And we are off!

(upbeat music) - All right, hello and welcome to Paul position myself for Extensfield, Alex, AJ, John, hello Brad, hello Alex, and great to be partnering with you again on an exciting new foray into the world of podcasting and YouTubeing. - Very exciting. - So, Paul position is a new Tasmanian politics podcast dedicated mostly to Tasmanian politics. - I think federal politics might get a mention today, Brad. - Yeah, I've heard it might. Look, at the end of last year, people might be aware that we were running a podcast called The Font Cast, a beat show on the principles of font retired. So, the business was retired and so was the font cast. The biggest question I got was not, what are you doing, Brad? It was, what about The Font Cast? - Well, we are here, we are back, and we are hoping to give you something which is a font cast on steroids, I suppose, Alex. Take all the good bits of font cast, add some exciting new elements and try and keep you all well informed about what's going on in Tasmanian politics. - Yeah, we'll miss beach, but we'll battle on with that, even. - Yeah. - And the font cast did have some loyal listeners, and I got a similar question. So, hopefully this scratches that edge. - Hopefully, we will do our best. - Very good. What are we on on the show today? - Well, coming up today, we're at a feast, actually. We have, you know, what Tasmanian politics is like. It's never famine, it always seems to be feast. So, we've got the truth, I hope, about the shoot, shag, marry, gait, taste, gait, whatever you want to call it. Is it a storm in a teacup or something more? We'll take a look at the shocked affection of Helen Burnett from the Greens to the cross bench, and what it means, I think that did catch people by surprise. We'll have a really brief look at upcoming Tasmanian political year. Couple big things in the first half that known unknowns, if you like, the budget and the ledge co-elections. We've got some exclusive polling from our sponsors at Enterprise Marketing and Research Services about Australia Day, and what people think of that. - Oh. - Yeah, so stay tuned for that. And I think, as Alex mentioned at the top, we are going to have to say a little bit of a look about what's happening with the federal coalition and the NATS. But before we do all that, Alex, maybe we should just introduce ourselves to our viewers. - Well, we should. I mean, maybe people are listening for the first time and haven't heard us give our backstory before. Do I mean to go first? - Yeah, yeah. - Sure. So, I've been. - I'm interested in this. - Yeah, well, let's not make it too long, but I've been sort of in and around Tasmanian politics for about 20 years. I started in Mike Gaffney's election in 2002 as a fresh-faced kid at Don College. I was the token teenager, shaking his hand. But I grew up in a household, I guess, that was always interested in politics. My mum and dad were both involved in the first pop-milled debate way back in the day. - Wow. - Dad actually went to Canberra with. - What type of day are you on? - Dad went to Canberra with Christine Mill and on behalf of the farmers who thought it probably wasn't a great idea. So, always political as a kid and started in the wind newsroom at 19 as a sports reporter. But I always sort of gravitated towards, you know, being the backup political person. Quick stint with the treasurer at the time, Michael Ed. I was the worst electorate advisor in the history of Tasmanian politics. - What goes well with the worst treasurer in history of Tasmanian politics? - No, that's not fair, but I was replaced by Dean Wendell. - I was replaced by Dean Wendell, who said it was the easiest transition ever because I'd done nothing. So, then I went back to journalism and that's when I really sort of started to get involved and I was the political reporter for Southern Cross for a long time and that's when I really got the bug. And there's a trend developing here because after the 2014 election, I went and worked in opposition for Labour, Brian Green, and then Rebecca White and that's when you and I really tested our friendship. We were pretty nasty to each other on Twitter there for a while. - Oh, maybe, yeah. - And then went back to wind news, had a little stint of moaner actually, which was very nice, a little pallet cleanser. And then went back to wind as the news director and then history repeated again because I thought, "Oh, no, maybe you can be a political adviser." And I went and worked for the three Freshly Elected Jackie Lamby Network MPs and we know how that ended. And then now, well, yeah, I'm doing a few things, including a little bit of PR trying to be a poor-- - Okay, give me business applause. - No, it's called curated communication. And I'm, you know, and we've got three amazing colleagues. And yeah, no, it lasts pretty good. But this podcast I'm excited about, Brad. What about you? - Right. - How did you get the Tasmanian political bugs? - Yeah, so I was first introduced to Tasmanian politics officially through the pages of the Mercury in 2004, when Ellen Winnett, then chief political reporter at the Mercury, wrote a story about how then Senator Erika Bitts, now Tasmanian Treasurer, had employed this bloke from the wild and rugged King Island to come and help him do his media. I think she was writing it rather skeptically. So, I came to politics then in 2004 from King Island, where I was running the King Island Courier, which comes in at my own, our own. Then worked for Eric for seven years, right through to 2010. If I had some ups and downs, as you can imagine. - A few ups and downs, yeah. Maybe we'll save those for another poll. - Yeah, maybe, maybe. Then switched to Will Hodgman, then opposition leader, just before the 2010 state election. I worked for him as a media advisor, that was the infamous tied election in 10-5, which resulted in labour continuing to go with the Greens. And after that, I went and worked for Will as his chief of staff from 2010. - Things went better at the next election. - Things went a bit better. We went a couple of elections. The rest of the history was a glorious golden age for the local party and for Tasmanian. - Okay, we're after that. - 2018, I left politics, went and worked for Font Pia, as mentioned, and I'm in now working out of my business enterprise marketing and research services. - Which is interesting. So you've taken over that. - I mean, I don't matter. - From Mary Messon, that's right. So running that and also running P.R. and G.A. out of that consulting arm of that business called strategies. So there you are. Still a fair interest in politics on my side too, I think it'd be fair. - Yes, that's not much that happens in Tasmanian politics. That's why I thought poll position was a good name, because obviously poll, there's a little emrs pun there, but also you are always at the front of the grid when it comes to Tasmanian. I've been in here on big political mornings and your phone does run hot. You admit that people still ring