JACQUELINE MALEY, HOST: Hello and welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. We're bringing you a very special extra episode of the podcast today, because the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had an opening in his diary and he's granted us an audience. So, we're very happy to welcome the Prime Minister to the pod. He's joining us from the Canberra Studio just after question time on Thursday along with our chief political correspondent, Paul Sakkal. Hello, PM.
ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Good afternoon. Good to be with you.
MALEY: It's very nice to have you. Now tell me, are you the happiest man in Canberra right now with the Coalition, your opposition, at an all time nadir?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we're just doing what our job is, which is to try to address immediate pressures which are there on cost-of-living, to make sure that we deliver on the promises that we took to the 2025 election, but also to set Australia up in what is very challenging times globally as well. So, I've been busy focused on that. The Coalition, or the former Coalition, or I'm not sure what they are these days, have been focused on themselves.
MALEY: Do you have any reflections on it, though? I mean you've been in the Labor Party at times when it's been in somewhat disarray, and so you know what it's like to be inside that. Do you have any reflections from the other side?
PRIME MINISTER: This is the worst I've seen. I openly have said that the Labor Party decisions that we made in focusing on internals as one of the things that meant that we only lasted for two terms. Even though I believe, under both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, we delivered really important reforms on climate change, in gender equity, in the schools programme, in so many areas. We saw Australia through the global financial crisis, but because we were focused on internals too much, Australians marked us down. And they'll mark down the Liberals and the National Party. They are doing that. The issue that I think is very much there, though, is I can't see how they get out of this spiral. You have had a very close election of Sussan Ley over Angus Taylor just months ago and an undermining of the first woman to lead the Liberal Party from day one. Angus Taylor has not done his job as Shadow Defence Minister, has barely uttered a word in his portfolio, and what that will do is lead to an ongoing rolling maul, if you like, of dissent and division. And I can't see how they get out of it. The Liberals don't like each other, the Nationals don't like each other and the Liberals don't like the Nationals. And as a result, One Nation have seen their vote or their polling at least increased substantially.
MALEY: I want to ask you about your visit this week, you obviously hosted the Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Canberra. You've often said that Australians don't want overseas conflicts imported here onto our shores. That wasn't the intention of the Herzog visit, obviously, but it has been a consequence of it, hasn't it?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, certainly and many people I think have failed to look at the context of this visit. And the context of this visit is that 15 Australians had their lives cut short when the terrorist atrocity occurred, driven by antisemitism, on 14 December. So, President Herzog is not a member of the Netanyahu Government. He is the Head of State, the equivalent of Governor-General Sam Mostyn. He came primarily to give comfort to those who are grieving. Directly, the families. The time that I spent with him was primarily at the Chabad Synagogue in Bondi, talking face-to-face with people like young Matilda's mum and dad, her sister, talking with other people who are grieving as part of what overwhelmingly was members of that very tight-knit community led by Rabbi Ulman.
So, that was the purpose of the visit. I understand that people feel very strongly about the Middle East. And I understand that people also have a right to express their views about the Middle East and about what has occurred there, whether it be the atrocity that occurred on 7 October, the largest antisemitic loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, whether it be the extraordinary number of innocent lives that have been lost in Gaza, the actions of the Israeli Government that my Government has been critical of, over humanitarian aid and relief, being able to be presented there. And certainly people have a right to express that. But they need to comprehend that sometimes the actions don't actually advance a cause, they undermine it. And that is what has occurred, I think, on a number of occasions.
I am concerned. I'm concerned that the great deal of hurt which the Muslim community are feeling about the disruption of prayers, I understand that and I think that is something that needs a full explanation. I know that that has caused a great deal of distress. And I think one of the things that we need to do is just have a little bit more empathy and kindness in the way that we deal with issues. Even issues that are difficult, you can have a strong position on the Middle East and on justice for Palestinians – and I support a Palestinian state being alongside the Israeli state, and my Government is the first government to recognise Palestine. That doesn't mean that you can't empathise and understand that the Jewish community are really hurting in Australia, not just those directly affected, and to reach out as Australians in what has been a very difficult time.
