Katherine Murphy, Host: Anthony Albanese, welcome to the Pod.
Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: Good to be with you, Katherine.
Murphy: So, I want to start with the last time we spoke on the podcast, which was, I think, February or March, which feels, I don't know about you, but it feels like several lifetimes ago.
Prime Minister: Feels like a long time ago.
Murphy: Like several lifetimes ago, right? So, at that point I asked you, we were talking about the Voice back then. So, this was before Peter Dutton had a position. I asked you if, in your judgement, it looked too hard to succeed. If it, you know, because there's no bipartisanship, you know, rancour around it made it impossible, would you stop the referendum? You said to me at that time that it would be like forfeiting a grand final, basically, because you were too scared to go on the field. So, a lot of water under the bridge since then. Obviously, you have proceeded, even though the campaign has got more and more rancorous, and there has been no bipartisanship. Does it still feel like a good decision to you?
Prime Minister: It's the right decision. Because as I said in February or March, if you don't run on the field, you can't make change, you can't succeed. You have to have the courage of your convictions to be prepared to put forward the argument, to give the Australian people the opportunity to vote in the referendum, which they will on October 14. And the consequences of not holding a referendum are the same as a No vote. Things stay the same.
Murphy: But do you actually think that's right? That if we had not had this process, if you stepped away three months ago, or pick a point on the calendar, if we hadn't got to this point, do you actually think it's the same result? Because it's sort of like, the whole race relations debate is arrayed before us every day of the week now. Do you actually think that these two things are the same?
Prime Minister: The outcome is the same in that you don't get constitutional recognition without a vote, you don't get an enshrined Voice to Parliament without a vote, things just stay the same. And ironically, perhaps, Peter Dutton at one stage put the same view to me in one of the meetings that we had, and said, 'Oh, if you put it off until next term', or 'What would a delay mean?' It would mean saying to the Tom Calmas, and Pat Andersons, and Noel Pearsons, and people who have been a part of this for a lot longer than I have been. They've given, in some cases, certainly directly about this question of a constitutionally enshrined Voice for more than a decade. You're saying to them, 'Just wait a few years more'. And remember that in 2019, the Government said there'd be a referendum, there'd be some advance. In 2016, the Government said there'd be a referendum and some advance. Most of the process leading up to the Uluru Statement from the Heart occurred, by definition, under the former Government. And after that they'd had the Calma-Langton report, they'd had the Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Pat Dodson and Julian Leeser. At what point do you actually have a vote? Or do you just have a process talking about having a vote endlessly?
Murphy: Endlessly. But just two ticks, hang on, you said Peter Dutton said to you in a meeting, did he say what if we delay it?
Prime Minister: Well, would you be prepared to, you know, are you going to delay this?
Murphy: Delay it, but for what end?
Prime Minister: Well, that's not clear/ That's the point. The point I made to him, and I've made publicly as well, is were we going to wait until there was an absolute consensus? Like, we tried to get bipartisanship. When Julian Leeser was appointed as Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Attorney-General, he is someone who has been involved in this process since at least 2012, very intimately involved with his legal expertise. That was a sign, I would have thought, that the Liberal Party was serious about advancing this. Contrary, notwithstanding all of Peter Dutton's history, walking out on the Apology that occurred in 2008. One would have thought that was a sign that it was possible to get agreement. Of course, we know that we had the Aston by-election. And the week afterwards, Peter Dutton returned to what he'd been urged to do by some of his Party, into the wrecker, into the negative, just opposing things, seeing this through a political prism of opportunism rather than an opportunity to actually do something positive. And he chose to do that. That was a decision for him. But the idea that I could say to Indigenous people, the leaders who are involved in the Referendum Working Group, 'Well just hold on, we'll just wait until everyone all agree.' Or more fanciful, I think is, my Government, even though we were elected with a clear and unequivocal commitment to hold a referendum, a statement that I declared, of course, a number of times, probably many dozens of times in the lead-up to the 21st of May 2022 election. And then, a statement I declared, reaffirmed on the night of that election. That