From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Tuesday, April 15th. Today we're bringing you something very special because this week our revered economics editor, Ross Gittins, wrote an essay for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, in which he lamented the state of this election campaign in particular and Australian politics in general. The essay was titled They Treat us like Mugs. And Ross did not miss with his critique of the timidity and the cynicism of the two major parties. Campaigns. As a special guest today, we have Ross in the studio to talk us through his searing critique. Welcome, Ross.

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Tuesday, April 15th. Today we're bringing you something very special because this week our revered economics editor, Ross Gittins, wrote an essay for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, in which he lamented the state of this election campaign in particular and Australian politics in general. The essay was titled They Treat us like Mugs. And Ross did not miss with his critique of the timidity and the cynicism of the two major parties. Campaigns. As a special guest today, we have Ross in the studio to talk us through his searing critique. Welcome, Ross.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's really nice to have you. You're a first timer on this podcast and we welcome you warmly. Ross, you really do not mince words in this essay. You start by saying of the current election campaign that it's been neither interesting nor edifying and hasn't got to grips with the big issues. That's a pretty big statement out of the blocks. Can you elaborate on that?

It's really nice to have you. You're a first timer on this podcast and we welcome you warmly. Ross, you really do not mince words in this essay. You start by saying of the current election campaign that it's been neither interesting nor edifying and hasn't got to grips with the big issues. That's a pretty big statement out of the blocks. Can you elaborate on that?

Yes. Well, I mean, what they've done is, is show us all these trinkets. We've got this tax cut and we've got this cut in petrol. Something else over here. Something else over there. All this stuff that might help, uh, might or might not help first home buyers. And it's like walking through a shopping center and picking what you want to buy. Well, that's not very edifying, even, uh, trying to compare them. Most of the time you're comparing apples and oranges and it's not all that easy. And but it's also not very informative.

Yes. Well, I mean, what they've done is, is show us all these trinkets. We've got this tax cut and we've got this cut in petrol. Something else over here. Something else over there. All this stuff that might help, uh, might or might not help first home buyers. And it's like walking through a shopping center and picking what you want to buy. Well, that's not very edifying, even, uh, trying to compare them. Most of the time you're comparing apples and oranges and it's not all that easy. And but it's also not very informative.

And why do you say that? Because, I mean, there's plenty of information out there about the variations of the different policies, the housing policies. I mean, there's interviews, there's podcasts like this one. There's reams and reams of newspaper articles about how all these schemes might work. Why do you say it's not informative?

And why do you say that? Because, I mean, there's plenty of information out there about the variations of the different policies, the housing policies. I mean, there's interviews, there's podcasts like this one. There's reams and reams of newspaper articles about how all these schemes might work. Why do you say it's not informative?

I guess because I doubt whether most people are dedicated enough to read much of that stuff. I think one of the things is that political campaigns mainly happen on television, and both sides put an enormous amount of effort into just making sure they get on to the evening television news, and that's where they show that they're out and about. You can have a look at them and they're doing this and they're doing that, and they've got this policy and they've got that policy, but there's nothing deep and meaningful goes on in a TV bulletin. If you want to look for the good stuff, you can find it. You can even find mine. But the.

I guess because I doubt whether most people are dedicated enough to read much of that stuff. I think one of the things is that political campaigns mainly happen on television, and both sides put an enormous amount of effort into just making sure they get on to the evening television news, and that's where they show that they're out and about. You can have a look at them and they're doing this and they're doing that, and they've got this policy and they've got that policy, but there's nothing deep and meaningful goes on in a TV bulletin. If you want to look for the good stuff, you can find it. You can even find mine. But the.

Very.

Very.

Best stuff. How many people do that? I'm not sure.

Best stuff. How many people do that? I'm not sure.

Sure. I mean, there'd only be a smallish chunk, I suppose, of the voting population. Who are that engaged? You do say? I mean, this is a big call that you make as well. You say in your 51 years as a journalist, and this is the 20th election campaign that you've witnessed, you say that they're getting worse.

