, but I do think that, you know, we elect our politicians, they are answerable to us.

So to some extent, they need to be mindful of the, what should we call it, ordinary persons,

silent Australians, you call it, in their electorates, voice and the unions and the business groups, the small business groups who are sort of closer on the ground to average Australians.

So, you know, I know what you're feeling, but I think logistically, I hope with that mix around the table, the government's got us covered.

Yeah, I think that I agree with Fran, but I think the other part of what you're saying is

that, you know, the individual, whatever that means, because obviously individuals, there's also complexity there, right?

Everyone's experience is different.

Yeah, that's the point of it.

But that is the point of actually, hopefully, a good representative democracy being about politicians being a little in touch.

And I think more of them do those mobile offices and talking to people.

And that's where they pick up, you know, what are the issues people are really interested in?

And I speak to politicians who tell me, oh, some of the issues that are raised are different to the ones you guys talk about on air.

and i'm always really interested like what is it like our biggest complaint at the moment the indis blah blah blah like we need to be in touch with what is coming through and i think that's where you get a bit of that and the good politicians are doing that work so hopefully it's reflected through the process but yeah whatever that means look love getting your questions of course send them in uh voice messages are the best you can send them to the partyroom at abc.net.au and next week mel and i will try and answer them yeah and i won't be here but i'll be missing you all and remember to follow the politics now that's the feed where you find this podcast, even though I'm not here.

Keep following on the ABC Listen app so you never miss an episode.

Yeah, that's right.

Fran, so when do I officially get to be back together with you?

It sounds very romantic.

It's a while.

It's a little, we'll see.

There's some stuff going on, so it's a little bit.

But you are coming back.

I'm coming back.

Thank you.

I just wanted you to be really clear.

I'm coming back.

Good.

Because I can't emotionally deal with.

anything different to that.

Thank you.

Next week, yes, the party room without Fran, but I'll be here and Mel will be here.

And we'll have another secret guest and we're going to bring you all the politics.

The party room marches on over the weekend.

David Spears will be in your feed for Insiders on Background.

I'll be in your feed for Monday with Jacob.

See you, Fran.

See you, PK.