I would walk away from that commitment, but, 'Oh it's okay, because trust us, next time when we get elected again, we'll do something.' Or, 'Wait for Peter Dutton to become Prime Minister and he's going to advance reconciliation and advance this cause'. You had to, I think, in my view, I have taken my commitments I took to the election seriously. I've been going through, doing my best to tick them off. This is a serious one. And bear in mind as well, the enormous support and goodwill which is out there from faith groups, sporting organisations, business groups, local community-based groups, and most importantly, Indigenous people themselves. There isn't one Indigenous leader in the country who's supporting a Yes case, which is over 80 per cent of Indigenous people, who has come to me and said, 'Oh, I think we need to fix some of the dates or we need to change something'. And indeed at Garma, Djawa Yunupingu and the leadership there of North East Arnhem Land presented me with the spear and Woomera that you passed as you came to this office, saying 'Stay strong'. And it was presented to me by a young Indigenous boy, as a sign that this was about future generations. And one of the things that is occurring, it's occurring on a range of levels, there are, of course, terrible things being said and hurt being felt. You have, I saw a pamphlet today about the Jewish conspiracy behind the Indigenous Constitutional recognition, that was just extraordinary and hateful. That is occurring. At the same time, Australians are talking like never before about the gap that's there in life expectancy, about the fact that an Indigenous young male has a greater chance of going to jail than university, about health issues, about housing, about listening. And that process in itself is something that I believe is positive, the fact that we are talking about Indigenous disadvantage, not on the fringes, but on the front pages of newspapers.
Murphy: As the central dialogue. But obviously, you know, there's already a history war that started, it's already started, about who's lost the referendum. We haven't even voted yet but we are already having a draft of the history war of who did what, or didn't do what, or didn't put what in the public domain at what time. You know, it's already started, you'll be aware of it. In the event this vote is lost, there will be Liberals who will say that it was lost because Anthony Albanese had an opportunity to narrow the scope of the Voice, if it had just been a Voice to Parliament, more of us would have supported it. It's the Voice to the executives that made us all fall out of the cart. It will be that. There will be, you know, this whole question of detail is already being litigated. That was a decision you made. You know, would it have been better to put an exposure draft before the people? Would that have stopped the sort of weaponisation of detail? Look, I know, you will have had these thoughts. So, do you think an exposure draft might have helped? Do you think some sort of more, I don't know, inclusive position towards the Liberals would have helped?
Prime Minister: We have been inclusive. We had a Parliamentary Committee established. I set out a timetable last year for legislation being developed in March, draft legislation. Said when the timetable would be, said there'd be a parliamentary inquiry, said there'd be then a determination in June. And then said in the last quarter of this year there would be a vote. So, set out a very clear timetable. Peter Dutton got to address the Referendum Working Group twice, on two occasions. I met with him seven times. There were no amendments moved and voted on in the House of Representatives or the Senate on any of the wording. The wording is very clear. The legal opinion is very clear. And that's the detail. It's there. And it's up to the Parliament.
Murphy: Of course.
Prime Minister: Up to the Parliament. Just like any other part of the Constitution, to do the details. We don't have in the Constitution, how much funding –
Murphy: How many taxes there are, or you know, whatever.
Prime Minister: Canberra's North Public School is going to get, or, we don't have that level in there. I mean, it's just extraordinary. And the important thing about the wording as well, is that idea of a Voice is listening to Indigenous Australians, that at the first step, you would ignore what Indigenous Australians were saying. And what they are saying is that they want a Constitutionally enshrined Voice. So, the real argument has been, if there is one, has been, not over whether Constitutional recognition should happen or not, because they say it should happen. It's not over whether there should be a legislative Voice or not, because they say that should happen, as well. It's whether that legislated Voice should be enshrined in the Constitution.
Murphy: The Constitution.
Prime Minister: And the reason why Indigenous Australians want that, is they want the security of there being a body, that it can't be dismissed on a whim of a government at a time, in order to secure political advantage.