Sure. I mean, there'd only be a smallish chunk, I suppose, of the voting population. Who are that engaged? You do say? I mean, this is a big call that you make as well. You say in your 51 years as a journalist, and this is the 20th election campaign that you've witnessed, you say that they're getting worse.

I don't doubt that. And they really started to get worse after the 2019 election. That's the one where Bill shorten thought he was going to win. Everyone thought he was going to win, but he didn't. Why? Because he had very carefully costed promises. He had a lot of generous promises and his economic people had gone through and said, well, if we increase that tax a little bit here, it won't. It won't affect many people. And the people it affects can afford it. And a little bit over there. And by the time the election campaign had finished, the Labor Party's opponents had turned that into an enormous scare campaign where everyone thought taxes are going to go up under labor. I'm not a mug. I wouldn't vote for them.

I don't doubt that. And they really started to get worse after the 2019 election. That's the one where Bill shorten thought he was going to win. Everyone thought he was going to win, but he didn't. Why? Because he had very carefully costed promises. He had a lot of generous promises and his economic people had gone through and said, well, if we increase that tax a little bit here, it won't. It won't affect many people. And the people it affects can afford it. And a little bit over there. And by the time the election campaign had finished, the Labor Party's opponents had turned that into an enormous scare campaign where everyone thought taxes are going to go up under labor. I'm not a mug. I wouldn't vote for them.

He's the only one talking about a death tax.

He's the only one talking about a death tax.

A death tax, death taxes, death tax.

A death tax, death taxes, death tax.

There is a plan for a death tax.

There is a plan for a death tax.

A secret plan for a death tax.

A secret plan for a death tax.

Death tax. Death tax. Death taxes.

Death tax. Death tax. Death taxes.

Labor. It's the bill Australia can't afford authorised by Ahern's Liberal Party of Australia, Canberra.

Labor. It's the bill Australia can't afford authorised by Ahern's Liberal Party of Australia, Canberra.

And that hugely changed Anthony Albanese's attitude to elections. And so when the Labor Party came back for another go in 2022, they did this small target thing where they promised very little and they had the list of promises of things they wouldn't do was longer than the list of things they would do. They wouldn't introduce a new tax, they wouldn't increase any existing tax and they wouldn't touch the stage three tax cuts. They were already legislated. They'd let them go through. They wouldn't interfere with them. Now, that was the one promise that Albanese broke. But basically he was saying, I've tied my hands together. I've tied my hands behind my back so that I can't do anything much. If you elect me but elect me.

And that hugely changed Anthony Albanese's attitude to elections. And so when the Labor Party came back for another go in 2022, they did this small target thing where they promised very little and they had the list of promises of things they wouldn't do was longer than the list of things they would do. They wouldn't introduce a new tax, they wouldn't increase any existing tax and they wouldn't touch the stage three tax cuts. They were already legislated. They'd let them go through. They wouldn't interfere with them. Now, that was the one promise that Albanese broke. But basically he was saying, I've tied my hands together. I've tied my hands behind my back so that I can't do anything much. If you elect me but elect me.

And I mean, I suppose he had the the massive advantage of a very unpopular incumbent prime minister and a government that had been in power for nearly a decade. So perhaps a lot of people thought it was time for a change. You just touched on, you know, television and how election campaigns are really run on television, or the traditional model for, I don't know, maybe the last 50 years it's been it's all about getting on the nightly news. But in the essay you say that that's changed now because our media consumption habits are so fractured. Young people, you know, I guess anyone under the age of about 35 is not really necessarily reading newspapers. They're not necessarily watching free to air TV at the time that it's on. So everyone's attention is fractured and splintered. But and you talk about how that's basically narrowed political campaign messages into scare campaign advertising that can go on TV, but can also be, you know, all over your social media feed.

