The Mastering Podcast

Mastering Politics | Beyond the Ballot: What Voters Need to Know Before Election Day with Phil Di Bella and Michael Johnson

• The Mastering Team • Season 1 • Episode 8

Share episode

When was the last time you truly understood what you were voting for? In this eye-opening conversation with former federal MP Michael Johnson and renowned entrepreneur Philip Di Bella, we pull back the curtain on Australia's political landscape and examine how the upcoming federal election could reshape our nation's future.

Democracy isn't always what it seems. Our guests reveal how Australia's preferential voting system can result in candidates who receive fewer primary votes ultimately winning seats—something most voters don't fully grasp when casting their ballots. "We are a country of contradiction," Di Bella observes, highlighting how our political structures often create outcomes at odds with voter intentions.

The discussion takes a fascinating turn when examining the economic backbone of Australia. With 9.9 million Australians employed by small and medium businesses (compared to just 3 million in government), why do politicians making decisions about business regulations often have zero experience running a company? We explore how escalating costs are crushing hospitality businesses, with labour expenses jumping from 30-35% pre-COVID to an unsustainable 45-55% today.

As international tensions rise, our guests offer thought-provoking insights on Australia's precarious position between the US and China—what Di Bella calls "trying to ride two bicycles at the same time." Johnson delivers a sobering warning about defence spending and national security that should concern every Australian thinking about the future.

Perhaps most revealing is the stark contrast between business and political accountability. In business, leaders who fail to deliver on promises face consequences. In politics, failed promises lead to attacking opponents rather than accepting responsibility—a cycle that undermines meaningful progress.

Whether you're politically engaged or feeling disillusioned with the whole system, this conversation will transform how you view Australian politics. Join us for this candid, non-partisan exploration of what really matters as we approach a watershed election that will shape our collective future.

Subscribe to the Mastering Podcast for more thought-provoking conversations on the issues that matter most to Australians. Your vote is powerful—but only when cast with understanding.

Check out the Coffee Commune here.

Check out The Mastering Podcast on YouTube here.

Send us a text

Want more? Find us on You Tube, Instagram, X, and TikTok where we share bonus content and engage with our listeners.

Don’t forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review! Your support helps us bring more inspiring stories to life. ❤️

Michael:

That person looks scary. You know Peter Dutton being you know a scary guy, which is just pathetic because we're not voting for you know, mr Popular.

Phil:

That's exactly right.

Michael:

I mean this might be a bit of a strong point to make, but I think it's an indictment on the Australian people that we're like that, that we don't actually necessarily think really long and hard about substance and policy. Who cares what Peter Dutton looks like or Anthony Albanese or whoever? At some point this is really going to affect your lifestyle and it'll be incremental. And that's the danger, because it's incremental.

Lucas:

Correct, so you don't notice it straight away. You don't notice it. I love listening to this conversation because I grew up a Labor supporter.

Phil:

We're a country of contradiction, we are a country of hypocrisy when it comes to that system, because what the governments have done well is to play the me versus you.

Lucas:

Welcome to the Mastering Podcast. We're joined by two powerhouses who have had the privilege of knowing for more than 10 years here in Brisbane Michael Johnson and Philip de Bella. I am super pumped about this episode, guys. I can't wait to dive into it and thanks for being here today. Thanks for having us.

Phil:

You might not be pumped by the time we're finished here today. Thanks for having us.

Lucas:

You might not be pumped by the time we're finished. So just a bit of background. Michael Johnson is a barrister, a former member of parliament in Australia and the founder of the most elite networking group here in Brisbane or southeast Queensland, or even Australia Arguably Australia, arguably Australia East Coast Forum. Philip DiBello is one of the most Australian successful entrepreneurs scaling and exiting a premium coffee brand, debella Coffee, and now has built an incredible coffee community where we are actually recording here today, the Coffee Commune, and also a part of Queensland's Small Business Roundtable. And I love Philip DeBella's post All Things Politics. In the last month it's been epic. I'm also joined by Don Senker, co-host of the Mastering Podcast. He's a master's athlete, entrepreneur, advisor, investor and absolute powerhouse in the education sector. So today we're going to explore all things mastering politics. So what's really going on in the US, how it's affecting globally and here in Australia, key issues shaping Australia's upcoming federal election and the intersection of business policy and leadership in today's business uncertain times. Let's get into it, guys, looking forward to it.

Michael:

Fabulous. Thanks, lucas, for having me, and I've got to say the fanboy, one of my heroes, Cut it out, michael, it's good to catch up If you ever want an example of imposter syndrome.

Don:

that's exactly what I'm feeling right now.

Phil:

Now fire away boys.

Michael:

Come on, let's get the show on the road Time is money. You know when you're a barrister.

Phil:

Every six minutes. Every six minutes. Our barristers don't charge for six minutes. No, we do it one minute, one minute.

Lucas:

I'd love to just kick off with yourself, phil. What are you seeing, both in your industry today, the ecosystem you're a part of, and what's happening here in Australia?

Phil:

Look, it's a big question. I'll give you a snapshot. So we obviously got 1,600 members here at the Coffee Commune, but I do business globally, all over the world, from importing coffee, obviously South America, central America and all the rest of it. What we're seeing with the States is and this is my view my background in strategy, branding, marketing. So what I'll share is what I see and I articulate it from my words and my point of view. Firstly, the intention is good, right, so forget. It's Trump, president, trump, it could be President, let's call it President X comes in and Probably can't say President X.

Phil:

Well that's probably can't say that because of Elon Musk, right? Well, let's just call it the President, right? Pretty sure that's what he's going for. So anyway, let's rephrase that one. The president comes in and the intention, I think, is good. Let's look after Americans first, right, because I'd be doing the same thing if I was coming into Australian politics. Let's look after Australians first and then we look after somewhere else. And I talk in analogies. Being a strategic marketer, it's no different to how we run our households. I'm going to look after my wife and my two kids first, and then I'm going to do my bit for community. So let's say the intention is good in the States and some of the execution is going to be questionable and poor.

Phil:

In terms of what we're seeing in our industry specifically, you've got to remember that we export a lot of stuff. Well, sorry, we export a few things. So those industries really rely on countries like America that buy our products, like the beef industry is a big one, the steel industry, but we're a country of imports. So if you said is it diabolical what's happening in the States in terms of tariffs? Well, no, it's not diabolical, because we're an import nation. What's diabolical that's happening? That I predicted eight to 10 months ago and people thought I was mad. That does impact us in Australia and most people won't even realize this is that the dollar dropped under 60 cents for the first time.