Murphy: Yeah, so, I mean, in essence –
Prime Minister: So, it's that experience that it comes from.
Murphy: Yeah, but what you're saying is that where the Liberals would have asked you to compromise, support for the proposition from the Indigenous leadership wouldn't have allowed the compromise. I mean, you're saying something broader than that.
Prime Minister: Well, Indigenous Australians, I think, have compromised incredibly. This is a very modest proposal being put forward. They have compromised. They have been prepared to engage. And the difference in the words from the draft words that I released at Garma last year, the word 'may' give advice, the word 'including' in the third part. So, legislation over the functioning of the Voice will be over the composition, procedures. But, 'including' is an important word that was put in there, as well. So, there has been compromise in order to try to secure support. But let's be clear, Peter Dutton, just after the Aston by-election, and there's no accident that occurred, called a special Party room meeting, declared support at that meeting, and the bit of paper that went around said there would be a national Voice. Then did a press conference and changed the decision, almost, or didn't accurately depict what the Party room members thought they were doing. And Peter Dutton clearly made a decision that his Party room wouldn't have supported a Yes proposition or even a neutral proposition. And that reflects the change in the Liberal Party that's occurred. Where has Simon Birmingham and some of the moderates been on this issue? The Liberal Party that was here when I came here in 1996 had your Petro Georgios and a range of people. Now, to their credit, you have had Julian Leeser show enormous courage, Bridget Archer. And in the Liberal Party organisation, you had the Yes campaign being run, in part, by pretty key Liberal Party operatives. Tony Nutt, former National Director, State Director of the Liberal Party, John Howard's former Chief of Staff, Mark Textor doing the polling, who did the polling and came up with a range of the slogans and ideas behind Tony Abbott's election victory in 2013. The truth is that the Liberal Party, under Peter Dutton, has continued the shift to the right that has occurred in recent times. And has engaged in questions being asked in the Parliament, where Paul Fletcher, another of, someone who would be characterised by some as a moderate, has sat there asking or suggesting that a Voice to Parliament is going to somehow influence the Reserve Bank on interest rates. Now, they know that's absurd. They have been prepared, though, to go down that road. And I think that is unfortunate that has occurred. But it is characteristic of where the Liberal Party has been prepared to go on this issue, in spite of the statements that were made for a long period of time when they were in Government about goodwill. And that's why people like Ken Wyatt, who was the Indigenous Affairs Minister in the Morrison Government, was part of the Referendum Working Group, and has now, of course, resigned from the Liberal Party over this issue.
Murphy: So, you think basically, it was just going to, after Aston, was a death match? It didn't matter what you did, it was going to be a death match?
Prime Minister: There was no attempt to engage, even in the process. There were no amendments. There was just a determination to be a part of what has been a fear campaign, based upon misinformation and based upon what, in some cases, they know is just not right. And at the same time, the Yes campaign have continued to run a positive campaign about what this means. I think the difference between the rallies that were held last Saturday for the No campaign, and with some of the extraordinary messages and the positivity of the Yes rallies the weekend before, were there for all to see.
Murphy: I want to pick up that. Because in terms of the messaging, now, obviously, you're the Prime Minister of the country, you will be devoting some thought to what happens in the immediate aftermath of the referendum result. Because to my observation, an act of leadership is going to be required in the event of either result. Because the genie has been left out of the bottle in many, many respects, truth, racism, all kinds of stuff we've seen over the last little bit. So, I want to just road test a couple of scenarios with you. So, in the event that Australians, that the polls are all wrong, and Australians are about to vote Yes, you know, with the requisite majorities, and the result is declared for Yes, given that we've had weeks, months, of what I would described as Trumpian, red hat tactics, orchestrated tactics, on the part of the No campaign and injected into the discourse. Are you concerned, in the event Yes wins, that we might go, we might pitch over into the next phase of this, which is that people start talking about stolen referendum results, or put some question mark over the integrity of institutions? Because to me, listening to the tenor of the debate, that seems possible to me. Is this something you've thought about?