And I mean, I suppose he had the the massive advantage of a very unpopular incumbent prime minister and a government that had been in power for nearly a decade. So perhaps a lot of people thought it was time for a change. You just touched on, you know, television and how election campaigns are really run on television, or the traditional model for, I don't know, maybe the last 50 years it's been it's all about getting on the nightly news. But in the essay you say that that's changed now because our media consumption habits are so fractured. Young people, you know, I guess anyone under the age of about 35 is not really necessarily reading newspapers. They're not necessarily watching free to air TV at the time that it's on. So everyone's attention is fractured and splintered. But and you talk about how that's basically narrowed political campaign messages into scare campaign advertising that can go on TV, but can also be, you know, all over your social media feed.

Yes. So the main way election campaigns are conducted these days is through advertising, whether they're advertising on free to air or they're advertising on other mediums. These days, a lot of advertising on social media, which is actually very if you're not actually a watcher of all these things, it's a bit hard to know what what's happening.

Yes. So the main way election campaigns are conducted these days is through advertising, whether they're advertising on free to air or they're advertising on other mediums. These days, a lot of advertising on social media, which is actually very if you're not actually a watcher of all these things, it's a bit hard to know what what's happening.

Living costs are up, bills are up, inflation is consistently higher than any major advanced economy. And we've had the biggest fall in disposable income in the developed world. We can't afford three more years of labour authorized by a Liberal Canberra.

Living costs are up, bills are up, inflation is consistently higher than any major advanced economy. And we've had the biggest fall in disposable income in the developed world. We can't afford three more years of labour authorized by a Liberal Canberra.

If the best you can do is get most of your opinions from advertising, then you are likely to have a very jaundiced view of what's happening.

If the best you can do is get most of your opinions from advertising, then you are likely to have a very jaundiced view of what's happening.

The money for Peter Dutton's $600 Hundred billion dollar nuclear plan has to come from somewhere under your tax goes up under Dutton, your HECS debt, childcare, medicines, TAFE fees go up, he cuts you pay.

The money for Peter Dutton's $600 Hundred billion dollar nuclear plan has to come from somewhere under your tax goes up under Dutton, your HECS debt, childcare, medicines, TAFE fees go up, he cuts you pay.

Authorised Erickson, ALP Canberra.

Authorised Erickson, ALP Canberra.

Even if there weren't people using those ads for scare campaigns. When I tell you about my policies, I tell you about the good bits. I don't tell you about the bad bits, especially not in an ad. So you don't end up being very much informed unless you go out of your way to make sure you are. I mean, you can go on the party sites and you can read reams of their speeches and their policies and this, that and the other, but I'm not sure many people do know.

Even if there weren't people using those ads for scare campaigns. When I tell you about my policies, I tell you about the good bits. I don't tell you about the bad bits, especially not in an ad. So you don't end up being very much informed unless you go out of your way to make sure you are. I mean, you can go on the party sites and you can read reams of their speeches and their policies and this, that and the other, but I'm not sure many people do know.

I think what you're saying is true. I mean, you know, I'm thinking about the most disengaged or the least interested voters. They might be looking at Facebook, Instagram, they might be listening to a podcast or doing something like that. And political ads will pop up for them.

I think what you're saying is true. I mean, you know, I'm thinking about the most disengaged or the least interested voters. They might be looking at Facebook, Instagram, they might be listening to a podcast or doing something like that. And political ads will pop up for them.

An election is approaching soon. Replace your independent teal MP with one that works, reduces costs and will not disappear when you need them. Most.

An election is approaching soon. Replace your independent teal MP with one that works, reduces costs and will not disappear when you need them. Most.

Authorized by Julian Symons Australians for prosperity.

Authorized by Julian Symons Australians for prosperity.

That is the way a lot of people do their homework. They think. I'm not really interested in politics, but I know I've got to vote and the election campaign is on. So in a week or two I've got to decide who I'm voting for. And so I'd better start doing some homework. I know I'll watch the ads. Yeah. While I was watching something else, I saw these ads. They're they're what I remember and know about the campaign.