Phil:

This week and it's sitting at 60 cents now and that means that every time it drops down one cent, that's 1% more. So if our dollar was trading at 70 cents and earlier in the year at 65 cents, we have now 5% cost more to import. So that is the impact that Australians should be looking at. And, of course, those that have got the vested interest going over to America like your beef and your steel and wines and all that of course they're going to be worried because that's going to affect them heavily. But as a country that imports, I'm more concerned about the US dollar and in terms of tariffs, something the Australians don't think about. A tariff is no different, and I'd love Michael's opinion on this because he's been in and around politics the tariff attacks they're all the same thing and if you look at the tariffs, slash taxes that we've got in Australia and Bundaberg Rum, I found out the other day Bundaberg Rum, queensland product, queensland company 67% tax on it for Australians to buy something that's made here.

Don:

Is that a direct? Result of?

Phil:

That's a direct right cost. I'd be looking at the tariffs and the taxes that we put on our own people within our own country before I'd be freaking them out and getting involved in what's happening in America.

Don:

As much as you said that you know it's a good agenda. Isn't nationalism or patriotism that agenda? Is it relevant in today's world, in a globalised economy? Because it can't be right Like you're saying. Yeah, we look after our own people.

Phil:

No, but you've got to come back to what I said, don. Primary first right I first look after my own people and then I go out and look after others. But it's a double-edged sword right?

Don:

No, not at all.

Phil:

Not at all. It's no different to running a household. I look after me, my wife and my kids before I go and you know I've got to put food on my table before I can feed the next-door neighbour. I've got to be able to pay my electricity bill before I pay next door neighbor's electricity bill.

Don:

But when you've been relying on other people for so long, how do you turn that around without hurting People are going to hurt regardless.

Phil:

If he doesn't do that, people are hurting, but I'd love to hear Michael's opinion on it, yeah.

Michael:

Yeah, phil, I largely agree with Phil. My big thing, lucas Don, is the question of how do we land here in the first place. So if you look at the US system, the manufacturing bases are shot to pieces. There's a hollowing out of middle America. The elite do it well. If you're a US banker in New York, you're doing great. If you're a lobbyist in DC, you're doing great. But if you look at the pharma, if you look at the middle America, the guys in Ohio, all those big central states, they're like shot to pieces.

Michael:

So Trump's their saviour. And what's the problem? The problem is being cheap stuff going into the US. So Trump's really kind of reacting to that problem and saying to middle America and the world you just can't take advantage of our people and especially our sensitive people, our vulnerable people. Yeah, go for your life against the bankers and the lawyers and all the academics in Boston that do well. But if you're an average American living in middle America, you're kind of a bit of a victim of how China has really taken advantage of the US over the last decade, plus even two decades with cheaper products.

Michael:

And anyone that understands economics and Phil will know this better than most is that if you're a developing economy, your big advantage is your labour cost. Once you start to go up the food chain, the biggest cost is labour. I mean, look at Australia, right, would you agree, phil? 100%, I mean. What do they say? Like 60% of a business is labour. I mean, look at Australia, right, would you agree, phil? Yeah, 100%, I mean. What do they say like 60% of a business is labour cost? It's not the actual products, it's not the manufacturing piece, it's not the actual items, it's the cost of paying Freddie or, you know, bill for your skills.

Michael:

And you know we don't in Australia, we don't want to dumb down and go down that Southeast Asian, Vietnam, vietnam, cambodia, myanmar kind of route. But we've got to be careful that we don't have an economy or an economic system where our labour prices itself out of being competitive, totally agree. And the central point is productivity. Productivity and I don't want to be too political, maybe, but you know, a big factor in the cost of our labour, in our manufacturing and in our economy is God bless their souls, the union movement. You know they really go to construct. Why do we have no houses? It's because to build a house I'm putting 60% on for the cost of a labour employee, a union guy, and they would say it for safety right.

Phil:

Well, hospitality, I mean. Michael's made two great points for people to understand, because everyone indulges in hospitality in a cafe, restaurant or anyone. There's not one person in this country that wouldn't America. To give you an example on the back of Michael. As an example, trump's come out and said and forget against Trump, I shouldn't say it, because people hear the word Trump and go into shakes. Right, the president has come out and said no, I'm not charging hospitality workers on their tips anymore, right, so he's giving something back. So if we look at and that's where I come back to the intention the intention is to collect more money for Americans so I can give Americans more money. And he's proven that already, because one of the first announcements he did in the hospitality sector was say you're not going to pay tax on your tips and of course, that middle to lower end that you're talking about. That's what he's trying to lift Now, when you bring it back to Australia, the cafe industry, which most people don't know, the cafe industry pre-COVID was running 30, 35% wages, right.

Phil:

If you were doing 30, 35% wages, you could make some money. Cafes and restaurants are now running 45 to 55% labor right, and that is why they've had margin decrease and that's why some most of them are going broke. Last year, one in 10 cafes closed and I tell you they didn't close because their revenue was down. They closed because their expenses were up. So Michael makes some really, really good points there. We want to be paying everybody well and that's why I never talk about what pay. What the pay rate is is because it's irrelevant. It's the percentage of your sales. You can't, in our industry, run a business with 45% or 55% labor cost, because that's why you're going to be paying $30 for bacon and eggs and $7 for a coffee.

Don:

So in hospitality it's up to.

Phil:

They're running 45% on average. The good ones are just under the 40 at 39 and 40,.

Lucas:

you know, and that is the point, because you've got to understand the breakdown- and we always wonder, as a general society or public is like, why are costs of living increasing so much? Because they have no choice as soon as costs go up and say in a cafe or a restaurant they've got to charge that extra, and then people stop going out.

Michael:

Spot on, lucas. I mean what most people who either have not invested in a business, who have not owned a business, who have not run a business, what they don't understand is that I will just pass the cost on. I mean, I chaired an elevator company, orbitz Elevators great company. We sold it to a global company, kone from Finland, last year. Every time we had a problem, that was a cost factor imposed on us by an external factor. Shall I say we just passed the cost on. Yeah, so guess what? Elevators didn't become more expensive.

Lucas:

It's the chicken and the egg isn't it.

Don:

So then, if you're the construction company, most people don't run business.

Michael:

You know, if you're the Aria or the McNabs that are putting in an elevator, what are you going to do? You're going to pass that cost on to the buyer, and so he's paying an extra 10%, and so it's just a vicious circle.

Don:

So, michael, you said how did we get here? You said that, right Like is it the narrative? Because in America it's always been about a race issue. But it sounds like it's not a race issue, it's a class issue, right?

Phil:

Where Are we talking about Australia or America?

Michael:

Oh, I think it's an economic issue. So, for example, you know my wife, you guys know my wife. She's an amazing woman, amazing human being. Vietnamese heritage moved to the US, kind of in that bracket of you know Democrats, you know, and they're just like swapped. They don't vote Democrats anymore because they're the kind of people that have been taken for granted. And my message to any aspiring political person, candidate party, liberal leader, labor leader, greens don't take your people for granted. Don't take me for granted. I want quality, I want my leader, I want my Prime Minister to be the best they can be. And the Democrats in America took the kind of migrant families like my wife's family for granted and they said enough is enough. And I nearly fell off my chair when they said they were going to vote for Trump. You know Trump version one. And they're now Republicans.