Prime Minister: Well, I think that a Yes result will be unifying. I go back to other debates that have been held over marriage quality, over the Apology. And when a positive affirmation was made, the country moved on pretty quickly. And I think that I've already foreshadowed, as I did way back in March with Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, I spoke to them about this after they declared they would support No. I said to them, I would want a joint Parliamentary Committee, bipartisan. I reaffirmed that I would want to see joint chairs, someone from the Labor Party, someone from the Coalition, to be worked through, and that would work through the legislation. And people would see then, I think, pretty quickly, the non-legitimacy of the fear campaign. I think it will be incredibly positive for the nation if that occurs.
Murphy: Yeah.
Prime Minister: And I think, overwhelmingly, look, there are some people in Australia, like around the world, impacted by social media, and engaged in rhetorical positions. You know, that the United Nations World Economic Forum conspiracies that are there, that's a fact of life, but it's a minority. And the No campaign itself is relying upon people not having information. The whole main slogan they're using isn't about find out, it’s don't find out. It's almost applauding not being informed, is what it's doing.
Murphy: But are you worried about that? Because I think you and I are looking at the same landscape. Are you not worried about it?
Prime Minister: Those people will move on very quickly. In terms of people who have examined, I think that people who have a look at the question, think about it, when people do that, they vote Yes. Not everyone, and some people can look at the same things and come to different conclusions, and that's fine. But overwhelmingly, the No campaign, by its own declaration, is not relying upon that, it's relying upon the opposite.
Murphy: Yeah, I can see your architecture for drawing together moving on in the event of a Yes, of a Yes vote and that was my question, what happens? But what's the flip side of that? Because we've obviously seen, it's sort of like a slow moving thing in my head, it's kind of like, we saw these forces basically start to come to the fore around the pandemic. In this country, it's a bit different than America, but we've seen that same language about elites, institutions being rigged, all of this stuff, sort of birthed during the pandemic, has been an accelerant now with the referendum result.
Prime Minister: Sure, often with media commentators with their own TV programs, weekly columns, speaking about -
Murphy: No, sure.
Prime Minister: Them not having a say.
Murphy: But, you're not really worried about it, though?
Prime Minister: And with no irony whatsoever. Well, it's there, it's an element. But I have faith in Australians' common sense. That if a Yes vote is carried, I think overwhelmingly, the nation will move on pretty quickly. You know, one of the ironies of this debate has been Peter Dutton trying to say that the Government is only focused on this, and then going into Question Time every day, and asking about nothing but this. At the same time as yesterday, we released an Employment White Paper. Today, I opened an Urgent Care Clinic in South Australia. I've just come from a Disaster Preparedness Summit with every state government, local government, emergency services, non-government organisations, together here, a Summit here in Canberra. Tomorrow, I have a range of other events for the rest of the week. Yesterday, in Whyalla, we turned off the coking ovens to produce steel. And that transition to green steel is underway there in Whyalla, an incredibly exciting prospect. So, we're doing the full range of Government activity. Plus, we're doing, as well, giving people the opportunity to vote in the referendum. I think that a Yes vote will see us continue to govern across the range of economic, environmental, social issues. But on this, there'll be a Parliamentary Committee. It will continue to do its work. It won't be as high profile, obviously, after the referendum. But I do think that there will be, from this point on, there will be more of a focus on Indigenous disadvantage.
Murphy: Regardless of the result, do you think?
Prime Minister: I think there will be, yes. I think there has been.
Murphy: Because conventional wisdom would be, if this fails, if the polls are right and this fails, that completely screws the reconciliation agenda for years to come. What does it do? Does it strand truth-telling? Does it strand treaty? Does it strand, you know, a debate that you have in the back of your mind about Australia becoming a republic? The conventional wisdom would be, a No vote just destroys all that.