MALEY: Nonetheless, if you're talking about advancing a cause and actions towards advancing a cause, your overall cause is social cohesion and advancing social cohesion. The President's visit hasn't really advanced social cohesion, has it?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, the President's visit was about him providing comfort and solidarity with people who are grieving. Now, people can have criticism of the actions of the Netanyahu Government and are entitled to express that. The issue though of the President and his visit here was about meeting with members of the community who are grieving. And one of the things I said in Parliament the other day is that in terms of the broader issues, there are two paths in the Middle East. One is the path of path of peace and reconciliation and a settlement which gives Palestinian justice, but also recognises the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, to have security assured, its right to defend itself. Or, the status quo, which has been there for decades now, of a very strong state of Israel with Palestinians being an oppressed people, people who don't have any self-determination, people who suffer from poverty, people who are in an extraordinarily difficult position. And you need to have a path that improves that situation because the biggest victims are, yes, Palestinians suffer and continue to suffer, but Israelis suffer as well with a failure to have security on a day-to-day basis because of terrorist acts, not just 7 October, but others as well.
And how do you actually provide a solution? A solution must, by definition, include engagement with both Israelis and Palestinians. That's the only way that any conflict has ever been advanced and if conflict is allowed to continue, the biggest suffering occurs to the less powerful group, not the more powerful. And that's why if people are serious about advancing the life of Palestinians, they can't simply say the sort of simplistic slogans. You know, 'from the River to the Sea' is about one state from the Jordan River to the sea. Israel isn't about to not exist. Israel will fight for its existence, and that will mean ongoing conflict. And that's why we actually genuinely need a two-state solution, not a one-state solution. And that's something that I advocate publicly. I say the same thing privately. I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu before we recognised Palestine at the United Nations. I gave him that courtesy and engaged very directly in Australia's view about the need to move forward.
PAUL SAKKAL, HOST: The New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, has backed in the police response and he's repeatedly emphasised that the protesters were given an alternative site and made their way way to an area that was deemed illegal. How much blame do you put at the feet of the demonstrators? And also overall, I know you mentioned one element of the police response there, but should there be a review into how heavy-handed police were?
PRIME MINISTER: Look, overwhelmingly you have to recognise as well – there's a difference, I draw a distinction between the leaders of the demonstration, some of whom are part of far-left parties, such as Josh Lees, and overwhelmingly, a whole lot of people who would've just gone because they care about these issues and went along to peacefully express their views. But the organisers were engaged with the police. They chose not to come up with or participate in a sensible way that would've ensured separation by having the meeting in Hyde Park and then walking, marching to Belmore Park. It is beyond my comprehension why that would not be taken up, that suggestion by the New South Wales police. Now, I also, as I've said, I want to see an explanation. I'm very empathetic about the hurt that's being felt by the Muslim community of prayers being disrupted.
SAKKAL: Yeah, so your concern is specifically around that element?
PRIME MINISTER: I think that is an issue that needs addressing because I think people need to have a right to practise their faith in peace. And some of the footage, of course, you need to be careful about footage because you don't get to see the full picture. But what I have seen is the truth, is that there has been a lot of disruption. There has been –
SAKKAL: Caused by the demonstrators?
PRIME MINISTER: Over a period of time. There are elements who've been involved in the campaign, including some of the action that's taken place very directly in my office where people have been stopped from getting assistance for Medicare, social security, everything else. It's not a policy office. It's there to help constituents in the inner west of Sydney. And people have found that it's acceptable to put stink bombs into the office, to destroy some of the office, break windows, graffiti, abuse people, accused people trying to go to Mass because it was in the grounds of the Anglican church and part of their premises, and some of the behaviour does nothing whatsoever to advance the Palestinian cause or anything else.
MALEY: PM, you've sort of been on both sides of it, haven't you? Because you obviously copped a lot of criticism for your handling of the Bondi massacre and of antisemitism in general, and that was really the narrative of the summer, which I'm sure was very personally difficult for you among other things. And on the other side, as you say, in your hometown, in your electorate in Marrickville, you've had huge sort of vociferous protests from the pro-Palestinian movement or elements thereof. Now that the worst of that sort of backlash from the summer is over, how do you reflect on that period and what have you learned from that period?
PRIME MINISTER: That you have to keep to a principled path. That part of what has occurred is because we have, as I said in Parliament the other day, viewed this as like a football team game where you are cheering on every tackle that South Sydney make and hoping that the other side dropped the ball totally the whole way through. There needs to be nuance in this debate, and there's too much anger. And one of the things that is very clear to me is that, overwhelmingly, Australians don't want the conflict in the Middle East to continue. They want innocent people to be protected, whether they be Israelis or Palestinians. But they also don't want people to bring conflict here of any sort. So, we have taken a principled position, you're right, that's meant criticism that is completely contradictory. And that to me, when you're in a position of responsibility, you have to deal with that. But one of the things that I would say is that after other national tragedies have occurred, whether it be the Lindt Cafe siege, Port Arthur, the Bali bombing, there hasn't been a politicisation of it. Here, there was an attempt to secure political advantage, perceived, within 24 hours. And that to me is entirely inappropriate.