Don:

You said you see America or Australia. That's why I asked We've got to learn from the….

Phil:

Well, what you saw at the last election which I'm predicting won't happen at the next election in a couple of weeks' time what we saw was a bit of a revolt, you know. That's why you saw the independents and you saw what they call the teals, because I'm actually a fan of independents if they're running for the right reasons, and all the rest of it because they don't have to lie. But when you've got the teals funded by you know people with hidden agendas and all sorts of stuff, well, they weren't truly dependent or truly.

Michael:

you know, that was sort of.

Phil:

So what you end up having. So to me the revolt was last election. So whatever happened in, you know, with America this time, that was for us at the last election. I think this election in Australia you're going to see a lot less of the Greens, because a lot of them got in but haven't been doing anything, and I can talk from experience from that because we lost a great. You know, we had Trevor Evans in our region at New Farm. He got 30% of the primary vote, but the person who came fourth technically, which was I couldn't even remember his name until the other day Stephen Bates is the leader. All of a sudden he's representing our region, but he didn't. I think he came third or fourth on the ballot first past the post. Now there's a couple of things in that right.

Michael:

I did, but he was the least popular of all the people I haven't seen him, and then he gets up, but for three years I haven't seen him.

Don:

Like for an average person, that doesn't add up. Can you give us a little bit of an overview?

Phil:

But let me finish this one. I haven't seen Stephen Bates, and I'm very active in my community. I have not seen him put a message or anything up until a couple of weeks ago. He put up that he's running a free barbecue for the constituents and I'm not bagging because that's not my style, right Whereas when Trevor was in, trevor was accessible to everybody, you'd see him on the side, he had an open-door policy at his office, all that sort of stuff. So I mean, that's the political system.

Don:

Well, the Democratic vote showed that he was out there.

Phil:

Well, it's not democracy, right? Because democracy is I have a say and I have a go, and if I win, I get elected.

Don:

So explain to us how does someone who's 30 metres ahead, as he said, I think Well.

Phil:

I'll give you the commercial roar and then Michael can tell you the technical, because he's been in politics. But, in short, the way the political system works, and this is, it's a good question. I'll make two points. At state and federal level, you don't vote for the leader, so you don't vote for the. So, let's say, in Queensland, unless you were down in Broadwater, down in David Crisofoli's seat, nobody voted for David Crisofoli, but they did so. They elected their representative in their region based on whether they wanted David Crisofoli or whether they wanted David Christopher Foley, or whether they wanted Stephen Miles. That's not democracy, because my local member could be terrible but I want David Christopher Foley, or vice versa, my local member could be amazing and David Christopher Foley is not the person I want to vote for, so that's not democracy.

Phil:

Part one. Part two is and it used to be first past the post and they switched it to preferences, compulsory preferential, which means that you have to number them one, two, three, four, five. So you go to the election ballot and I only know, say, two or three, I knew three, I didn't know the other three or four that were on that ballot, but all of them get, and there's a great YouTube video. I can't remember who did it, but he did it in. He showed it in examples of marbles.

Don:

Yeah.

Phil:

To show exactly how technical the system is, and Michael might know a lot more about it than I do but, in short, even the seventh person on that ballot can then choose who he gives his votes to, and then the sixth person chooses who they give the votes to, and then the fifth person chooses who they give the votes. And so what we ended up with is I think and don't quote me on this, I'm not sure if Stephen came third or fourth, first part on the primary vote, but he ends up winning the running race. Now, think of this we all take off, all four of us, for a hundred metre sprint. I'm guaranteed to come last. Right, I come fourth, but you know, and Michael comes first. But you two gang up with me and we knock Michael off the seat. Michael doesn't get his gold cup ribbon. Check. No, michael, from first. You've been relegated because the three of us have pooled our stuff together and knocked you off the perch. They're the two points.

Phil:

We are not a democracy, and that's where I say the system's broken, and I'm a big fan of the Brisbane City Council system, which is the same as the Gold Coast. Love them or hate them. Whatever side of politics coast, love them or hate them, whatever side of politics, whatever gender they are. You get two votes you vote for your local person who's got to work hard, or you don't vote for them. And you vote for the mayor, he or she of any party, or they don't get your vote. And history will tell you. And I'm turned 50 this year, so I can only remember as far back as Sally Ann Atkinson. I can only remember as far back as Sally Ann Atkinson, but we've had Labor, we've had Liberal, we've had male, we've had female, and Brisbane has always progressed, no matter who's in government and who's in power, it's always progressed, whereas what we've had in state and federal Voting for that direct candidate that you want.

Don:

Correct and that's a system I want to see but how did you get away from the popular system to a preferential system, Michael?

Michael:

which is the best one to ask about that one Through legislation. I mean it's just a statute of parliament. Peter Beattie changed it when it was not to his advantage. He's gone back and forth and right now generally the Labor Party thinks the preferential is best, which forced, if you remember, phil forced the Liberal Party and the National Party to merge to become one party. So now you don't actually vote in Queensland for a Liberal Party or a National Party, you just vote for one of them. They're one party.

Don:

That's what I was going to ask. Is that what meant? The?

Michael:

Liberal and National come together. It's just a vote of the parliament. But, phil, I want to make the point in my seat. You make a great point. Point there In my old federal seat of Ryan there was a Liberal Party candidate incumbent who lost his seat and it's now represented by Greens MP and she was not the preferred candidate, by country mile of the electorate. What happened is that the preferences of all the others Labor and all the other candidates gave it to her, so she beat the Liberal guy.

Don:

So that's a preferential system, so how do we fix it? You've been in politics for a really long time. You've been in federal politics.

Lucas:

You're asking the general public to fix it or you're asking a.

Don:

No, I'm asking another politician.

Michael:

Mate, that's above my pay grade. I'm just a taxpayer, a humble taxpayer and observer of politics.

Don:

I'd call you a career politician.

Michael:

He's not a career politician. That's why I was unsuccessful. I went in to make a change and then get out.

Phil:

I use Michael as an example. When people ask me why I don't want to be a politician, I said well, look at Michael, right, smart, nosy stuff there, for the right reasons, pushing the right agenda, and the system was no good for him. Can you imagine me? I'm not as politically correct as Michael. I would be arrested in the first week.

Don:

What's wrong with that? Can I ask what's your intention? You've been very vocal, right. You've made some really good points on a lot of things, and even today you're making some good points. What's stopping you from running?

Phil:

for I'm selfish and that is. I take 20 weeks a year off?

Don:

Have you seen Donald Trump in a long month.