you for a bit of advice, don't you? - Well, I still keep me close to the ground. - Yeah, very good. - All right, let's jump straight into it. That's enough of the preamble. - I can't wait. - Let's start with the new section, which is really gonna start to annoy people who I suspect stance field says. - Stance field. - All right. So, scandal of the year, or storm in a taste of Tasmania plastic wine glass, are the glass ones this year? - No, plastic wine glass. - Plastic wine glass. So I'm referring, of course, to the so-called shoot shag or Marygate, which took place earlier this year for those unfamiliar, with what happened a few weeks ago, a group of labour MPs, including Ms. Rebecca White, the now federal member for Lyons, and assistant minister for women, Sarah Lovell, state MP, MLC, I think, shadow minister for health, I believe, and shadow minister for women, and her colleague Ella Hadad, the shadow attorney general, and shadow minister for equality, not them may have been others, but these are the three who have been focused on. The apparently they all decided it would be a good idea to quote Dan Andrews, get on the beers at the taste, event, the taste of summer. This is a festival down here in Hobart, and then decided, possibly slightly unwisely, to take part in a very loud and public game of shoot, shag, or Mary, where they reportedly rated Liverpool State, maybe federal MPs, I'm not sure, accordingly. The only problem they were overheard by a person who just turned out to be a Liverpool party member, this is Tasmania after all, and their subsequent written apologies, probably wasn't the wisest thing to do, made their way into the media via David Killick, remember killer, at the Mercury newspaper. So the question is, does it matter, did it matter, does anyone care? My view is, I think the bill was built a little bit on this when the Premier late last week requested some photo come down that had been put on the internet by the Liverpool X Facebook account, and then early this week sort of said, time to move on, not something he was focused on. I do think that the Premier was. The Premier says we should move on, maybe we should just move on, Brad. Yeah, well, that's right. I think the Premier was reflecting a large part of the community feedback he was getting at that point, and that people were sort of saying it was time to move on from this. And look, I tend to agree. I mean, I think the incident was initially titillating, certainly embarrassing for Labour MPs, but the Liverpool's attempts to keep it going did start looking increasingly like they were flocking a dead horse. Look, without doubt, the actions of those MPs was certainly the very least highly hypocritical, particularly given the shadowy portfolio as I just read out, and real ones in Ms White's case. And it has been pointed out. I don't think people need to think too hard to consider what might have happened if the bird had been on the other foot, so to speak, and it had been male, liberal, white, conservative MPs taking part in the same game. They probably would have all been frogmatched out of the parliament by now. That all aside, to me, the biggest message this sends, Alex, is about, in my view, the serious slack of judgement and work ethic of the Tasmanian Labor Opposition. Sure, politicians are normal people, tighter than normal lives, if this is normal. But remember, just six months ago, these people were telling Tasmanians at the election that they were up for running the state. Now, they're pissing on at the taste, playing loud, crude, revolver, drinking games. I just think it sends a message that they're just not serious about their job. They aren't serious about their jobs as MPs, and not serious about their jobs as opposition MPs, and it sends to me a message they're not serious about winning. And to me, that is the worst indictment on an opposition, and I think it's a disservice to all Tasmanians, and really I hope that the opposition learn from this and understand politics is not a game. It's a serious business, and if you want to run the state, you've got to be serious, not play games. Alex. Well, I mean, are you upset you didn't get invited to the taste, Brown? I did get an invite, but I didn't go. Oh, look, this is a tricky one for me to talk about because I think, you know, those in the political world know that I was there on that day, and there's been a lot of accusations made. It was put to me by someone who raised the matter with me that I was eging others on, and there's been a lot said about this whole thing that I find widely inaccurate, but I probably have to cop to that. Here's your chance to eging others on. I think I've been eging others on for the best part of 41 years. I'm going to be eging you on throughout this podcast. Yeah. I mean, look, I just think it's been blown out of proportion. I mean, a few of the things you said there, I mean, politicians on both sides had a wonderful time at the taste. Obviously, this one, the fun at the taste was then, you know, written in a sober fashion in the newspaper, and it just was there other MPs playing the game? No, I don't mean that. I mean, there were other MPs at the taste from both sides of the aisle, you know, having a good time. Now, obviously, this sort of went from social to public, and then when you try to write about something like this in the cold light of a day, it sounded a lot more sinister than it was. Now, obviously, everyone was having a good time. You never played shoot, Jack, Mary, Brad? No. Can you explain it to me? Have a game. Well, you come up with a conundrum of three people who are similar, and then, you know, it's not literal. You're just, it's just a, anyway, I mean, I'll give you one, I'll give you a one before the end of the show. We'll finish the show with it. I came up with a go-on in the car. Okay. Anyway, I just want to say that I was there, so therefore framing it as three women talking about liberal MPs is just not accurate, and it was just a silly conversation that yes was overheard, and, you know, I apologise when the person raised it with me. I'm not here to talk on behalf of anyone else, but the sort of way it was framed that it was just three women. I just think that was, that was a bit unfair, and I pushed back on some of the things she said, because most of the comments said, "People are allowed to let their hair down, you know, like it." Is it really, people were pretty, I don't know. They thought it was more a storm in the tea cup, as you've suggested. Now you raise, "Oh, what if it was three male MPs?" I saw those comments as well, people saying, "Oh, if this was three male MPs, it'd be front-page news." Well, it was front-page news, so I'm not sure that that would change anything really, like I mean, like you said, it was titillating, so yeah, I think it's time to move on. All right. Well, I'm going to ask you a few questions as well. I can't. It's nice to have the boot on the other foot from the front car, not when you were asking me