I can't conceive as a political leader of seeing an event such as that and going, okay, what are the politics of this? It's a time for national unity and for the country to come together. And people chose very consciously, some people chose – and I draw a big distinction between the engagement of some political figures and the response of the local community. I was sitting in the loungerooms of members of the Chabad community in Bondi, the synagogue, engaging with Rabbi Ulman, engaging with many members of the community very directly, visiting people in hospital, engaging, having people in my office, at Kirribilli house, having meetings, having that engagement. And they were warm, generous and kind. They weren't looking at pointing fingers. What they were looking at was a community that was grieving and that response stood in stark contrast to some of the media coverage, which wouldn't have perceived that at all. And I made a conscious decision to not take TV cameras with me wherever I went, to look for this as an opportunity.
I saw this as a responsibility. Firstly, what did we need to do to keep Australians safe? That was the immediate issue that we had to do, not to engage in the sort of politics that we saw, and we did that. And I think that the engagement, some of the political rhetoric that was ramped up, came back on the people who used it. And that's why we saw, for example, after all of the rhetoric that occurred, the National Party didn't vote for a single change. What did they support? Not gun laws, not racial vilification, not hate speech laws. And the Liberal Party had issues quite clearly that we've seen with that as well. We're just engaged from a principled point of view of what do we need to do to keep people safe and how do we advance that in the future as well?
SAKKAL: You've characterised the Bondi backlash, Prime Minister, as driven in large part by political actors, but looking back, do you acknowledge that you were on the wrong side for a fair chunk of time on the question of a Royal Commission, and the Royal Commission advocacy was much wider than just being made by political actors? Do you regret some of the arguments you made against it in that period and do you wish you'd just moved more quickly?
PRIME MINISTER: No. To be clear, a Royal Commission was announced by New South Wales. We said we would fully participate in that, so that was done. The immediate thing that we needed to do was to assess in that week and days and early period after 14 December, were these people part of a cell? Was there going to be another attack in Sydney or somewhere else, which is a pattern that we have seen from terrorist acts overseas. What was the connections between the Akrams and international organisations? We knew they were inspired by ISIS, but were there any international actors here involved as well?
SAKKAL: What's the answer to that?
PRIME MINISTER: What did we need? Well, there'll be a Royal Commission, but it would appear from the initial assessments – and we had to find out where had they gone. They'd hired the place at Lakemba. Where were they trained? They trained down at the farm on the South Coast. Why were they on the Philippines? What was the connection there? So, we engaged with all of our intelligence agencies and the assessment as the Director-General of ASIO said to Senate Estimates, is that all of the initial assessment up to this point is that they acted alone as a father and son team. And that is part of the issue. It's very difficult to detect because there's not electronic activity between them. So, it was that. Within the week we had announced that we would have Dennis Richardson, the most senior person, to look at intelligence security issues. We also said we wouldn't wait to have an inquiry that would report in a year's time. We would bring Parliament back and legislate when that was required, both over guns, where I convened a National Cabinet meeting the next day on the Monday afternoon, and we would look at hate speech laws as well. Because we identified that as an issue. So, bear in mind as well, this was over Christmas and New Year period, the National Security Committee met each and every day. We also, in between this period, you couldn't announce – can you imagine, just go back a little bit about some of the rhetoric and the engagement of some of the political actors. Had we said, we're going to have a Royal Commission, but we won't tell you who the Royal Commissioner will be, we won't tell you what the terms of reference will be. That would have been, in my view, disruptive and would've ensured, when you look at the attacks that were made, personal attacks by people who should know better, against a former High Court justice in Virginia Bell, then the undermining of the Royal Commission would have occurred had we not been in a position to have a comprehensive announcement.