Phil:

I take 20 weeks a year off. I spent, you know, 20 something, 23 years of owning businesses, working 100-hour weeks, three weeks a month, travelling, not at home. My kids are 17 and 15 now, and when I exited Dibella in 2017, because I get asked that question a lot and I make it clear I'm too selfish I exited in 2017 and I said I've got to lose 70 kilos, seven, zero, but lose my weight is priority one. Priority two is I'm going to spend all of school holidays with my kids, because a scary stat is, 90% of our time with our kids is spent before they're the age of 18. And that slapped me in the face and that's the only reason I sold my company, because we're making plenty of money and, yeah, I've got a good paycheck, but we're making plenty of money, but I was overweight, I wasn't seeing my family. Those same reasons are why I won't go into politics.

Phil:

Let's put what they do aside. Politicians have to be admired for the amount of hours that they need to do, right? They do not get enough justice for that. I mean, you've been there, michael. It's 24, seven, and it's worse now with these phones, right you know. Seven, you. And it's worse now with these phones. Right, you know, 15 years ago, 12 years ago, the media cycle was once a day, right, it's now instant right, um, you weren't contactable after hours and all the rest of it you weren't expected. Today, politicians, 24 7, and not just today, it's been like that for a while. They've got to be accessible, they've got to go to things. The only time they get a time off is when they have holidays, and then if something happens when they're on holidays, we've seen in the past what happens.

Phil:

It is not the ideal lifestyle for people and, as I give you the short version, I'm too selfish, so I'd rather sit on the outside and I do a lot of advising at all levels, but I make sure they're non-paid positions. So then I'm not paid because then it's not convoluted and I'm willing to work with any side of government that wishes to show up. And I say that to people all the time. I'll work with any side of government that shows up, and recently I've caught up with One Nation representatives. I've caught up with Jackie Lammy's Senator Angela up here. I've caught up with Clive Palmer's right-hand guy I'm not good with names, I can't remember. I've caught up with everybody except no one from the Labor government showed up no one.

Lucas:

And you've actually reached out to get them to show up.

Phil:

Well, we have to, because Phil DiBella me.

Michael:

You're only interested in good policy. It doesn't matter who the messenger is. It's strategy and policy.

Don:

It affects your 1,600 members right.

Phil:

But they've also got that the coffee commune is separate to me. Me, I'm entitled. I'm a separate entity. I'm entitled to have my own opinion, just like my workers are here. My workers are allowed to have any opinion about anything they want. They've just got to be respectful to each other and to anybody that visits. Because we've had a lot of politicians here, the coffee commune has completely got to be across everything it's even more interested in great policy.

Don:

Tell us a bit about coffee Commune and what you do.

Phil:

So we're doing a lot of advocacy stuff and we work with local, state and federal government. We hold regular round tables Quarterly. We bring industry round tables together. The last one we did was the IRHR. So we brought together experts in IR and HR around the table and we said what are the bottlenecks, what are the red flags? But what are the solutions? We flushed it out. It was a month's worth of work. We flushed it out, we built a paper and we gave it straight to the Labor government and we gave it to the Liberal government. We've given it to all of the governments. They've got access to it. We've heard nothing from the Labor government, the Liberal government.

Phil:

Straight away, peter Dutton reached out and said Philip, I want to catch up with you and I want to bring Susan Lay and Michaela Cash with me. Door's open. Well, tell my membership manager, reach out to the Labor government, let the Labor government know that we're happy to have a meeting with them as well. I don't think we've even got a reply from them, to be honest.

Phil:

So I sat in the office with the three of them Susan Lay, michaela Cash and Peter Dutton and we went through the IR and HR and I said you know there's been 27 plus new laws come in in the last three months. Most of them are aimed at the top 5% or top 1%, like your BHPs and all that, but you're crucifying all of the micro, small and medium businesses with your policy. This needs to stop. And here is the paper and we gave it to them and we said have a look at this and have a look at the solution. And they went right. We got word a couple of weeks ago that and it's now become public that if they get in, there is no new IRHR laws coming into play for small and medium businesses because, if anything, they're going to be looking at reforming them, and so that's what the commune does in a real-life example.

Don:

So you're a membership group and a lobbyist group.

Phil:

No, not lobbyists, because we don't pay anyone. That's what I was going to say. So non-government funded Non-government funded completely independent. We don't take government contracts, so we don't have to register as lobby groups. That's what I want to do.

Don:

Yeah, yeah, clarify for the listeners, of course.

Phil:

But we do it at council. Our council is amazing here. Right, because we've had an impact on, you know, were on. You saw that Adrian Trina said, right, no, you've got to get your cars out of underground car park so there's no parking fees. Right, you know, when there was COVID, Adrian rang me what can we do for your industry? And I said, mate, get rid of all the you know, the footpath dining fees and all that, because no one can use it. So he froze outdoor dining, he froze water rates, he froze licence fees, he did free parking meters.

Lucas:

So we Just quickly, phil, do you think it's because the? And then it's like both sides. But the Liberal Party understands that Australia is run by 80% of small businesses and Labor doesn't understand that.

Phil:

Yeah, look, I think part of the problem, lucas, is this, and Michael, I'd love your opinion. I think the problem is the moment you start with Labor or Liberal or Greens or Independents and you'll find that I don't I talk about the person and go Adrian Trinna, or I say Peter Dutton or Anthony Albanese, because the moment you trigger and it's a psychological thing you trigger a party, it evokes an emotion, right, and that's my area of expertise being marketing and the rest of it. I don't want you to get emotional about the party, I want you to get really pragmatic about the strategy, right? So it's like when they attacked Anastasia Palaszczuk and there was no secrets that me and her did not get along, but we never met, we just didn't get along in terms. She didn't believe in my ideologies, I didn't believe in hers.

Phil:

But when the media had a go at her being overseas in the US on a holiday or wherever she was in Europe, I was the first one that came out publicly and I said everybody knows that we don't see eye to eye on policies, but nobody has the right. She is on technical holidays, she's planned those holidays. There is no crisis. Leave her alone. She's entitled to do what she wants and that had far greater impact. But that wasn't me being political, that was me being who. I am honest. Good policy give it the credit. Bad policy, scott Morrison. And when he said I'm giving everybody $750 a week, we were very vocal. That is the wrong strategy for hospitality because the average hospitality worker at the time was earning $350 a week. Your five-part doesn't need a $700 check.

Phil:

That's it. And all of a sudden, you've just lifted the expectations which we're going to pay for later, which is happening now. I, as Michael said, phil believes in good policy. That's me. It's about the policy, it's not about you know, we have so many flaws in this country. We are a country of contradiction, and I'll make because otherwise I'll hug the mic and that's not fair to me but we are a country of contradiction and I talk in facts, not in opinions right Data and then analyze it.

Phil:

We tell people we want you to own your own house, and we want. So they crucify you with stamp duty. Right, so they tax you to own your own house, your first house. We want you to be aspirational and buy another property right, so they hit you again with stamp duty. But then they hit you with land tax. Then they hit you with if you sell that property, they hit you with capital gains tax right, and you go hang on a minute. Well, how am I aspirational?