questions. Yeah, okay. There you go. All right. You said you were there. Let's clear this up, because Mr Willey won't answer the question. Was he there? Well, he was at the taste that day. I mean, there's photographic evidence of that, but I'd. Was he there for the game? No, I don't think so. I don't think so. No, he wasn't involved in the conversation I was having. No. They didn't take part in the game. I don't think so. Okay. And I've heard some pretty horrible things, a reporter that was said, particularly a alleged statement made about the former immigration minister, Amanda Vanstam, so I'm not going to repeat. You hear that, or.? I heard that allegation, but that just didn't ring true to me. I couldn't imagine anyone saying that, so that's what I said. Some of it was fair. Some of it was a pretty, you know, saying I was egging people on, yeah, I think that's fair, but a lot of it, you know, that just didn't ring true to me. Yeah. All right. Well, look, to be fair, Alex, you're not an MP, so, you know? No, I know. But I, and look, part of me, is grateful for the fact that I wasn't sort of named in the story, but a part of me also felt that that was unfair because then it seemed like it was just three women playing when it wasn't. It was, you know, and look, it was just, it was very silly and the way it was sort of framed as labour people talking about liberal people, I mean, it was just a silly conversation, you know? It wasn't like. Anyway. Gotcha. All right. One more question. I probably find a bit easier. So I mentioned at the top, there was a photo that was taken at the event, which I subsequently found its way to the public via the Liberal Tasmanian Liberals Exit count and their Facebook account. It was a photo, I think, of Ms Widen and Ms Laval, I think. Clearly in a private conversation. Clearly in a private conversation in a public place. The semi-public event. Like I was in ticketed event, Brad, so semi-public, but anyway. So you've jumped, you've jumped ahead of the question. So the premier asked that for all that photo to come down. Now my view is. It's accompanied by a pretty average quote as well. Yeah, something about being tanked. You thought that was inappropriate. I mean, my view is if you're a politician, you know, you're going to expect to get photos taken of you without your permission over time. All right. So I said this to you the other day via text, no matter who you are, if you're having a private conversation, I just think let people have a private conversation, whether you're a politician or anyone. And the other thing I'll say is that that photo was taken well before anyone was talking loudly. Right. Okay. Yeah, I thought that was a step too far. All right. Okay. Well, thanks for clearing that up, Alex. Anything else you want to add on the matter or as you said the outset, time to move on, do you think? Time to move on. I mean, one for the road. Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, senior, shoot, Chag, Mary. Well, they're all blokes. Yeah, but that's the game. You don't have to take it literally. Oh, actually, it's just like. Gotcha. It's not literal. Right. Okay. It's just silly. Richard Nixon. Yeah. Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior. We've had to rank them. I would have, I would have, um, Reagan, uh, George, W, and then Nixon in order. I rank them in. That's the. So you're marrying. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that's how I'd rank them. But you're saying that that's the same, same, same difference. I think what you're saying. What's that? Well, we have a ranking. Well, maybe. Maybe, yeah. I mean. Anyway. How about you? You'd have Nixon at the top or? I'll for entertainment purposes. Yes. All right. There you go. You heard it. Well, I hope we're recording this conversation as well as Nixon recorded some of his. So do I. Just check. No, it is recording. Very good. All right. Let's move on. Oh, great. What's next? Next. Next. More of you, Alex. Even better. This is great. So, um, Helen Burnett, we mentioned at the top, um, uh, has been an unexpectedly busy start to the Tasmania political year. So, Helen Burnett, uh, defected from the Greens to the crossbench, uh, right at the start. You might have been the second of January, I think. Um, beating John Tucker's previous fourth of January tucks back, uh, say, we've always got to be awake in the first week of Tasmanian politics. Um, pretty unexpected. People were caught by surprise. Alex, um, your firm, uh, curated communications was engaged to assist Helen. I saw it on the LinkedIn there. You hold in the mic next to her. Mm-hmm. So, uh, what happened? What's the story? Well, I can't tell you too much more than isn't in the public, yeah. The, um, former deputy Hobart Lord Mayor and Greens MP decided life would be better as an independent. And, uh, yes, she engaged us to really just help with the logistics, you know, um, making sure the media was there because she knew what she wanted to say and what she told me is what she told the public that she didn't feel like, um, her voice was being heard in the way that it would as an independent and, um, yeah, time for a new chapter. But I agree with you. I mean, if I was just purely commentating, it was a shock. It was a shock to me when Helen broke the news. Um, when was that? Can you disclose that? Oh, a few days before, you know, it wasn't planned for a long time. Yeah. I mean, that was the same side. for three months in a row. the making? Oh, well, not from a from a PR point of view, but Helen said to herself that it was a long time in the making in terms of her decision. She said it was something that she'd been thinking about for a long time. So obviously in the end she decided to make the big call and it is a big call. It is a big call. And I think that it's a call that wouldn't have happened a few years ago and I take Helen Bernad out of the equation where you mentioned John Tucker, you know, this temptation to become an independent and sit on the crossbench and have all this autonomy. I think if you look across and see Craig Garland and Peter George and Kristie Johnston being having the freedom to speak out on things, you know, whenever they want, must be appealing to, obviously it was appealing to Helen Bernad, but there must be members of the other two parties that think wouldn't it be great just to be able to run my own race? Yeah, I mean, I do think that the increasing of the size of the Parliament and the lowering of the quota has involved in people to think that they could go at a loan when previously they never thought that was an option. I think that certainly had played a factor. Now, I think, I think in Helen's view, from Helen's perspective, I think it's a bit silly because I cannot see her getting reelected. As an independent, I just do not see room for her in the electorate of Clark with the strong green vote, strong liberal vote, strong labor vote and Kristie Johnston. I can't see how she survives as an independent time will tell, but I do