Prime Minister: Well, I think that the awareness and consciousness of Indigenous affairs has been raised to the point, whereby, you'll never again have, I don't believe, a situation where you won't have Indigenous affairs raised on the floor of the Parliament. And for a long period of time, you know, it wasn't front and centre of issues.
Murphy: But will be worth it, though? I mean, in terms of just obviously a No vote, and I'm not presupposing that, a No vote is obviously, it's not an obstruction for First Nations people.
Prime Minister: No, of course.
Murphy: It doesn't actually bare thinking about.
Prime Minister: No, it will be. It will be disappointing.
Murphy: It will be devastating, won't it, seriously?
Prime Minister: Indigenous people, someone said to me, you know, I've suffered so much in my life, what we're going through here is just, you know, what we've copped. You know, Indigenous Australians, for them, racism isn't something that –
Murphy: They encounter during a referendum.
Prime Minister: Is beyond their comprehension, you know? So, one of the things that there has been some greater evidence of it. But you know, structural disadvantage is there. The resilience is there as well. Indigenous people, as I said I think earlier in this interview, there isn't one person who has said to me, 'You know, well, maybe we should wait? Maybe we should just press the pause button?' I mean, I've had it put to me by some commentators that, none of them Indigenous, that's the case. 'Wait until the economy is looking better'. And the timeframe for the referendum, bear this in mind, was very consciously one of the few times in our lifetime that I can remember where you can find a year without an election in Australia. We have nine levels of government that have either three or four year terms. By definition, there's usually at least two elections every year, and often more. But we're in this period where we don't, where there was some clean air. And that was an attempt, as well, to depoliticise. That was a conscious decision that was made that the time was right. You know the idea, 'Put it off until next year, that you do it in the middle of when there's state or territory elections, in the second half of next year', to me would not make much sense.
Murphy: Just one more. I want to get on to some other things. But let's just do one more on the Voice just on this in this misinformation prism. Sounds like you're less worried about what might happen than I am. But I’m interested –
Prime Minister: I’m an optimist, Katherine.
Murphy: Yes, that is very true. But is the Government concerned about, aware of monitoring the prospect, anybody listening to the Pod who's on social media will be aware of the sludge of stuff that is around that's referendum adjacent.
Prime Minister: We've put additional funding in the Budget, you might recall, for mental health for Indigenous Australians. And, you know, we were conscious of that because we had the feedback.
Murphy: No, of course. But this is another question. Obviously during, when experts study misinformation and disinformation around the world, when state actors get involved in misinformation and disinformation, it's during times in democracies of high polarisation. We've seen this in the past. We saw it in the US election cycle. Is the Government concerned or monitoring or cognisant of the fact that some of what we see on social media is not so much messaging by the No campaign but is orchestrated interference in a democratic process in Australia? I'm not asking this because I've got evidence, I'm asking the guy who would have the evidence if it was happening?
Prime Minister: Well, if I did, I probably wouldn't be talking about it on the Podcast.
Murphy: Is it a risk?
Prime Minister: Of course, foreign interference in political processes is a risk. And it's something that we're conscious of. And, you know, I don't want to start up other theories unnecessarily. But of course, that's something that the agencies, not about this specifically, but in general, our agencies monitor these matters as a matter of course. Because we know that it has occurred, and we know that it can undermine our own democratic processes. But overwhelmingly here in Australia, our democratic processes do function very well. As we speak, there are remote polling booths. There are people largely in Indigenous communities voting as we speak. And that is really important. And another factor, of course, is that there have never been more Indigenous Australians as a percentage on the roll, the highest enrolment ever. There was not the greatest attempt to ensure Indigenous Australians were enrolled under the former Government with some of the cuts to a AEC resources out there. But a record number of Australians have enrolled as well, including young people. And I think that's a good thing. It's a good thing that people vote regardless of whether they're voting Yes or No.
Murphy: Let's look forward.