That is the way a lot of people do their homework. They think. I'm not really interested in politics, but I know I've got to vote and the election campaign is on. So in a week or two I've got to decide who I'm voting for. And so I'd better start doing some homework. I know I'll watch the ads. Yeah. While I was watching something else, I saw these ads. They're they're what I remember and know about the campaign.

Yeah. It's the information you retain when you're making your vote. You also discussed Ross, the professionalization of politics. You sort of say that previously the men and they were pretty much all men who entered politics often had, quote, real jobs. That's my scare quotes, not yours. And careers. And, you know, out in the real world, in business, in the law, um, as a train driver, you know, perhaps in a, in an.

Yeah. It's the information you retain when you're making your vote. You also discussed Ross, the professionalization of politics. You sort of say that previously the men and they were pretty much all men who entered politics often had, quote, real jobs. That's my scare quotes, not yours. And careers. And, you know, out in the real world, in business, in the law, um, as a train driver, you know, perhaps in a, in an.

Or as a policeman.

Or as a policeman.

That's right. In an honest profession. And then in middle age or even later, they switched to becoming members of Parliament. And now politics is a very different affair. It's a whole of life, career and a whole of life profession for a lot of people in Parliament. How has that changed the nature of politics and particularly the nature of campaigns?

That's right. In an honest profession. And then in middle age or even later, they switched to becoming members of Parliament. And now politics is a very different affair. It's a whole of life, career and a whole of life profession for a lot of people in Parliament. How has that changed the nature of politics and particularly the nature of campaigns?

Well, what it's done is changed. The people who end up in Parliament and people who end up at the top are they are people who really started on a political career. Soon after they finished schooling university, they went to work for a union, or they went to work for a minister, a shadow minister, and they worked their way up the system. Now, what that does is it teaches them a lot about how the political game is played, how to play politics, because that when you're in the minister's office, that's what you're helping the minister do. In theory, you might. You might be helping the Minister for health work out what we should be doing about Medicare. But a lot of the time, whatever you think about Medicare and do about Medicare is very heavily oriented to what do we need for the next election? What have we got to fix? And so I think that's changed it a lot. And I think when you have a long career of 20 years, say, before you get to be a minister, if you started out with the idea that I'd like to be a politician because there are things that need fixing that I feel very strongly about, you get a lot of that beaten out of you.

Well, what it's done is changed. The people who end up in Parliament and people who end up at the top are they are people who really started on a political career. Soon after they finished schooling university, they went to work for a union, or they went to work for a minister, a shadow minister, and they worked their way up the system. Now, what that does is it teaches them a lot about how the political game is played, how to play politics, because that when you're in the minister's office, that's what you're helping the minister do. In theory, you might. You might be helping the Minister for health work out what we should be doing about Medicare. But a lot of the time, whatever you think about Medicare and do about Medicare is very heavily oriented to what do we need for the next election? What have we got to fix? And so I think that's changed it a lot. And I think when you have a long career of 20 years, say, before you get to be a minister, if you started out with the idea that I'd like to be a politician because there are things that need fixing that I feel very strongly about, you get a lot of that beaten out of you.

Mhm.

Mhm.

More so than in the old system where somebody in their 50s decides the rest of my time I'm going to go to I made my pile, I got, I got the kids off my hands. I'm going to go into politics. I'm going to try and do something worthwhile. In the last part of my career, that's the way it worked in the old days. It doesn't work anything like that. And so it's now much more professional, and it's about advancing my career. I've I've been working up for 30 years, and what I care about is getting the top job.

More so than in the old system where somebody in their 50s decides the rest of my time I'm going to go to I made my pile, I got, I got the kids off my hands. I'm going to go into politics. I'm going to try and do something worthwhile. In the last part of my career, that's the way it worked in the old days. It doesn't work anything like that. And so it's now much more professional, and it's about advancing my career. I've I've been working up for 30 years, and what I care about is getting the top job.