think she's probably on her last term as a state MP. Well, she was asked about the next election and she said she hadn't even thought about whether she would run again. Yeah, well, I mean, yeah. So anyway, look, I mean, it's a hypothetical. I think people know my views on these sorts of things generally. I mean, I think loyalty is the most important quality in politics and disloyalty is the worst and disloyalty to a party like this. I'm not a Greens member, but Helen was a member of Hobart City Council, ran for Clark once or twice as a Greens member. Maven have been on a Senate ticket once or twice as a Greens member. I suspect Greens candidate got elected the parliament as a Greens candidate was elevated to the position of deputy speaker as a Green. And then she says, thanks very much, flips on the birds and walks out the tall. I just think it's really, really appalling and disrespectful to the party that has literally made a 20 year career, which wouldn't exist without them. And I just think generally, that is a real problem in politics that we have. As for why she did it, I just think that as I said, 20 years, she thought she didn't need them and she could go to loan. I haven't heard a compelling explanation otherwise. I mean, she wants to speak out and things. Well, it's been one press conference since, once a month later, not exactly flooding the pages of the newspapers with all these comments if you couldn't make us a Greens. And I've also heard some suggestions, which may or may not be true, that she's looking for the Senate spot of which Wilson is retiring and was told it was a no go. And that might have also helped catalyze her thinking. Who knows? One little part of this, Alex, I think that has been missed. The Greens had five members. Now got four. Libs have 14. So 14 and five was 19. So the Libs and the Greens together had a majority on the floor on a confidence vote or any legislation. 14 and four is 18. The Libs still have a majority with the Greens when they need it. And there's now one extra independent for them to woo if they need. So in terms of position on the floor, I would argue it's actually strength and the Liberal's position, Pazali. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. And I mean, they've got another cross venture who they can potentially win the support of on things that are close, you know, the cross venture vote in all different directions. Helen Burnett said it's pretty unlikely that she vote against her old colleagues too often, but unless she has that option now. Interesting times ahead. All right, I am reassured though that the majority of Tasmanians do agree with me on this issue about Helen's decision. If you like, there's some polling. Helen's decision specifically, but certainly there is. There is. So last week, yes, I did ask our team at EMRS to have a little look at this issue. And we're in the field on a few other matters, including the gun stuff that you most reported. And we asked the question, turning quickly to state politics, state member for Clark, Helen Burnett recently left the Greens to sit as an independent. To what extent do you approve or dis-approved of politicians switching parties between elections? And the results, Alex. Drumroll, please. Do I meta-read it? Yes. Okay, so to that question, just 5% strongly approve, 15% somewhat approve, 26% have no firm opinion, and then we get to higher results with somewhat disapproved, 28%, strongly disapproved, 26%, which means the net approve just 20, and the net disapprove 54%. There you go. I think you would, I mean, it's factually a fine question, but you could have the same preamble and say to what extent do you approve or dis-approved a politician becoming independent if they think they can better represent their community? Now I know you wouldn't ask question like that, but I'm saying you sort of led them to switching parties, you know, sort of, I don't know. I think you could frame it up a different way. Would you like a few stores there to grasp? I'm just sort of putting the alternative, but yeah, so I mean, I think generally, you know, taking Helen Burnett out of the equation, generally I think the changing lane, I think it would, I think when John Tucker and Lara Alexander did it, it was unpopular amongst liberal voters. I mean, the difference there was, I guess, John Tucker got a pretty decent primary vote. Lara Alexander got elected on preferences. Helen Burnett's a different case there where she's has a stronger personal vote, so not all of these things are the same. I think the numbers are the numbers, Alex. I mean, well, I'm not there wasn't there anyway. I think you've got off to a red hot start. Let's see what happens. The guns polling, you know, got a good, good run. Yeah, it did. We've got a bit more later in the show. Probably wasn't that comfortable for your friends in the Liberal Party, so I guess you're showing that you're fiercely independent. As I say, the numbers are numbers. All right, we'll see how Helen goes as an independent as the year progresses. She may pop up on pole position from time to time. Yeah, and to be clear, I've, you know, obviously supported through the transition phase. I have no ongoing relationship with her. If that changes, you know, if she decides there's some role for our business in the background, then I'll let you know, I'll be transparent because we really value our listeners here and we want transparency and I'm sure you'll do the same. Absolutely. Very good. All right, moving on. Quick look at the year ahead. Two big issues, as I said at the outset, the sort of known unknowns that are going to frame up the first half of this year, apart from what else might happen. We have the budget, which I think is May 22nd, which is looking like it could be a pretty messy affair in terms of cuts and savings measures, and then we also have two legislative council elections this year in early May, Roseville's and Hewan. Let's start with the budget. I like what's your view on how this is all going to pan out. Yeah, I think it'll be the big issue of the year. I'm fascinated to know how hard treasurer of bets will go. We know how bad the budget situation is and we were already starting to see it causing some headaches for ministers. I know Bridget Archer was out this week, quized about some potential cuts at the long system general hospital, what they mean and then we get into that sort of conversation that's all too familiar in Tasmania about no, it's more about recruitment and retention than cuts and so that'll be a big theme this year. I don't know how much of an appetite Ericka Betts has for going really hard. I think Jeremy Rockliffe hasn't shown any appetite for going really hard and I think there's a general feeling that if you were to cut the budget too hard, it would have dire economic business confidence consequences. But you've got to do something because last year's budget just sort of put the problem off. The interim budget just kicked the can down the road. I think the way