Prime Minister: I'll make one more point, if I can, on the Voice. Which is something that Noel Pearson speaks about, which is very powerful, is that what Indigenous Australians are asking for is to be listened to, just have the opportunity to have an input. And that's with the purpose of giving better outcomes, which implies that governments will say, 'Yes, that's a good idea', because it only has the power of ideas, it can'y enforce them. But with that will come greater responsibility as well. And that's why, in part, this is a proposition that conservatives should have been able to support. Because I believe that it will result in better fiscal outcomes or efficiency, to put it in those terms. Because if you, instead of money going to areas that bureaucrats in Canberra think it should go to, if you actually consult people, you will get a far more effective outcome. And we saw that during the pandemic, when at the beginning of the pandemic, I remember sitting in briefings here from the Health officials there was a real fear about a devastating impact amongst Indigenous communities. And it had a bad impact, I don't want to underplay it. But at one stage, there was a fear that the impact would be much, much greater. And when that turned around was when people actually sat down and talked with the communities. I mean, who knew, if you ask people. But that's when you got the vaccination rates up, that’s when you got better healthcare, better information out there, when people were actually empowered. And that's why this is, some of the opposition to this is quite disappointing. And why someone like Julian Leeser or Tony Nutt or others who are involved in the campaign, Dominic Perrottet, people who were not part of that, they're not part of the progressive wing of the Liberal Party. Chris Kenny has been an extraordinary advocate, just putting the conservative case for why a Yes vote is necessary.
Murphy: Let's look forward. Obviously, we've had the opening phase of the Government has been events, as it always is. And this sort of program of implementing your election promises, legislating your commitments, etc. I've been away for a while, coming back. It seems to me that we're sort of towards the end of that now. I'll just call that act one for want of a better term, right? It's sort of towards the end of that. Now looking ahead, we're almost in another election cycle, which hooray, sorry, it's just like, obviously, there's much more governing to do, but we were heading into basically the -
Prime Minister: There have been attempts to change the Constitution for four year terms of course.
Murphy: I know, which would be actually a good idea, but the Senate is a problem. Anyway, let's not dwell on this. Unless you’re going to do it? Are you going to do it? He’s looking at me like, ‘Are you mad? Okay, let’s keep talking. So, act two is before us. It's a bit mysterious to me what actually is act two?
Prime Minister: Act two is the implementation of our policies first. So what we've done, for example, is legislate for 43 per cent by 2030, net zero by 2050. Act two isn't just getting the legislation in the headline, it's how do you deliver that through the economy?
Murphy: I'm glad you actually raised this because I was going to. This is something I was going to ask you about in terms of act two. There is quite a bit of chatter around the place about, well, I mean, it's sort of silly to describe it in these terms, because if this is the way you go, you will describe it in your own terms. But an Inflation Reduction Act type program, like a Biden-esque type program in Australia, which could bring together, you know, obviously, the economy’s at particular point, the transition to lower emissions is at a particular point, there is chat around the place that your thinking is going in that direction.
Prime Minister: Some of that, we're doing. If you look at what we've got in place for the Safeguard Mechanism, for the delivery of that promise, together with the National Reconstruction Fund, there to support existing industries to transition to support new industries to take advantage of clean energy, and for cheaper power. If you look at the Hydrogen Headstart Program, $2 billion dollars in the Budget. Again, looking at how a place like Whyalla, for example, green steel is its future. Now, that has produced steel for 50 years, was turned off after precisely 55 years and 55 days was turned off, the coking ovens. How do you power that industry so that you're producing steel in Australia which is green, using the skilled workforce, using the high-quality magnetite which is available in abundance with 4 billion tonnes that will last for many decades into the future? And then pitching up Port Bonython so that you can have exporting of that. That’s just one area that we are doing.
Murphy: I’m not saying you’re not doing any of it. But what I'm asking you is if you’re going to do more of it?