And you link that directly to the incrementalism of campaigns or the sort of small target nature of the policies that are announced in campaign. They're piecemeal, you know, they're all little treats for the voters, but there's no overwhelming narrative.

And you link that directly to the incrementalism of campaigns or the sort of small target nature of the policies that are announced in campaign. They're piecemeal, you know, they're all little treats for the voters, but there's no overwhelming narrative.

People have politicians have always wanted to win elections. Yeah. I mean, in the past they've been juggling between I want to win the election. I can't do anything unless I win the election, but I don't actually want to be there and do something. Now it's much easier to say, oh, I'll make sure I stay in power and I'll think about what I can do.

People have politicians have always wanted to win elections. Yeah. I mean, in the past they've been juggling between I want to win the election. I can't do anything unless I win the election, but I don't actually want to be there and do something. Now it's much easier to say, oh, I'll make sure I stay in power and I'll think about what I can do.

Once I've gained power. Yeah. Um, what was it that George Orwell wrote in 1984? The party seeks power for power's sake. You talk about campaigns being much more scientific now. Less based on intuition, less based on, I suppose, an ear for what the voters might want or need. Yes. And you say that parties spend so much money now on focus groups and private polling to really hone their message and to appeal to different constituencies? But why would that be a bad thing if if parties are trying to serve the electorate?

Once I've gained power. Yeah. Um, what was it that George Orwell wrote in 1984? The party seeks power for power's sake. You talk about campaigns being much more scientific now. Less based on intuition, less based on, I suppose, an ear for what the voters might want or need. Yes. And you say that parties spend so much money now on focus groups and private polling to really hone their message and to appeal to different constituencies? But why would that be a bad thing if if parties are trying to serve the electorate?

Well, because if my objective was to learn how I could sell an unpopular policy by emphasising this bit rather than that bit, that wouldn't be too bad. But what they end up learning is on what not to say. If you listen to politicians, people can say the silliest things to them and they don't say, I'm sorry, that's not right. They not they don't say that. They don't. They don't want to tell any voter anything that the voter doesn't want to hear. And they know what the voter wants to hear, because that's what all their polling and their focus groups have told them. What you can say that people will agree with.

Well, because if my objective was to learn how I could sell an unpopular policy by emphasising this bit rather than that bit, that wouldn't be too bad. But what they end up learning is on what not to say. If you listen to politicians, people can say the silliest things to them and they don't say, I'm sorry, that's not right. They not they don't say that. They don't. They don't want to tell any voter anything that the voter doesn't want to hear. And they know what the voter wants to hear, because that's what all their polling and their focus groups have told them. What you can say that people will agree with.

Yeah. And I mean, I'm just wondering how that's changed from the past. I suppose now that the vote is so splintered, we have a lot of people who are voting for third parties, nearly a third of the electorate. The major parties need much broader coalitions of voters than they used to. So they do have to promise a lot of things to small interest groups or smaller groups of people, like moms or working dads or tradies.

Yeah. And I mean, I'm just wondering how that's changed from the past. I suppose now that the vote is so splintered, we have a lot of people who are voting for third parties, nearly a third of the electorate. The major parties need much broader coalitions of voters than they used to. So they do have to promise a lot of things to small interest groups or smaller groups of people, like moms or working dads or tradies.

Yes. They try. They try to have they try to have something for everybody. And and they do. How worthwhile those things are. For example, they've got any number of policies that are they've announced just this week about what they're going to do to help first home buyers. They sound great until somebody who knows a bit about it says. Actually, they're just as likely to make it worse rather than better. Sounds good, but doesn't actually do good.