you described it. So it's going to be a huge issue this year. I mean, it really is an impossible task for Erick. He's been asked, you know, we've already had two treasurers have had a crack out over the last three years to try and sort this out, Michael Ferguson, then we end well for him. Guy Barnett ended up worse for him, so it's the third treasurer now and in two years to have a look at trying to sort this out. It's trying to square a circle, really. It's very, very difficult. And I'm hearing he's looking or his arstations for savings in the vicinity of 200 million a year. As a starting point now, that's roughly 2% of the state's overall budget doesn't sound like a lot, but I can tell you that's reducing government expenditure by 200 million a year is a near. impossibility. If not, I mean, we've talked about before on the podcast, you know, even Lara Giddings, when she went very hard and, you know, got in trouble with the unions, they turned on her for one of a better word. That's right. Spending slow down, but it didn't go backwards. So this idea that you can go backwards. It's crazy. It's almost fanciful, isn't it? I think it's impossible. I mean, just one example, and I think I've mentioned this on the podcast, you're literally under the Tasmanian State Service Act. You cannot make public servants forcibly redundant. You just can't sack them. It's not able to be done. The best you can do is abolish their job and then put them on a redeployment list for 12 months and maybe offer them a really big voluntary redundancy and hope they will take that. In all of that cost money in the short term. All that cost money in the short term, but you can't just say, look, you know, Department of State Growth, we don't want you anymore. You're all sacked. It doesn't work that way. You're going down with no department and where many people work in State Growth, sitting around counting paper clips. So it's a really, really difficult thing to do in terms of reducing expenditure by reducing the size of the public service. And then if you try and cut programs, as you pointed out, happening yesterday with Bridget Archers, as soon as you start to squeeze funding for any program, some employees are going to put their hand up, most of the opposition in a complaint about it. And it's probably if it's vaguely contentious, not going to happen. And not just the opposition. I mean, this is where the cross bench comes into it because everyone will have things they care deeply about. And they'll take it in turns, I guess, of being the person that says, well, no, this is an absolute priority. And in a lot of cases, they will be really valuable things. Like you said at the start, this is such a difficult equation that Erica Betts has inherited at a very difficult political time. Yeah. I mean, I think I fear, and then it's not going to talk about taxes, which he says he's not going to raise, but he will raise. Because that's what the parliament will do. But that's not in his natural sort of, that's not his natural inclination either. That's what he says. But, yeah, I reckon it's probably what's going to happen because of the nature of the parliament. I think what's going to happen in my biggest fears, we're going to get a sort of a, if those of us old enough to remember a joe hockey Tony Abbott 2014 budget, federal budget, which was a, you know, on paper, a budget which we massively reduced expenditure and brought the budget back into balance. The budget passed the parliament, but all the individual, not all, but most of the individual saving programs can tame within that budget never happened because they were stopped by the Senate or by, you know, massive pushback, remember the Medicare co-payment, for example. And I fear that's what's going to happen here. We're going to have a budget, which on paper saves $200 million a year, passes the parliament. I think it will pass the parliament, but the majority of the savings measures just won't happen. And so we'll be continuing to live in this fantasy land that we're fixing the budget when we're not. The government's going to get all this political pain and then come 12 months later, we're going to find out they didn't actually achieve what they'd said they were going to do. That's what I think is what I'm saying. We see a mini version of that every year when you say, "Oh, we're going to spend this much on health." And then inevitably, you spend a lot more on health, like the reality of the budget paper versus the reality is never, you know, a circle. So anyway, it's going to be fascinating. And then there's the budget committee and some people that's choosing not to be involved, I guess, because they don't want to have. Oh, you mean the multi-partisan budget panel or whatever it's called, yes? So the rationale for not being involved, I guess, is, or we don't want to share the blame for what's going to be a very unpopular process. My argument is, I don't think, you know, of Christy Johnston or the Greens were involved. Anyone's going to blame them for the budget. I mean, it's going to Eric Betts as the one who's in the hot seat. So I'd be inclined to be involved just because you might be privy to more information than if you're on the outside, but that's just my inclination. What do you think on the politics on that one? Oh, I mean, I think the Labor Party or why it's not to be involved. The different for the opposition, yeah. But all these other MPs, if they're not government MPs, they are opposition, sort of, by extension, except perhaps David Aburn, who signed up to a supply and confidence agreement. So I mean, I just not unexpected. I think we'll see I can't imagine Mr. George staying part of the process, much longer either, to be frank. We'll see how things go. I was not really surprising. It was a nice attempt by the Libs to try and, you know, share the pain, but it's a little bit too obvious. Okay. And just quickly, I know people are going to ask, "Well, that's great, Brad. You're always winging about the budget. What's your solution?" So just full of record. Number one, stop new spending. Number two, stop new spending. And number three, do something about the unfunded super-own-ration liability 400 million a year, which is coming straight off the budget bottom line. And when I said earlier, and Alex scoffed about, Michael led being the worst treasurer ever. The reason I make that comment is because that's when that super-own-uation fund, that 1.5 billion, was rated and emptied the top up the budget at the time. And we are still paying the price for that every single year, $400 million out of the budget, enough deal most around the cops department. So, you know, fix that problem. It's half that problem. You've still got the servicing the debt problem, though. Like, that's a dual issue now. Like, I agree with this super, but now we're spending so much money just servicing the debt. Yes, well, we have to, we have to, we're stuck with that for now, aren't we? We have to pay that down, but this is an issue