SAKKAL: That argument, though, indicates that you were thinking about it and prepared to move on it as you were arguing publicly against it. But anyway, let's not keep –
PRIME MINISTER: No, to be very clear, the New South Wales Premier announced a Royal Commission. We said we would fully cooperate with it and have all of the federal agencies – that would've effectively been a New South Wales and Commonwealth Royal Commission. What was occurring at that time was people weren't looking for agreement or consensus or moving things forward. With every single announcement, people were looking for distinction and difference. And I understand at that time as well, that grieving families who I was meeting with and having some really tough conversations – I accept that part of my job as Prime Minister is to be a bit of a shock absorber for the nation, for people who were grieving at that time, and I have so much sympathy for them. My disagreement is with some of the political actors at that time.
SAKKAL: I'll just quickly move on to one more Herzog question and then we'll move on to some policy stuff. As you've noted, Isaac Herzog is not a domestic ally of the Prime Minister. I wonder if in your conversations with him this week, perhaps at the Kirribilli, without divulging too much detail, what did you learn about the domestic situation in Israel? The settlements issue, the prospect of two states, Benjamin Netanyahu's political future. Did you learn much?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we had private conversations and my private conversations stay private, whether they're with –
SAKKAL: Go high level.
PRIME MINISTER: Whether they're with the President of Israel or the President of the United States or with President Xi, I engage. That's one of the ways that Australia is able to engage internationally with respect, and that is something that I do in a respectful way. And I was very pleased to, I know President Herzog, it's not the first meal that we've had together, and he's a former leader of the Israeli Labour Party. He's someone who is someone who has a broad experience politically. We first met, I think probably more than two decades ago.
SAKKAL: Did this heal relations with Australia, as he said he'd aimed to do?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I believe it is a positive thing that was able to occur. You always have to look at the counterfactual. For those people who say that President Herzog should not have been allowed to come to Australia, can you imagine the message that that would send to the world, frankly, that we denied the Head of State of Israel the opportunity upon invitation particularly from the families at Bondi to come and grieve with them. That to my mind – people need to always look at the consequences and the counterfactual of where it sits. Now, President Herzog overwhelmingly engaged in, I think, an appropriate and respectful way. That doesn't mean, like any other leader or person, it doesn't mean that I endorse all views or anything else. That's not what it was about. Overwhelmingly, President Herzog, I might say Mrs Herzog as well, comforting particularly the women who were grieving there, was something that was very moving.
SAKKAL: That's good to hear. Last year, PM, was a year of delivery for you between May and the end of the year, ticking off election promises. What's this year about on policy and direction for this government and your own [INDISTINCT]?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, continuing to deliver and consolidate. Continuing to make sure that we deliver on cost-of-living, because we know people continue to be under financial pressure. Setting up Australia for the future. So, one of the things that we did in the lead up to the election was to commit to measures that built on what we had done earlier in the term. Most of those now have been implemented, but they're being rolled out, so making sure that we deliver on the commitment side, the opening of the Urgent Care Clinics, the free TAFE, the other measures that we have. And frankly, a range of them are exceeding expectations. The batteries programme, the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, the number of people, now two and a half million people have been through Urgent Care Clinics, 725,000 on free TAFE - those measures. But getting the economy strengthened as well. How do we set up future growth? The productivity challenge is ongoing. It's not easy. Areas like critical minerals as well, the deal that we have with the United States, but the arrangements we have with other countries as well. The Prime Minister of Canada will be here in just a few weeks' time. There's a lot that we can do with Canada. Our relations in the region as well. In the past three weeks, we've had an agreement, an upgrade in the relationship with Timor Leste, an important treaty with Indonesia. This is a very significant agreement going forward with a very important neighbour. And so, setting us up in what are turbulent times. How do we improve, continue to improve and consolidate relations with the Pacific Island Forum with ASEAN nations, as well as with our traditional allies in the United States, United Kingdom, as well as our European partners?
MALEY: Prime Minister, do you think the capital gains tax discount is fair?
PRIME MINISTER: Look, we think that – the capital gains tax discount was something that was brought in by the Howard Government. It is something, was an assessment made at that time. We've said we'll consider a range of issues in the lead up to the Budget in May, and we'll do our usual deliberative way, an orderly way that we conduct ourselves.
MALEY: I'm obviously trying to get a sharper answer out of you
PRIME MINISTER: You are.
MALEY: And you're jousting me away.
PRIME MINISTER: I'm glad you noticed.
MALEY: Yeah. Is intergenerational equity a lens that you're going to be applying to the upcoming Federal Budget in May? Can I ask that question?