Prime Minister: Well, we are doing more. And the announcement we had there was $100 million announcement we had in Whyalla, together with the State Government. There's a vision there as well for the largest electrolyser, when we talk about green hydrogen in the world. I think there's in a few places, the Pilbara, Gladstone, Whyalla, the Spencer Gulf area of South Australia, there is an enormous opportunity for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. Back on track now, the Sun Cable Project to export energy to Singapore, Indonesia, from what will be the largest solar plant in the world. All of these things come together with our Employment White Paper that we released yesterday, our fee-free TAFE and what we're doing to train Australians. So, my vision is a clean energy economy using the advantages that we have - the best solar resources in the world, one of the best wind resources in the world. Using the resources we have under the ground. Copper, lithium, vanadium, nickel, all of these critical minerals and rare earths that will be to this century what fossil fuels were in the past, to help drive Australia's economy and skilling up Australia for those jobs. Now, it fits in as well with our international policy. The work that Nick Moore did for us developing the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy in 2040. It's no accident we're bringing ASEAN leaders here to Melbourne in March next year, to talk about those issues, to celebrate Australia's 50th anniversary of that relationship. So, it all does tie together. Our energy mix, our resources, our manufacturing, with skills, and the creation of bodies, like we had Infrastructure Australia created last time when in Government, now we have created Jobs and Skills Australia. What are the jobs of the future in five years, ten years? How do we train people for them? That's all about positioning Australia, just as the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is in part a response to the pandemic. It's a response to say that nation states need to be more resilient. They need to make more things and need to be able to stand on their own feet. Because we're vulnerable if we just rely upon trade that can be disrupted, whether through a pandemic or through international conflict or a cybersecurity event. And so, I am very conscious about how all this fits together.
Murphy: Sure.
Prime Minister: And what you'll see is that, very much.
Murphy: More of it or –
Prime Minister: You're seeing it.
Murphy: I feel like we’re dancing around this
Prime Minister: Or with that theme. You don't need to change tack every year.
Murphy: No, I'm not suggesting that this would be some unheralded sound the trumpet, no one's ever talked about climate change or the transition in the Government. That is not what I'm suggesting. What I'm asking you is will we see more of it?
Prime Minister: Yes, and you are. And you're seeing, we’ve brought in Greg Combet has joined the public service here to look at particular areas and regions and how they transition, to make sure they're not left behind. And I think that the decisions that we make this decade can set Australia up for many decades ahead. And unless we make the right decisions, we will all fall behind. If we continue to do, you know, what the former Government, did, 22 different energy policies and not land one. What you actually need to do is to have that sense of purpose going forward, about seizing the economic opportunities that are there. Making sure that the economy doesn't just work for some, but works for a majority of the population and that people have that opportunity to benefit from economic growth. Not the other way around, you know, people working for the economy. We want an economy that works for people, is what we want.
Murphy: You’ve obviously sort of laid out the fundamentals of the transition and Australia's natural advantages, or comparative advantages, in the transition. But one of the advantages you have as a Prime Minister is you actually have a progressive Parliament, at this point. Is that something, you know, is having a progressive Parliament a lever for you, over act two, to accelerate this transition or to put more bells and whistles around this transition? I'm not suggesting you just discovered it, I'm just –
Prime Minister: Well, the Parliament isn't a tick and flick Parliament either. And you you can have a circumstance whereby obstructionism is put in place, in order to get product differentiation. I mean, the Greens political party opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund for months, which delayed its introduction and its commencement, was completely illogical, completely illogical. And eventually, they got there. But that's an example of where you don't necessarily, you know, I don't take this Parliament for granted. And we need to get our legislation through the Senate. But a lot of what we've set up now enables us to act as a Government. Because the framework, the legislation, is in place.
Murphy: Yes, is in place. And that was very important to secure all of that. So, I think it's maybe, the answer to the question, are we going to see more of it?
Prime Minister: No, it’s yes.
Murphy: It’s yes?
Prime Minister: And you're seeing it. You saw it yesterday.
Murphy: Do you see what you’re doing with the tenses there?