which I think can and should be addressed. It's just keeps getting you put in a too hard basket, perhaps because, you know, former and current treasury secretaries and senior bureaucrats are all part of the scheme, they don't seem keen to touch it, for some strange reason. Anyway, moving on, Legico elections. So, as mentioned, two Legico elections this year in May, Roseville is an human and both promise to be fascinating. So, stuck with Roseville is, I was up in Lonson yesterday, I just took a temperature with a few people of what they think is going to happen. General Vue is, you know, people are very aware of the local member up there at Joe Palmer and she's a popular local member. Labor's got to candidate in the field at a teacher, I think, Ben McKinnon. I don't think this will be a walk over for Ms Palmer, the education minister. I think that Legico elections are always tough. I think this will be tough for her. She only just got up last time with 50.5% of the vote against the independent candidate, Janey Finlay. Now, Labor member and Labor Rana candidate, that election too, Alex. Don't quiz me on who it was, but yeah, I thought Joe Palmer would have won that election more comprehensively. So, I was surprised it got us close as it did last time. I still think she's in the box seat to hold a seat. I mean, Incompancy still matters. We sort of look Edmunds, you know, win pretty comfortably. I think you went every booth he told us at the end of your drinks last year. So, I think Incompancy is a big, big help, but yeah, you can't rest on your laurel. No, no, the full record, the Labor candidate last time was just green. All right, who's now in parliament? It's just the Tasmania and political circle, isn't it? Yeah, look, I think, as you said, I think she's the favourite, but it won't be a walk over. She can't take it for granted. And if, as is generally the case in these things, a high-profile independent enters the race, it could make things very, very interesting. And I'm hearing persistent rumors, and we'll see whether they get put to bed after this podcast that perhaps the long-sistance mayor might be interested in running. Matthew Gawwood. Matthew Gawwood, that would really shake things up, wouldn't it? Well, he shakes everything up that he's involved in. I mean, he's had a big couple of years. And wow, that would be interesting. And a different sort of independent, too, because normally the independent sort of comes from the middle left. I wouldn't describe him as middle left, would you? I think he's an enigma, I don't think he really knows. He isn't an enigma. He was on the voice, wasn't he? Yeah, I think that's where he rose to prominence. Yeah. So I'm not saying it's confirmed, but just a persistent rumor that I'm hearing. So we'll see what happens there. Very interesting. Well, he'd be, I mean, I'm not sure whether alleged co-election is winnable against Joe Palmer, but he would certainly make a difference at a hair-clark election. You know, he'd tell even when he was in all that strife with the business, with the rock star, he had a lot of people in his corner. He did. A lot of people willing to say, you know, we've got your back. So he'd bring a few votes to the table. That's interesting. That could be a good one. Keep an eye on that. All right. And the other election, as mentioned, is Huun, which is down the Huun. And I think Ajay Labor really fancied their chances here against Dean Harris. Obviously, Labor. They got very close last time. Dean, amazingly one on Green Preferences is a very cool. And then, of course, prior to that Labor member was the very popular bastion, Dr Bastion. So I don't know who was a sad loss to the parliament when he left after a couple of years. He was their star performer, really. So that aside, I think this will be a close contest. I think Mr Harris is gonna have to work very, very hard. - Well, last time, Labor ran Toby Thorpe, young environmentalist, and he did very well. Probably went better than I expected. And this time, they've got another good candidate in Abby McKibbin. - Yes. - Who's got a pretty impressive resume, very much a human person. So I think they've put themselves in a winning position, and Dean Harris is-- - Oh, hang on, he's called it a winning position. - No, no, no, I said, you know, a winning position doesn't mean they're in the front row of the starting grid. - Oh, yes, he is an analogy, yeah. - To drive home the pun. Dean Harris is a very likable person, but he's not super high profile. - No. - You know, he hasn't sort of, yeah, he goes about, he's worked diligently, I would say. So Labor would think they're a chance. And I think they are, and there's also, at this stage, a high profile independent in the race. - Yes. - Relative to the high profile. So, Kingborough, I think she's the deputy man now, who's a clear, glade right. And she's been recently announced as a Voices of Franklin candidate. Now, I look at that, that's not like an official teal thing, but it's a pseudo teal thing. So. - Fishing in the same pond as Peter George. - I think, oh, that's very good. And I think that, yeah, that's certainly going to, I think, help Labor. I think it's the same fishing in the same pond as, you know. - It's the Harris, so. - The same pen. Farmed salmon penners. - Haven't heard from Mr. George Laley since. - Actually, I think, yeah. - Funny you should say that, 'cause I was looking on his Facebook page so that I've very few updates, 'cause they were prolific for a while. - It must be a real break, out of a break. - Not talking about the salmon that didn't, salmon whenever it was. Right, well, interesting times ahead in those two seats, Alex, and just to remind her every seat, every election legico does count. Most votes are decided by one or two votes, either way. So, if either of those seats changes, then it will make a big difference in terms of government legislation and, you know. - We might need to adjust the whiteboard of truth. - We might need to, is that still a thing, Alex? - Well, I can see it from here. - Yes, we could, yeah, we might have to bring it back. - I'm sure there'll be a vote or two this year where the whiteboard of truth will be needed. - I think that's right. All right. - What's next? - Let's move on to Australia Day and public perception of Australia Day as the day to celebrate our fine country. So, for this edition, I did again ask my team at EMRS to go into the field and just check what people thought about the date. It's been remarkably little commentary about it so far this year, I think, probably because of other federal matters that took place that have overridden it, but I'm sure this will become a talking point over coming days. So, we did go into the field and we did ask, do people support 26 of Australia as, sorry, 26 of January as Australia Day? And the results, again, Alex. - Okay. So, the results of Brad's Australia Day poll found that there is 55% support for the 26th of January getting the date. 35% underside, that's a big number given