PRIME MINISTER: It's a lens that we put across everything. It's why we had the 20 per cent reduction in student debt that the Coalition say is waste, because we know that it's harder for younger people to have a crack. That's why we've done free TAFE. It's why we're doing the university hubs as well. It's why we'll look at the impact as well of the tax system, it's why we have targeted – if you look at the tax cuts that we're putting in place this year and next year, that lower rate will particularly assist young people because that first marginal tax rate impacts a whole lot of people who are working part-time or who are just entering the workforce. It's why we've concentrated on that. And we made the very difficult, and some might say at the time, courageous, decision to change stage three of the tax cuts.
MALEY: Sure, and if you wanted to continue that theme of helping young people in particular and in particular around housing, then you're going to have to look at the tax arrangements around housing.
PRIME MINISTER: The big issue of course in housing is supply. So, how do you look at increasing supply? There's a range of measures that we are doing. The 5 per cent deposits have helped, tens of thousands already have had their homes their first home approved as a result of that. We are looking as well at how we reserve new home builds for first home buyers. We announced the first deal in South Australia, 17,000 new homes, 7,000 reserved for first home buyers in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, and we'll be rolling out more of these measures right across the country.
SAKKAL: You're definitely not ruling out capital gains tax. You have ruled out negative gearing changes. What about trusts?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, look, we're not getting in the rule-in, rule-out game as much as you try. Talk to me on – the Budget is the second Tuesday in May. You can have us on after that and then I'll talk about the Budget.
SAKKAL: What are your thoughts on tightening up trusts?
PRIME MINISTER: Our thoughts are that what we do is we put together a Budget. And obviously our focus at the beginning of this year has been on the national security measures. So, we will have a proper Budget process. That's what we do. We're an orderly government. The other side are a rabble.
SAKKAL: I'll take that as not closing the door on trusts, more on the budget process,
PRIME MINISTER: But you can ask all of those things, it becomes a game.
SAKKAL: But you do rule out negative gearing, so there's a difference in language.
PRIME MINISTER: It all becomes a game.
SAKKAL: It's a game we have to play, unfortunately.
MALEY: Well, we we're not interested in playing a game. We're trying to get answers out of you, or at least get some idea.
PRIME MINISTER: What you'll do though, what governments do, is to work out full plans. A bit like, refer to – whether it's details of Royal Commissions or other things. You work out a full plan, you then go out, you announce it and you back it in. That's what we did over tax, whether it be the income tax changes that we made to stage three, where I went to the National Press Club. Go back and have a look at the way that the Herald and the Age reported that the next day.
MALEY: What, objectively and clearly?
PRIME MINISTER: It was not glowing, let me tell you. And there were political obituaries written for the Government over the first period, but we knew what we were doing. We had our arguments. We'd gone through the detail in an orderly way. And similarly, the tax cuts that we put in place in last year's Budget, it's not that long ago, last year's Budget, were important measures that we'll deliver, will increase the take-home pay of working people this July and next July. We'll work through a full comprehensive Budget and we'll make announcements and then I'm happy to come on the podcast and talk about it.
SAKKAL: I've just got one more on the Budget, more straightforward one. Ministers are talking about this Budget as one where there's a real attempt to do some tightening on the spending side. How ambitious are you to get some spending cuts and saves in this budget? How lofty is your ceiling on what you can do there?
PRIME MINISTER: We have always looked for saves. We've put $114 billion of savings already, and that's on top of – what we've done is to bank revenue upgrades, some 70 per cent of it. Under the former government, most of the revenue upgrades they just spent and they had no saves in their last budget, not a dollar. So, we had $20 billion of saves in the mid-year economic forecast just in December. So, we'll go through, we've done that work. We'll continue to do work. The ERC will step up its meetings over the next couple of months and of course we'll look for savings that are appropriate. I think people want to ensure that every dollar of public spending is making a difference in terms of improving the lives of Australians, not just immediately, but also some of the measures are about the long-term change that is required, whether that be the health and hospitals agreement we've just done or the better funding for every public school. That's been talked about for a long time.
SAKKAL: Is tightening up on spending a big focus of this Budget?
PRIME MINISTER: It always is. That's what we do.
MALEY: Prime Minister, as we record the Liberal Party preparing for a vote on their leadership with Angus Taylor contesting Sussan Ley. I want to ask you, what do you think of Angus Taylor as a person? I note that the Labor side is very much trying to portray him as a blue blood, as a sort of chino-wearing squattocracy type, but what's your experiences for him behind closed doors or around the corridors of Parliament as an actual bloke?