Phil:

Another one is employees right, and one of the reasons we built the FBT policy with Peter Dutton was well, why am I being penalised to look after my staff? There's all these IR laws saying you must look after your staff you can't contact them. The right to disconnect? Da-da-da-da-da. You put all these rules in place to protect the worker. You put all these rules in place to protect the worker. I, as an employer, want to look after my worker. I want to give them a company car. I want to take them out for dinner. I want to give them a petrol voucher. I want to give them a food voucher. Yeah, you can, but you've got to pay a tax on that. So, therefore, you're going to penalise me to look after my staff.

Phil:

We're a country of contradiction, we are a country of hypocrisy when it comes to that system, because what the governments have done well is to play the me versus you, rather than everyone coming together as one Australian and saying you know, when they go tax the rich, they made money, they can afford it. Percentage 30% of $100,000 is less than 30% than $1 million, which is less than 30% of $100 million. So, yes, yes, the government only just needs to make sure that everybody's paying tax and the person who's earning more is already contributing more to this country. We don't need the rhetoric and the stupidity of people saying charge more tax or people that make more money should pay more tax. They already do. And if you are listening to this and you don't understand it, well then, sorry, I can't help you. 30% of 100 is a lot less than 30% of a million, which is less than 30% of 100 million. So the more money somebody makes, that's what Trump's trying to do in America make more money so you can contribute more to the country.

Don:

I think that's another whole different podcast. Right the education system?

Phil:

We don't teach people.

Don:

Fiscal policy coming out of year 12 or at any point.

Michael:

Well it is another, but it's also. But two quick points on that, phil. Phil was spot on, but what he didn't say and he's probably been too kind to say that is that most people in government making those decisions, phil, have never owned a business Correct, have never worked in a business Correct and don't really understand it. And the second point is the reason why they're taxing on your third house and stamp duty, and all that is because we're actually spending, or governments are spending more than money coming in, so it just doesn't add up. I mean, it's really quite simple. The bucket is actually, contrary to what people think. The bucket does have a limit. It is not a big, giant, universal bucket, and I think you know what I'd say. The message I'd like to get out to anyone listening to this is don't believe that the government has an infinite amount of money, correct, because you might not pay the price for this. But, goodness, if it's not your children, it's your grandchildren. That's right.

Phil:

The government collects money right.

Michael:

At some point this is really going to affect your lifestyle and it'll be incremental. And that's the danger, because it's incremental.

Lucas:

Correct, so you don't notice it straight away. You don't notice it. I love those things, this conversation, because I grew up a Labor supporter, because I grew up in an F-search and my whole family in that.

Don:

That two-party system. You said it's like, yeah, traditionally I would have never looked at who the person was. It was a two-party system.

Michael:

I wish we could change that, don. I mean Phil. It's almost impossible to change. Yeah it is that's got to be. I mean, I want to either vote for the leader of the party, the leader. I do now Directly, yeah, and then I want to vote for your local Because I might have a great local candidate and I just love them to death and they're full of great values, but I can't stand their party. Yes, and that's a disconnect.

Phil:

It is and that's not democracy. But you made oh just before because you did ask. I just want to add on to something that listeners, because the good thing about this podcast and that's why I love is to expose what the listeners don't know, right? Something they don't know is this I'm hiring well, we just hired a new financial manager, right? A finance manager to sit under my COO, who's also my CFO. Now that person has to be qualified, right?

Michael:

So by law they're going to be an accountant or CPA, A red-haired.

Phil:

They've got to be CPA right, they've got to be a certified practice accounting to be in that role, to be able to sign off on documents. Dah, dah, dah. But you can be the treasurer of this state or the treasurer of the country and you've never, ever, ever, ever looked at a ledger or never, ever studied accounting. So how can we put people into positions? On Michael's first point, how could you put people in the positions that don't know, because they're making important decisions but they don't know? You've got attorney generals in the past, and that's what.

Phil:

Deb Franklin is a lawyer by trade and she's the attorney general. But you've got attorney generals in the past that probably wouldn't even know how to spell the word law. We've got a small business minister federally who's never owned a small business, and therein hence is the systemic problem. If you're going to go into a finance role, you have to have a finance background. If you're going to go into a small business role, you need to have a small business background. If you're going to go into attorney general, that is systemically wrong and that is something that can change in very, very easily.

Don:

It is changing in the US right Like. Is that the problem, though? We the problem, though we've got bureaucrats running policy politics and that's been the way in most Western countries? No, it's actually the opposite.

Phil:

I'll give you some insights. At Brisbane City Council level, it's separated the politician and the bureaucracy right, the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats is not a negative word, but it's seen as a negative word. Let's call it the engine room. Right who has a CEO? And you have the Lord Mayor, who has the councillors. The Lord Mayor and the councillors are renounceables. So you say who's actually got the pull string and the power to make shit happen? Well, it starts from the idea comes from the Lord Mayor and the councillors, but the execution comes from the engine room. The CEO runs the books of city council. The CEO and the bureaucrats, so to speak, have more power to execute. At state and federal. It's the opposite State and federal.

Phil:

The politician, the minister, can say this is what I want you to do, and the director general, who is, let's say, the engine room, will do that, whereas you don't have that at local, and that's something that a lot of listeners wouldn't understand or get to. So you know it's great to meet. Well, I can meet with the chair of standards, which looks after restaurants and hospitality licences, but if I said to her you need to look at the licence model and you need to do this, she can put that idea forward, because it's Sarah Hutton. She can put that idea forward, but the bureaucrats are actually the ones that have got the power to sign off on it, and if they don't whereas if I did that at state or federal, the minister can go this is to the department. This is what I want to happen Now. Which one is better. I don't know. Michael's been in the system, but that is just so the listeners understand the systemic difference of what happens at different levels of government.

Lucas:

This is what I. I don't understand. The general public in the US voted for everything he said.

Phil:

He was going to do. They voted for change they voted for change.

Lucas:

He's now doing change at a rapid rate and they don't like it.

Don:

It's like what are you talking about.

Michael:

Who is they? The protesters obviously don't like it, but the results are not there.

Don:

He's going to bring the cost of eggs down. It hasn't happened right, so the results are not there. He said he's going to do it on day one.

Michael:

But he's only been there for three months.

Phil:

But I'm with Michael, it depends what news you listen to, right, like Australia, there's no doubt that Sky. I've never seen Sky News so biased, right, and I don't have a problem with it. There's nothing for small business, right. It's really detrimental to small business. That's why I've been very vocal about the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has stuff in there for small and medium business, which is the one I'm interested in. 9.9 million people in Australia are employed by a small medium business right. 9.9 million people in Australia are employed by a small medium business right 9.9. I thought government was the biggest employer. They're not. They're under 3 million, just under 3 million at local, state and federal. 3 million people of the workforce of government and small medium businesses just under 10 million. And yet you've got a leader of the party that has nothing in play for that. That's the problem, right, for us, and that's why I'm vocal. But hey, the Labor government, like unions not all unions are bad.