it's such a well-candest issue. And just 10% against, and which is almost identical to last year. - So, I think that, I think I'd transcribe that, should be 35% against 10% underside. Oh, that makes a lot more sense, Brad. - It does, doesn't it? Yes. - Okay, so let's, do we want to start that again? - No, no, just keep that's wrong. Well, I'll put the slide up on the YouTube for people who are watching. - So, just for clarity sake, 55% support, 35% against and 10% underside, makes much more sense. And that's similar last year where support was at 56%, so. - Basically unchanged over the last 12 months. - And it really feels like the debate has been unchanged for about the last 10 years. Like, you know, it's not so much a national holiday anymore. It's a national debate about the whole day. - Well, it had, yes, this year's been remarkably devoid of it because of other factors that year. Right, it always seems to be, you know, the debate about the debate. The debate about the date, not the celebration of the date. Now, there was a seat by seat breakdown. Alex, these are correct, so you can safely read these out. - So, more support in the north, 64% in Braden 73, sorry, 73% in Braden, 64% in bass, 59% in lines, and then less support down south, where 47% in Franklin, and just 41% in Clark with 50% against in Clark. So that makes a lot of sense. Andrew Wilkie is the federal member. It's a very progressive seat. So I'm not surprised by those results, Braden, what stands out to you? - No, they're completely predictable. In line, with last year's results, as I recall, and more as reassuring as a pollster when the numbers come in make sense intuitively. The north and the north-west, and the rural areas are much more supportive of the date than the more progressive areas in the south. I think what we do see here in terms of Franklin, and we did see this as well in the gun bio-backed survey that EMR also did earlier this week, Alex, is that Franklin is increasingly becoming a more progressive seat. More urbanized seat, the part of Franklin, the human part is starting to be overtaken, if you like, by the eastern shore and the King of the Parts, which seem to be more progressive. Now, there is a re-distribution coming up this year, which may affect the boundaries of Franklin. We're interested to see what happens there, but certainly, the way things are going, I think Franklin is fast closing on Clark as the most progressive seats in the state. - And that was born out at the last state election where there was room for Peter George. There was room for Rosalie Woodruff. There was room for a, you know, Labor independent and David O'Burn. So that's the facts of bearing that out. The age breakdown's interesting because in the 18 to 34 category, not much support at all for the 26th. 38% compared to 55% against, and then that sort of flipped on its head when it gets to 70 plus or even 55 to 69, where it's 54%, yes, 34%. No, so young people aren't a fan of the 26th. - But I mean, general view, young people are more progressive, so again, I think these results are completely unsurprising and bear out broader political trends. So there you go, Australia Day, Monday, 26th of January. There'll be a big rally down the Murray Street, probably, and into Parliament lawns, talking about invasion day, but the great unwashed majority still supportive of the day to celebrate Australia. - Yes, and there's been some savvy media clips doing the rounds that do remind us that the 26th isn't something that we've celebrated for hundreds of years, it's still a fairly new concept, so I don't personally understand the resistance to change it that much. - Going on, what's your electorate? - I think to adjust these numbers, add a plus here. - I mean, I'm in Clark now. - Oh, there you go. - I've moved from Franklin to Clark, I haven't actually thought about the political ramifications of that when I get to vote next, but-- - You've changed your enrollment? - I sure do, yeah, no, better get in there. Thank you for the reminder, Brad. No, I mean, and I say that because I just feel like it would be lovely if we could get to this stage of the year and not just have the Groundhog Day argument every year that we've had it, you know, can we find something that we all feel more comfortable about? - I don't know. - Oh, look, I mean, we did have, I haven't got the figures to hand, we did also ask the question about alternative dates and what people think of alternative dates. There's no consensus on any alternative date which is part of the problem in terms of changing it. There is no strong view that we should go for a January 1st as Federation Day, or I think it was at May 27th when the Commonwealth Parliament first sat or whatever, there's just no consensus on any of those dates which I think is part of the problem. My personal view is not going to make any difference. You change the date, we're still going to be arguing on Monday about what it means for Australia, whether it's called Australia Day or not called Australia Day, we're still going to be arguing about it on the 26th of January. So I don't think that that is going to, in any way, change the broader issues. So my personal view, the dates today. - Okay, good polling though. - Yep, very interesting. - Always very, and we'll be bringing you more of these exclusive insights on whole position as the year goes on. - All right, we're going to wrap it there, but-- - No, we can't. - We can't because of events of yesterday, Alex is on the top of your tongue when you came in this morning, So what do you rank of it all with the federal coalition? The coalition split again. You know, and they got back together, you know, it's like a Taylor Swift song. Very messy. I mean, for the first time in a long time, it seemed like the Prime Minister was under pressure. I mean, and I think we talked about it on the last episode of the podcast. You know, some of that pressure I thought was fair, some was grossly unfair, but, you know, whether it was fair or not, he was under pressure. Now, look what's happened. How do they do it? How can they not navigate this issue in a way that brings the coalition together puts pressure on the government? Instead, we're back to talking about the liberal leadership, the Nazi leadership, whether the coalition has a future. There's the one nation of it all. It's a mess. It is. Not entirely unexpected. I don't think things were particularly well thought through by the leader of the opposition when she called for Parliament to come back to do what, because it was inevitable they were going to be asked to consider laws which a large portion of her team would not support, because there is an increasingly a large number of libertarian pro-free speech-minded people in the Liberal parties and national parties. So it was sort of like cruising for a bruising by what she did, I've got to say. You know, it got to where it got to my view, and I think I may have said this before last year on the frontcast, when they broke up for