PRIME MINISTER: I haven't had that much to do with him. That's the truth of the matter. I do think that he is one of those people on that side of politics who are, I guess, born to rule. That's the perception. And even the way that he's conducting this challenge is, he's gone out there, he lost a ballot to Sussan Ley. He's been on strike since in terms of doing anything as Shadow Minister for Defence, a pretty important portfolio. And last night he went out there and said he'd resigned, didn't even say he was challenging Sussan Ley. It was extraordinary. And he's got no reason, no policy reason for direction. It was almost like he may as well have said 'vote for me and I'll advance world peace'. It was extraordinary, the lack of detail or any thought whatsoever about a change in direction or any specific policies. And I know that my experience of him as a minister was diabolical, as Energy Minister. Four gigawatts left the system and one gigawatt came into the system.
MALEY: Explain to listeners what you're talking about there.
PRIME MINISTER: As Energy Minister, he was diabolical. And then as Shadow Treasurer, he opposed tax cuts. He opposed all of our cost-of-living relief. He went to an election arguing for higher taxes and higher deficits. It's diabolical. And the idea that what the Liberal Party need is to become more right wing is, to me, to miss the message that has been given to them at the last election and the one before.
MALEY: Do you think there's been sexism in the way that the Liberals and the Nationals have treated the first female leader of the Liberal Party, from your vantage point?
PRIME MINISTER: I think certainly that it's fair to say Sussan Ley hasn't been given a fair crack.
MALEY: But do you think that's partly because of her gender or in any way because of her gender?
PRIME MINISTER: I think that the Coalition have failed to understand that if you want to represent the Australian people, half the Australian people or just a bit over are women. And on the range of issues, they're dismissive of policy issues. The women's health programme that we've implemented, the shutting of the gender pay gap, the pay increases in feminised industries like aged care and childcare. The measures that we have put in place have all been dismissed by the Coalition. And I think that one of the pluses that the party I'm proud to have is we look like the population, where a majority of women in our caucus and around the Cabinet table means that you get those voices and those issues heard. And I think that the Liberal Party have failed to modernise, and I don't think Angus Taylor is at all in touch with the needs of Australians or the aspirations that Australians have. I think that that are many people in the Liberal Party who have always never seen Labor as being a legitimate government, and that's why in their critique, everything is always dialled up to 11. There's a complete failure to at least acknowledge that at the last election we received a considerable majority in the House of Representatives, and they continue to just oppose everything and not engage in any constructive way. I think they're suffering as well from the fact that Peter Dutton did keep their team united, that was something that he saw as a big plus, but he did that by them shrinking in on themselves, becoming more conservative, more introspective less with the capacity to engage on issues like climate change, like equity issues, like what is needed to advance Australia's national interest in the times where we are.
SAKKAL: Is Andrew Hastie more dangerous to the Labor Party than Angus Taylor?
PRIME MINISTER: Andrew Hastie is more right wing. I think that Australians are looking for a government that is reasonable, that listens to them, that's orderly and that is prepared to engage constructively. My Government is an orderly government. We had a comprehensive platform we took to the election. We're delivering that platform. Our opponents are good at identifying grievance and promoting division and trying to set Australian against Australian, but that's the One Nation agenda. And if you're going to be One Nation lite, why wouldn't people just vote for the real thing?
MALEY: PM, you've been so generous with your time and we greatly appreciate it. We'll let you go. You've probably got some popcorn you need to eat while watching the Angus Taylor-Sussan Ley stoush.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, tomorrow I'll be at the breakfast to commemorate with members of the Stolen Generations who are here. One of the things that has occurred is the timing of the Coalition – the Coalition broke up the first time when Sussan Ley was dealing with personal tragedy. The second time on the National Day of Mourning. They had meetings to plot the overthrow of Sussan Ley on the morning of the funeral of Katie Allen, who was respected across the parliament. And then Angus Taylor resigned on the day that President Isaac Herzog was visiting the Parliament here in Canberra. And now today and tomorrow is about Closing the Gap and respecting First Nations people and advancing Reconciliation. And they have I think with their timing on all of these events, just got it completely wrong and it will really jar with people.
MALEY: PM, thank you very much and we hope we can have you back on soon. Before the Budget, we hope.
PRIME MINISTER: Indeed, we can do that and I can not answer Paul's questions again about the Budget.
SAKKAL: So fruitful.
MALEY: No, we can play that game again as you say. We've had fun. Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks very much.