Phil:

Unfortunately there's one that's most powerful and is not ethical. But not all unions are bad. There's a place for unions, absolutely.

Lucas:

Right.

Phil:

And that's what we've got to get around. Is Michael made the comment before it's? Who are you listening to? And that was what we've got to get around. Is Michael made the comment before it's? Who are you listening to? And that was a great question, a bit over skipped. Who's telling the story? Because I heard the other day that there's and I don't follow the American politics very closely at all, but somebody else just told me there's a region apparently that's never voted. You know, for the Trump side of politics, but now the whole state or whatever, yeah, the whole state is on board. Now that's one that came from one source of media and I can't. Fox is aligned with one of them and the other one's aligned with somebody else.

Michael:

I don't even know, but I think the thing is if you know that. So when I read the Guardian, I know that it's you know. Its lens is shaped by its funders and its support base.

Phil:

So I've got a question for you. What would you read? That's a question. What would you?

Michael:

read.

Phil:

If you're an Australian right now, what would you?

Don:

read yeah, if you're an Australian voter that wants to make up your mind.

Michael:

Well, I believe in unconscious bias. I definitely believe in that. But for me, I try to read most of them.

Don:

So my reading hours are kind of Make your own analysis.

Michael:

Yeah, 5 to 6 am and then I'm a big fan of Sky News. Obviously I used to be on it. Give that plug. If they want me back, I'm happy for a fee. Well, I'm the same. I like Sky.

Phil:

News.

Michael:

I mean the Fin Review obviously being in business. I read the Courier Mail as another point for local stuff, but really I just skip through a lot of it. I mean I'm pretty rock solid in my views and philosophies. For me it's just sort of tweaking it and getting another little angle on an issue that I might not be sure about.

Don:

Well, this is one election where we're going in, where there's no clear winner, right, we don't know. The next four weeks is going to be quite volatile on who's going to win, and it could be detrimental to the future of Australia.

Phil:

Well, you do. But for me and I'll present it another way if we look at the data, nothing else. If you look at the facts and data, it's a no-brainer, and I'll explain it through an example, and this is one that I've put up on my LinkedIn. So if anyone does like what I like, I don't care. If you don't like it, you can jump on my LinkedIn page anyway. We'll make sure you put it up. So this is the way I posed it the other day. That just went rule right Something like 40,000 impressions or something, and I went right.

Phil:

Three years ago, I was hiring for a CEO and I interviewed a range of people. The two last candidates came, one flipped and flopped and couldn't make a decision on anything, and that person's name was Scott Morrison. And the other one that turned up for the CEO role was Anthony Albanese, and he was very clear these are the three things I'm going to do in the next three years I'm going to lower the cost of living, I'm going to lower energy prices, and he was gave numbers. And I'm going to build more houses. And he gave numbers. He made promises to me as the, as the, as a managing director. I was impressed, so I had Scott Morrison apply for my CEO role. He was flipping and flopping, nice guy but couldn't lead my team because it was all over the place. So I didn't choose Scott Morrison. I chose Anthony Albanese on his three clear policies, on his three benchmarks and all the rest of it.

Phil:

Now his contract's coming to an end. You gave him a three-year contract and I gave him a three-year contract and we're coming to the end. May 3rd is the end of the contract. So I'm now sitting down in front of him to talk about his performance and I go, anthony, thank you firstly for your contribution and everything you've done for the company. However, I will not be renewing your contract, and this is my personal view and how I would run my business. I'm not renewing your contract because you didn't deliver on the lower price of energy, you didn't lower the cost of living and you certainly didn't build any properties that you promised energy. You didn't lower the cost of living and you certainly didn't build any properties that you promised my organization. So I will not be renewing your contract.

Phil:

And he turns around and he says, oh, but so who's replacing me? Well, I'm not sure yet, but there's three other candidates, because everyone thinks it's just Peter Dutton, now it's likely to be, but there is other candidates, right? But that's not reality, right? Stay on this train of thought. There's three other candidates that I'm going to employ, but the decision I am certainly making as the managing director of my company is that you will not get another contract as the CEO because you didn't deliver. So I've made that decision. Thank you for your services, here's your money and goodbye.

Phil:

Now I look at the alternative and I go right, let's interview the alternative. Now, what a smart. Well, let's not say smart, okay, use the word smart, let's give him some kudos. A smart Anthony Albanese, after I've said to him I'm not reviewing his contract because of the XYZ, says I've got a window of opportunity to still get my job back if I make the other three candidates look stupid. So I'm now going to make the other three candidates look stupid.

Phil:

I'm going to bring up lies, and I'll tell you what in a minute. I'm going to bring up lies about Medicare and back in 2008, he looked at me the wrong way and that other candidate, you know, touched a girl on the shoulder 10 years ago. And I'm going to bring up as much dirt as I can because you're not actually the one that chooses the CEO, your team is. But if I can show your team that they're grubs and I should be back in, then I've got a chance to keep my job. And that's exactly what's happening in politics. So my stance is if I wouldn't do it in a private business public companies certainly wouldn't do it you would be kicked out like there's no tomorrow.

Phil:

Why is it okay for the Australian public? And I'm going to tell you. I said I'd come back to a point, something else. Somebody doesn't know Another piece of nugget information that the public don't know. Michael knows this one Politicians are indemnified from defamation. They're indemnified of marketing campaigns. So Anthony Albanese in the CEO analogy could say Peter Dutton's likely to get my job. I'm going to tell Philip that Peter Dutton has done X, y, z. He was in jail. Even though I can, peter Dutton says no, I haven't. I can prove, I've never been in jail. Well, in the real world you can sue Anthony Albanese for defamation. In the political world, can you imagine if the boss?

Michael:

of BHP said that the boss of David Jones was in jail.

Phil:

No ask, Michael. Michael's been insisted they're indemnified.

Michael:

They're indemnified. Yeah, yeah, what Phil was referring to is that implied? Free speech that the Constitution allows you to say what you basically want. There's probably only a couple of little areas you probably can't say that are criminal, that if you said so-and-so, did so-and-so, that'd be in trouble.

Phil:

I did use an extreme example.

Michael:

Yeah, but really it's implied free speech that you can say what you want and it's just up to the public to believe you or not.

Phil:

Look at David Christopher Lee. He was asked 130 times, actually 132 times, I think it was. He was asked about the abortion right and full-term abortions. Now, it doesn't matter what you believe in or don't believe, because I don't believe in full-term abortions, obviously, a majority of people do, and that's okay. That's democracy. See how calm I am. That's democracy. I still don't believe in full-term abortions either, but it's not an issue and it's not going to be raised because the public have spoken. That's what they want. It's a fascinating point 130 times he got asked.