Prime Minister: You’ll see more next week. No, you’re seeing it. And you'll see more of it next week, you’ll see more of it next month. When I travel to the United States, we will be progressing, as well, the agreements that we’ve put in place. Which are aimed at how can Australia take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act as well, for our industry. And so, we're working on all of that. We’re working, as well, to remove trade impediments to China. We're working, importantly, with the ASEAN Strategy, that’s very important.
Murphy: Yeah, I see how that all fits together. When you made the point, we're really pressed for time, there's a couple of things I want to get to, but when you made the point about the Greens and obviously sitting on the housing thing for a period of time. Obviously, the Government increased its offer. Are you saying though, if the Government came forward with some sort of Inflation Reduction Act type program, like an enhancement of what you're already doing, are you saying that you're concerned that the Greens would obstruct it?
Prime Minister: Well, we don't know. That’s the point. They disrupted the housing package with no justification. I mean, the increased investment of $2 billion for Social Housing Accelerator had nothing to do with them. That was material that was negotiated between us and states, about planning laws. They didn't ever know about it. And they weren't engaged. I'm always someone who will, when it is possible, put more money into social housing. That wasn't as a result of the Greens political party. I'm the one who put it on the agenda in my second Budget Reply, and received some criticism from some in the Gallery, saying, 'Why is Federal Labor talking about housing, that's not a Federal issue?' Well, it is for me. My point about, you're saying that it’s a progressive Parliament, sometimes it's just a fact that the minor parties are looking for some form of product differentiation. And are then looking to try to claim credit for things that are not of their making. Now, if people have a good idea, no matter who's putting it forward, I'm up for it. And I meet regularly with the crossbench in this Parliament, and overwhelmingly, they are very constructive. And we have supported amendments that they've moved in the House of Representatives, even though we don't need to, in terms of, in a strictly numbers sense, we have an absolute majority in our own right. If people have a good idea that improves legislation, then we'll vote for it.
Murphy: But you could actually try and build a consensus around something like that, looking forward into act two, couldn’t you? I mean, look, I accept what you’re saying.
Prime Minister: Sure, except that the Greens see themselves as competitors with us, with the Labor Party. That is a part of their, and they of course shouldn't be seen as a homogeneous group. Some see outcomes as being more important than others. But you know, one of theirs put in writing, in an article, why the Housing Australia Future Fund was being held up, because if it was just passed, we wouldn’t be able to have protests and we wouldn’t be able to doorknock. And that was the motivation, very explicitly, put forward. Just as we have had that put forward in my electorate years ago, you might recall an election where someone said they'd rather have Tony Abbott than Bill Shorten as Prime Minister, because you get better demos. Well, you know, the truth is there are elements in the minor parties who do have that position.
Murphy: Okay, just one thing quickly or two things very quickly. What is your orderly Government going to do about banning gambling advertisements? It’s grand final weekend this weekend, people will be assailed with this stuff. I think the last time you and I talked about it, you said, 'I find them annoying', or words to that effect.
Prime Minister: Well, they are.
Murphy: Well, sure. But what are we going to do about it?
Prime Minister: Well, we've already done a range of things. We've said there needs to be more done. We've considered the report. We're out there consulting about that, through Michelle Rowland. Well, we've already changed, I mean, the ads have become more obtrusive now. But that's a good thing, deliberately, because we've changed the tag on the ads. So, instead of a benign message, it's a very explicit message.
Murphy: I see.
Prime Minister: So they're more noticeable. That, you know, you're going to lose. Like that that's the basis of the business, is that you're going to lose. And saying that, rather than just, you know, gamble responsibly. We've got the register in place, as well. And there are a range of other measures that we've done, online and other restrictions, that we've done. But we recognise there’s more to do. And when my orderly Government works that through –
Murphy: When will we see this come out of the Government?
Prime Minister: Well, when it's announced is when you'll see it.
Murphy: Sooner or later?
Prime Minister: No, which is when you’ll see it, when it's announced, when it's worked through. We want to make sure that it's got right. And that's appropriate that we're consulting.
Murphy: Okay, let's leave it there. Thank you for joining me.
Prime Minister: Thanks, Katherine.