the first time at the coalition, that is, I think I'm in a minority, but I actually think it's a good thing for the Liberal Party that the nationals have gone their own way. It allows the Liberals to focus on being Liberals, to develop a policy and a political narrative which addresses the concerns of the centre and the centre right without having this constantly trying to appease the nationals who in turn are desperately trying to out-nation one nation. And you think about that and you look back not just the last 12 months with a little bit of a party, but perhaps the last four or five or six or seven years, you can see, perhaps right back to Turnbull's time, how the national party has been increasingly holding the Liberal Party back from being a party of the centre and the centre right. So my view is I think it's actually a good thing. Don't get me wrong, one nation's a problem for the Libs as well. Perhaps we'll talk about that in future editions, but I think overall it's a good thing. It's long been a bug bearer of mine. You talk about the coalition. Well, that's not even a party. There's no one on the ballot paper that is, you know, Alex Johnston coalition. There are a Liberal candidates or national candidates or LNP candidates. There's no coalition candidates. So we've been all this time talking about a brand, a political brand that doesn't even exist. So as I say, I think it allows them to focus on being themselves. What does that mean, though, Brad? Like, where do you go if you're the Federal Libs here in Tasmania? The equation is obvious, you know, the template's there. Your middle right, but not very right. Your Jeremy Rockliffe, who's pretty socially modern, but pro-business, and that's how you win elections. Where do they position themselves federally? Well, they need to be Liberals. They need to find that identity, and I think there's now an opportunity to find that identity with the nationals. How libertarian do you go, though? Because I've noticed this massive trend, you know, Susan League, absolutely ratioed when she posted about the rationale behind supporting the amended legislation. It used to be that the left would attack. Now, it's this sort of libertarian streak sort of saying, you've let us down, you know, that is a real cohort of voters, especially at a federal level. Now, how do you placate that part of the electorate? Who are going to go everywhere, really, with their votes, you know, some to one nation, some to the Nat, some to independence, you know? Well, I mean, as I saw, I think what they need to do is they need to focus on being a party if they're saying to the need to talk about the economy. What was the last time you heard them talking about the economy, you know, they need to talk about addressing challenges that immigration is bringing, but they need to talk about it in an economic frame. They need to talk about it in a way that people understand in a way that is actually proposing realistic and sensible solutions. At the moment, all that is missing and it's being prevented from, in my view, from happening. It has been because of having to try and deal with, you know, the right and increasingly right means some of the federal national party today is not the federal national party 20 years ago. 30 years ago, Tim Fischer, Mark Vale, John Anderson, he's got a bit more right wing as he's got older. But, you know, the federal national party today is a lot further to the right than the federal national party of 25 years ago. And I think that has been a real problem for the Libs. So we'll see what happens moving forward. Of course, I'll get back together if they need 76 sets. They've got 76 seats between them. So I don't think that's after an election. Yeah, well, not before. Well, they might get back before. But, you know, it doesn't matter. I mean, everyone's going to understand that they'll get back together if they've got 76 seats between them. So I don't see it as being in a hindrance to actually winning government in a practical sense. I just think it allows them to argue their own position and define their own position a bit more. And it said yesterday that the NATS behaviour has made people rally around the Liberal leader, but does she survive this? Oh, I think the general consensus is that's unlikely. We will see, who's the most likely replacement? Andrew Hastie? No, no, I think it'll be Angus. Angus, Taylor. Okay. And is that the person that will take them to the next election? Or will he talk in Brendan Nelson again? Yeah, well, I think Brendan's coming back. No, look, I bet he was the leader. Wasn't he for a short time? He was. He was. He was. Is it a poison chalice, I guess? It's always hard. It's always hard after an election. And that's been, Susan has had that poison chalice as he pointed out. But I think Brendan was the first leader after '07. And then the second leader after '07 was a turmbal. Yes. And then the third leader took him to the next election, which was Abbott. So maybe he's lucky number three. Maybe. It does Andrew Hastie have a future as leader, a little part, do you think? He's certainly got a bright future ahead. I think he's suffered a blow or two this past week, if you've been watching what's happening on the socials. But he's certainly, you know, he's got to be of an ex-factor about him, but with an ex-factor comes positives and negatives. And I tell you who was in the thick of things when it came to negotiating the legislation that Senator Dunneham, how have you seen his performance? Yes, Senator Dunneham should disclose. He's a friend of mine and he was Deputy Chief of Staff when we were in government under will. He's certainly been everywhere, isn't he? Shameys in there. Working hard. Shameys in there. Up a house, isn't he? Oh, he could be a. Maybe he could switch. What do you reckon? I reckon John O down to the Franklin? Well, could you only Collins is going to retire? So maybe. She's been there a long time. Anyway. Watch his space. There you go. And as you alluded to Alex, let's not forget, the nationals Tasmania, where the Liberals have been in government for the last 12 years, despite their best efforts at Tasmania. And I'll try again, but Tasmania is largely a nationals free zone. They're looking for candidates out here. Yes, yes. All right. With that, we're at time. Alex, you said we'd keep it the 57 minutes. We've got the 57 minutes. Pretty good. Not a bad effort. So. Looking forward to when we have a guest on. Yes. Well, we'll have a. I mean, there was too much to cover this time to find room for a guest. That's right. It's an exciting addition, I think, to the pole position. We are going to bring an exciting new guest. And if you have suggestions, you know how we're to find us. You do? He does a message. Who would you like to hear first-guest on pole position? In a couple of weeks' time. All right. So pole position is brought to you by enterprise marketing and research services when accuracy matters, as well as our valued media partner at Holst Tasmania.