Yes. They try. They try to have they try to have something for everybody. And and they do. How worthwhile those things are. For example, they've got any number of policies that are they've announced just this week about what they're going to do to help first home buyers. They sound great until somebody who knows a bit about it says. Actually, they're just as likely to make it worse rather than better. Sounds good, but doesn't actually do good.

This is a little sidebar, but because we have got the economics editor in the studio, I want to ask you, Ross, what you made of those big spending promises on housing that both Labour and Liberal announced that their party launches last Sunday.

This is a little sidebar, but because we have got the economics editor in the studio, I want to ask you, Ross, what you made of those big spending promises on housing that both Labour and Liberal announced that their party launches last Sunday.

I think that all of them are quite bad and misleading. They sound like they are helping you afford an unaffordable house, but that is actually a contradiction, because if I can help everybody afford the unaffordable, guess what? The unaffordable goes up. That doesn't solve the problem.

I think that all of them are quite bad and misleading. They sound like they are helping you afford an unaffordable house, but that is actually a contradiction, because if I can help everybody afford the unaffordable, guess what? The unaffordable goes up. That doesn't solve the problem.

I mean, the coalition has said that its scheme to make mortgage interest payments tax deductible for certain buyers. And they've you know, they've obviously they're going to impose means testing on on that measure. But they point out that it's only for first homes. So it will actually provide an incentive for developers and builders to have a pipeline of money, I suppose, to build those first homes to build more houses.

I mean, the coalition has said that its scheme to make mortgage interest payments tax deductible for certain buyers. And they've you know, they've obviously they're going to impose means testing on on that measure. But they point out that it's only for first homes. So it will actually provide an incentive for developers and builders to have a pipeline of money, I suppose, to build those first homes to build more houses.

I don't agree with that. I don't think that's right at all. What that's saying is if we can increase the demand, the supply will rise to meet it. That's what that's what the first page of an economics textbook tells you. But it's not what's happening. If that was happening, if we have a lot of demand, we get a lot of supply. If that was happening, the price of houses wouldn't have kept rising for the past 2 or 3 decades. It's because supply does not respond quickly and easily to increase demand that we've got the problem that we've got. So the answer is not I'm going to increase the demand for more supply and that'll fix it. The answer is actually to increase the supply. And and that's why the one policy of those that were bandied around this week, the one I like most, is the government's policy of spending $10 billion through the states to do a lot of their own building and then sell those off to first home buyers and to do it on a non-profit basis. This is actually a huge amount of government intervention that says we won't try and get leave it to the private sector to build these things. We're going to organise it all ourselves. We're going to organise the land, the whole bit, because it's happening through the state governments who have so much say over where you can build and where you can't build and how you can build this is this will work. The one qualification is that we've neglected the building industry. And one of the things that's been neglected is to have apprenticeships so that we train up lots of building workers, electricians and plumbers and all the rest of them. We don't have a lot of those. So you can have huge demand. And they say, well, yeah, I'd love to, but I can't get the workers. And that's what they're saying right now. And if the one weakness in the Labour Party's scheme is that until they can produce enough workers, they can't build a lot of houses. So part of the problem is the bad functioning of our housing industry.

I don't agree with that. I don't think that's right at all. What that's saying is if we can increase the demand, the supply will rise to meet it. That's what that's what the first page of an economics textbook tells you. But it's not what's happening. If that was happening, if we have a lot of demand, we get a lot of supply. If that was happening, the price of houses wouldn't have kept rising for the past 2 or 3 decades. It's because supply does not respond quickly and easily to increase demand that we've got the problem that we've got. So the answer is not I'm going to increase the demand for more supply and that'll fix it. The answer is actually to increase the supply. And and that's why the one policy of those that were bandied around this week, the one I like most, is the government's policy of spending $10 billion through the states to do a lot of their own building and then sell those off to first home buyers and to do it on a non-profit basis. This is actually a huge amount of government intervention that says we won't try and get leave it to the private sector to build these things. We're going to organise it all ourselves. We're going to organise the land, the whole bit, because it's happening through the state governments who have so much say over where you can build and where you can't build and how you can build this is this will work. The one qualification is that we've neglected the building industry. And one of the things that's been neglected is to have apprenticeships so that we train up lots of building workers, electricians and plumbers and all the rest of them. We don't have a lot of those. So you can have huge demand. And they say, well, yeah, I'd love to, but I can't get the workers. And that's what they're saying right now. And if the one weakness in the Labour Party's scheme is that until they can produce enough workers, they can't build a lot of houses. So part of the problem is the bad functioning of our housing industry.