Michael:

I mean just go back to the former Victorian Premier who said we'll have a Commonwealth Games. Yeah, everybody in Victoria thought they were having a Commonwealth Games and he changed his mind.

Phil:

We're not going to have it Because they're indemnified. There's no recourse.

Michael:

There's no accountability. It's a fascinating point.

Lucas:

Because you've been in this space for a long time and this really, really, really aches me. All I notice coming up to any political scenario is they're there to give shit on each other. They're not there, and this is both parties. You they're there to give shit on each other. They're not there, and this is both parties. You see it both ways, and other parties too. They're not saying I'm going to come into power and I'm going to do whatever the three next points are and I'm going to smash it. I'm going to like here's my vision, here's my direction, this is how I'm going to do it. All I've been seeing online and in media and news they're just giving shit on each other, like literally. I had a pamphlet in my GPO box and I pulled the pamphlet out and I was like what is this? And I should have bought it today. And it's literally just one of the parties giving shit to the other party around. How terrible they are.

Don:

It never used to be the Australian way right, like this was something that was very synonymous in American politics, where it hasn't happened in Australian politics before this is why. I've been asking a lot about America because we've got to learn from it.

Michael:

Generally it's said that the US is about 20 years kind of ahead of us. So things are happening there. Now we're kind of 15, 20 years down the track. So at some point we're going to put tariffs on penguins. I'm kidding, be careful, what you wish for it all comes back down to pure research. So both political parties absolutely will tell you that, if I have a crack at you, that really resonates. Yeah, the data shows that negative, hard-hitting blackboarding character assassination on their rivals actually does make an impact.

Lucas:

As in generates votes.

Michael:

It changes people's impressions, it changes their emotion, their impression, and especially the women, and the most powerful single force of voters are women and so if you can change your wife's vote, your daughter's vote, the daughter will then say to dad or brother you know, kind of we shouldn't really vote for Bill Smith because he seems pretty bad. Then the multiples of that across the country he seems pretty bad then it does, then the multiples of that across the country obviously have an impact.

Don:

But it does work. I always thought it was because the American system doesn't force you to go and vote, right?

Michael:

Well, neither does the Australian system.

Don:

That's a misunderstanding.

Michael:

The Australian system. No, a lot of people don't understand this, so here's a new one. Here's a revelation, lucas. So the Australian system does not force you to physically, legally put a mark on the ballot paper, or one, two, three Correct. What it forces you to do is to look up to the ballot box and have your name signed off. You can then walk away, so you don't actually vote. It's just a register to vote.

Phil:

But they never release those numbers. They'll never release.

Michael:

So, of course, by the time you're there, most people are then going to walk that extra 10 places and vote.

Lucas:

We've already waited two hours in line Exactly.

Michael:

But the actual legal obligation is not to vote, it's to register.

Lucas:

So what happens? Because I know a lot of people in my networks who have never registered to vote in the first place, so then they never get a fine for not voting. So I don't know if there's any numbers or statistics around this, but that's still an option.

Phil:

Oh, there'd be statistics somewhere as to whether they want to share.

Michael:

Yeah they do. I mean there is a fine Generally the Electoral Commission, it's sort of.

Phil:

There's a fine issued, but it's very easy to waive the fine. You can say something.

Lucas:

So back to my point before around just two parties, I don't know, giving shit on each other. Yeah, why are we seeing that? Why can't we? For me, as a voter, I want to know what party to vote for, what they're going to do for the country, what they're going to do for my inner state yeah.

Michael:

but Lucas, you're a thinking Australian. You know you probably care about this country to more so an extent than others, might I mean? I'll share something that I think is quite interesting. When I was running for parliament and in the 10 years I was in parliament, I lived, breathed, consumed politics, my work. Now that I've been out of it, I hardly have time to follow it and I'm not the most busiest guy in the country, but I'm busy enough to worry about my son, keeping my wife happy. All the boards I'm involved with my side hustles my downtime.

Don:

Don't play that ECF Forum.

Michael:

And all of a sudden, and my ECF Forum. Thanks Don. But I've got to say I see what's happening in Canberra and the leaders and politics and politicians my lens on them is really limited because I'm just so busy. I mean, obviously I have an interest in it because I was in the craft, in the vocation, but my actual time, if you measure the time I focus on it, it's pretty minute and it kind of shocked me. So I'm then thinking of, you know, the average mum and dad going about, you know, taking the kids to soccer running their small business.

Lucas:

Unless it's one media.

Michael:

Yeah, they'll just see a quick trailer, they'll see an ad, they'll see a billboard and that forms the impression.

Phil:

And does the candidate look? Okay, You're right 100%.

Michael:

Does that person look okay? Does that person look scary? You know Peter Dutton being, you know, a scary guy, which is just pathetic, because we're not voting for Mr Popular.

Phil:

That's exactly right.

Michael:

I mean this might be a bit of a strong point to make, but I think it's an indictment on the Australian people that we're like that, that we don't actually necessarily think really long and hard about substance and policy. Who cares what Peter Dunn looks like or Anthony Albanese or whoever? What are the Greens offering me, what is Labor offering me, what is Liberals offering me and what are they offering my country? My world, is geopolitics and national security. A country, my world, is geopolitics and national security. Neither party is really focusing on that as strongly as I believe they should, and I think that we'll pay a price. If not this generation, the next generation, if not that generation, the one after we will pay a heavy price for our lack of focus on defence and national security. It's a great point you just made.

Phil:

If we focus just on the now. And we're not focusing and this is one thing I say to people, because I am very focal in this space. You know, I'm trying to lend that strategic mindset and get people to think. That's my agenda. Get people to think and people go oh yeah, see, you want low interest rates and you want this. I don't have a mortgage, stupid. So I to fight for me, my kids, oh, but your kids, my kids, have already got a property portfolio put aside for them. It's not even them, it's the generations that Michael's talking about. So you know, the biggest tip for me, for listeners, and is to really you don't have to have a massive interest, but have some sort of interest, and then when you do go and vote, it's not just about what suits you right now, it's what matters in five years, 10 years, 15 and 20.

Don:

But the problem is people can't think about five, 10 years because they're battling with cost of living and everything else.

Phil:

Well then, what you've got to think of is what's going to lower cost of living, because it's not going to be the $5. Or 50 cent bus fare. Well, there you go. It's not the 50 cent bus fare, it's not the $5. In 16 months or 12 months, it's. You know, what can the government afford to give you in terms of cost relief?

Don:

Yeah, so, before we close off today and I can't wait to continue this conversation moving into I think we're going to have to have a part two, right, Like there's a lot of things we didn't cover but, there's lots of good information that we got.

Lucas:

Yeah, I really want to dive into business, especially the small business that runs this country, policies that surround that. You talk about taxes and payroll tax Like there's a whole. You could do one show just on taxes.

Phil:

Oh good.

Michael:

There's taxes, that people don't even Just payroll tax.