Yeah, I do. I do think they have an apprenticeship program for that worker pipeline problem, but it's probably not going to be, let's face it, anything that's fixed before at least a decade away. These promises on housing and everything else cost costs money. That money has to come from the federal budget somewhere. But we don't hear a lot about that side. Um, or at least we haven't so far. You say in your essay that the laws of economics have been suspended and that, you know, both parties don't really address how they're going to pay for their promises.

Yeah, I do. I do think they have an apprenticeship program for that worker pipeline problem, but it's probably not going to be, let's face it, anything that's fixed before at least a decade away. These promises on housing and everything else cost costs money. That money has to come from the federal budget somewhere. But we don't hear a lot about that side. Um, or at least we haven't so far. You say in your essay that the laws of economics have been suspended and that, you know, both parties don't really address how they're going to pay for their promises.

Yes. They tell you about all the extra spending they can do. They tell you about the taxes that they're going to cut various proposals to cut taxes permanently, temporarily. This tax, that tax. Well that's fine, but how does that add up? What is that? What? Where does that leave the the budget deficit? You would have thought that it's going to leave the budget deficit much worse, unless they've figured out ways to pay for it. If they figured out ways to pay for all of this stuff they haven't told us yet, maybe they will tell us before the election's over. I hope that's the case, but I have a fear that the government and the opposition are really hoping to get through it without having to answer any of those kind of awkward questions. But the other thing is, this is one of the my main criticisms of election campaigns. No one is ever again game to say I'm actually going to increase a few taxes, because they know that the other side will just tell lies about it and scare people.

Yes. They tell you about all the extra spending they can do. They tell you about the taxes that they're going to cut various proposals to cut taxes permanently, temporarily. This tax, that tax. Well that's fine, but how does that add up? What is that? What? Where does that leave the the budget deficit? You would have thought that it's going to leave the budget deficit much worse, unless they've figured out ways to pay for it. If they figured out ways to pay for all of this stuff they haven't told us yet, maybe they will tell us before the election's over. I hope that's the case, but I have a fear that the government and the opposition are really hoping to get through it without having to answer any of those kind of awkward questions. But the other thing is, this is one of the my main criticisms of election campaigns. No one is ever again game to say I'm actually going to increase a few taxes, because they know that the other side will just tell lies about it and scare people.

Yeah. And I mean, I think we've already seen a little bit of that with Labour saying very much that the coalition's going to cut without any hard evidence. It's just a sort of an allegation that they're making at this point. You do. Right at the sort of conclusion of your essay that the voters are really on to this malaise of the major parties, and the democratic system has found a way to address it, which is that people are increasingly directing their votes to third party candidates. There's a demand for them, and the supply has popped up, you might say.

Yeah. And I mean, I think we've already seen a little bit of that with Labour saying very much that the coalition's going to cut without any hard evidence. It's just a sort of an allegation that they're making at this point. You do. Right at the sort of conclusion of your essay that the voters are really on to this malaise of the major parties, and the democratic system has found a way to address it, which is that people are increasingly directing their votes to third party candidates. There's a demand for them, and the supply has popped up, you might say.

Well, yes. In that case it has. Yes. The first preference vote for neither of the two major parties at the last election was the highest it's ever been, almost about a third. So 1 in 3 people didn't vote for either Labor or Liberal. I won't be surprised if that's a bit higher this time. Mhm. That I think is really the answer. What worries me is that the two sides have been boxing it out for so long that they've actually fought each other to a standstill, where neither side is game to say anything. But I've got a few lovely trinkets and that's my policy that I'm going to do for you.