Phil:

Well, my staff, we make it very clear to let them know that we pay payroll tax, that we pay fringe benefits tax. So your, you know, your $100,000 a year actually is $130,000 a year. What do you mean it's $130,000? Well, you know workers' compensation. So you know, forget super. I'm saying $100,000 with super is then plus 30% Payroll tax. You know insurances, indemnity insurances too, because we've got to talk about what they say to other people and what advice they give.

Phil:

So yeah, $100,000 a year is not $100,000 a year, it's $130,000. But we're very clear to show them this is how much you cost us because of the payroll tax, this, that, because they don't know what they don't know.

Lucas:

Well, I guess what I love about today, especially the two different views from a business point of view and then from a political landscape point of view and your experience, Michael, I think this is awesome. I can't wait to continue this conversation you guys are open for this in a couple of weeks from now.

Don:

Yeah, there's other things. That doesn't make any sense. Like every time we have an election, business seem to shut down. Well, they get scared they get conservative. I would really love to sort of tell you I was having a chat.

Michael:

And it costs about $400 million to have an election Correct. That's it.

Phil:

No one knows that. Yeah, there you go. I didn't know that. I knew it was a lot.

Michael:

I didn't know. It was a lot of money, lots of $400 million.

Don:

Yeah, I only knew because I read something this week and you know I was talking to you and you said all of a sudden, like you run a small startup which is expanding rapidly and you know people stop buying.

Lucas:

Yeah, the entire let's call it the SME mid-market space. Everything went on hold two months ago.

Phil:

Well, they're nervous. They're nervous, I mean the disposable income's down. They're nervous. They're not strong.

Phil:

But, like I said before, if you take the popularity out of it, you take the people out of it and you're in small. If you're, there's micro and then there's small, and then there's small, medium and then there's medium. Right, it's not just SMEs anymore there. If you are a micro business or a small business, then there is a clear who you should vote for if that's your interest, right, and that is, you've got your instant write-off going up to 30,000 from 20,000. You can write off in the first year. The Labor government's going to take it away, right, they're going to drop it to 1,000. Is that a fact?

Phil:

The Liberal government's come out and said we will not introduce any more IR or HR legislation, reform or changes to micro and small businesses. Then that's another tick. There's the FBT policy that helps small business. No, it's not a booze tax, because it doesn't include booze. It's not for the politicians, because it doesn't include employees and it's capped at a turnover of under 10 million, which is just small business right. So that policy there is for small businesses to look after their staff and that hopefully, you look after it, you're helping a small business, and so there's another policy that's coming out from Peter Dutton. So take the popularity competition out and if you're in the best interest of micro, small and medium business, there is a clear person that we should be voting for Now. You have the democratic right to vote for whoever you like, but if you voted on just strategy and facts, only he'll get the SME votes.

Michael:

The other thing in an election campaign is actually communicating that message getting it out which is what they don't do well. They don't do well and the conservative side of politics have never really done that well, and probably the best one was John Howard and Tony Abbott. To his credit, he was great like three things Stop the boats, no carbon tax and whatever the third was, I can't remember. You've got to communicate your message.

Don:

Yeah, and I think we need to look at that next time we talk right. The other thing is the foreign policy. We are looking at the leaders, but I think foreign policy is going to be really important over the next four years.

Phil:

Well, the only comment I'm going to make on that because you know we're going to run out of time is that the strategy in play yesterday is not the strategy in play for the future, and that was. We've been bipartisan with China and US. That's been our closest allies for different reasons China for imports and a lot of tourism and education, and the US for relying on them for defence and export and all the rest of it. So we really have tried to ride two bicycles at the same time, and I called this about 10 years ago when I had a lot more to do. I used to sit on a lot more boards back then in local state government and we were trying to ride two lawnmowers and the two lawnmowers don't get along.

Phil:

So that might have worked 10 years ago and five years ago that China was our saviour for tourism, for international students was a big one and for importing a lot of products. So we've got to be nice and play nice to them. But the US is our defence safe net and they take a lot of our exports. The future is not going to look like that. Sorry. The future is. Australia has to stand on its own two feet. It has to stop saying you know, of course we can, but we've got to work towards it.

Michael:

Our defence budget is 2.5%. Yeah, I know, there you go, and it should be 5%, correct.

Phil:

And the defence you know they're building, even when they came out and they said we're building these submarines. Look, I'm not an expert in warfare, but I'm a strategist. Right, our next threat is not going to be fixed by a submarine. The next threat is going to be cyber or it's going to be like COVID. Right, and I hope to God I'm wrong.

Don:

It's one thing that I hope to God for many generations. I'm wrong, but the next is not. Submarine's not going to solve the problem of what's coming in the future. Well, the submarine's not going to come for another 25 years anyway.

Phil:

So we're putting policy and strategy in play today. That was your favourite PM, scott Morrison. Yeah, I know that's going to be obsolete in 10 years' time, and that was another thing I didn't like about him is that you're thinking like about his policy, not him. You're thinking about today the war of 10 years and I hope I'm wrong and then there's no war, but the war of 10 years make my words, if there is one is going to be cyber or it's going to be a form of COVID it's not going to be and no submarines taking either of those ones out.

Michael:

So that's my word. I sit on two defence company boards. There you go. The only observation I'll make for you guys is this you know all the problems that we have now, all the challenges, all the issues. They didn't happen yesterday, they didn't happen last week. They happened a decade ago or 15 years ago or two decades ago. So the problems of 25 years' time, 50 years' time, guess what's?

Don:

generating them. Now we have to have better foresight. Right now we have to have better foresight. We have to have better foresight.

Michael:

So if we happen to be in a conflict with a certain particular power in a certain part of North Asia, that is because of what's happening now, or what we're not doing now, eg investing in our defence capability. And so people say, yeah, cost of living spot on. Cost of housing spot on. Can't get houses spot on.

Phil:

That's right now problems, but that didn't happen last week.

Michael:

That's right. It's a bit of a build-up Because of policies and ideas and politicians 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago that caused those problems today and that's my big beef with politicians and the system. So that's why Phil should be Prime Minister.

Don:

I don't know. That's not a good idea. You should stop it there. We're going to have the Canadian election right before ours, so that's another really good precursor.

Phil:

So, while you guys, I'm happy to do a part two before the next election. Absolutely, thank you man.

Lucas:

So, michael Johnson, philip de Waal, this has been amazing, thank you. We're on the Mastering Podcast here with Don Senka and I can't wait to dive into this in a few weeks from now, just before the election.

Phil:

It's the list. I've learned so much in such a short period of time, so hopefully the listeners will too. Privilege and vote one, Michael Johnson. I love it. Well, at least go to one of the East Coast Forum events.

Lucas:

Thanks, guys, hope you enjoyed this exciting episode of the Mastering Podcast. If you got value from today's conversation, hit that subscribe button now and share this episode with a friend. Until next time.