Well, yes. In that case it has. Yes. The first preference vote for neither of the two major parties at the last election was the highest it's ever been, almost about a third. So 1 in 3 people didn't vote for either Labor or Liberal. I won't be surprised if that's a bit higher this time. Mhm. That I think is really the answer. What worries me is that the two sides have been boxing it out for so long that they've actually fought each other to a standstill, where neither side is game to say anything. But I've got a few lovely trinkets and that's my policy that I'm going to do for you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we have a lot of serious problems, and that involved controversial changes, some changes that are nasty, some change. All changes That can be misrepresented by your opponent as being much worse than they really are. And I think the two parties have fought themselves to a standstill, where neither side is game to do anything, much for fear of what the other side will say. But I also think that the tendency for people to say, I'm disillusioned with both of them, I'm going to vote for somebody else, a good independent or the Greens or the teals. I think that could break this standstill that the two big parties have got themselves to. Because and especially if if neither side gets a majority, one of them will have to do deals with the independents and the minor parties. And when they do, those parties will say, well, we'll give you our support provided you do a few few important things. You can see this with Julia Gillard's Labor government in 2010, but you can see it all around the place in various states. Minority governments are quite common at the state level, and when they come in, they really do things. When the people in the middle have power to extract commitments from either of the big parties, they do.

I mean, we have a lot of serious problems, and that involved controversial changes, some changes that are nasty, some change. All changes That can be misrepresented by your opponent as being much worse than they really are. And I think the two parties have fought themselves to a standstill, where neither side is game to do anything, much for fear of what the other side will say. But I also think that the tendency for people to say, I'm disillusioned with both of them, I'm going to vote for somebody else, a good independent or the Greens or the teals. I think that could break this standstill that the two big parties have got themselves to. Because and especially if if neither side gets a majority, one of them will have to do deals with the independents and the minor parties. And when they do, those parties will say, well, we'll give you our support provided you do a few few important things. You can see this with Julia Gillard's Labor government in 2010, but you can see it all around the place in various states. Minority governments are quite common at the state level, and when they come in, they really do things. When the people in the middle have power to extract commitments from either of the big parties, they do.

Yeah. So the idea that the third party intervention or the third needing to negotiate with the third parties, basically takes both of the major parties out of their comfort zones and pushes them forward into some new and possibly exciting area of policy. I love that idea or your analysis there that both the major parties are almost in. It's almost like a toxic co-dependency or something, and there's mutually assured destruction if either of them tries to do anything with outside certain parameters.

Yeah. So the idea that the third party intervention or the third needing to negotiate with the third parties, basically takes both of the major parties out of their comfort zones and pushes them forward into some new and possibly exciting area of policy. I love that idea or your analysis there that both the major parties are almost in. It's almost like a toxic co-dependency or something, and there's mutually assured destruction if either of them tries to do anything with outside certain parameters.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, that's the way it seems to have been.

Well, that's the way it seems to have been.

Yeah. Ross, that has been such a fascinating chat. I recommend to listeners to go and read Ross's essay on The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald websites, if you haven't already. It's a really cracking read and, um, very perspicacious, I think. Thanks so much for being with us, Ross.

Yeah. Ross, that has been such a fascinating chat. I recommend to listeners to go and read Ross's essay on The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald websites, if you haven't already. It's a really cracking read and, um, very perspicacious, I think. Thanks so much for being with us, Ross.

My pleasure. Jacki.

My pleasure. Jacki.

Today's episode was produced by Julia Katzel with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio. 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 date with all the election coverage and exclusives, visit The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. And to support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.

Today's episode was produced by Julia Katzel with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio. 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 date with all the election coverage and exclusives, visit The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. And to support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.