: Thank you, Prime Minister. So, the Productivity Summit, you alluded to the one in the previous term on IR as well. Some of the business leaders in the wake of that said they felt like things were too slanted towards what the unions wanted. How would you reassure them this time around that it's worth participating and it will be a level playing field?
ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Well, we're a Labor government, we support unions existing and some of the commentators prefer that unions didn't exist. That's the truth. But we will always respect both the role of business and the role of unions. And one of the things that I say is that there are common interests that - I say this to unions as well: you don't get union members unless you've got successful employers. It's the private sector that drives an economy. What the public sector should do is facilitate private sector activity and private sector investment. And that's what my Government is focused on. We will invite people to the gathering, the roundtable will be held in Parliament House. I've been working with Jim and the economic team. Jim will have more to say about it when he appears at the National Press Club here next week. But we want to have open and honest conversations, not shut down conversations by saying if someone raises an issue that means you immediately go from A to Z, which is often what happens. But early in the term, the Jobs and Skills Summit led to, I tell you what, without it, we would have greater skills shortages in this country. We wouldn't have Free TAFE, we wouldn't have the $10,000 incentives that we have for people in construction and energy. We wouldn't have those issues being addressed with, and a more rational discussion as well about the role that migration plays in that. So, we will be respectful. We want people to participate in the spirit of goodwill in which we're making this suggestion.
CONNELL: Thank you. Alright. Well, we have what we call in the TV business a hard out of 1:35pm and a list that would have a whole AFL side, including a sub. So, we'll ask our questioners to be to the point, beginning with Michelle Grattan from The Conversation.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you spoke of using the Federal Government's funding leverage to get reform in areas where it has indirect rather than direct power. And you particularly mentioned Gonski. Can I ask you about hospitals, though? They were a preoccupation of your predecessor, Kevin Rudd. Do you think that the present system, hospital system in Australia, is fit for purpose? You've got a funding agreement coming up in a year or two to negotiate a long term agreement. What areas of reform would the Federal Government be particularly looking for in trying to negotiate with the states in this area that's of preoccupation, I think, to a lot of people concerned about the health sector.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, thanks, Michelle. We have an ageing of the population and that's part of the challenge that we have to deal with. But we came to an agreement with $1.7 billion extended - to extend the hospital agreement to enable us to then have a discussion, not in the context of a looming election, but to have a discussion about how it fits together - the public hospital system, primary health care. You know, the creation of Urgent Care Clinics really has made a substantial difference in taking pressure off EDs and provides for a middle path, if you like, and has been enormously successful. The satisfaction rates for people who go to an Urgent Care Clinic are extraordinary, which is why we announced an additional 50. The aged care reforms that we have had to delay some of the implementation to make sure it's got right. But that shows an example of where we were able to get agreement and credit to the former Minister for the work that Anika Wells did in that area. So, a lot of it is cost shifting because there are people in hospital beds who would be better for them as well as better for the country's finances as a whole, for there to be a more efficient and sensible way of dealing with the delineation between Commonwealth responsibility and state and territory responsibility. And that's what we intend to work through. I think, similarly, the NDIS, you know, there are people going on to the NDIS, the numbers mean that that growth that we inherited that was pretty close to 20 per cent, was simply unsustainable and the system would just collapse. So, how do you get rational decision making that is providing for the best service possible, but delivered in the most efficient way possible by each level of government, is the starting point.
CONNELL: Next question. Jane Norman from the ABC.
JOURNALIST: Hello, Prime Minister. Jane Norman. Thank you for your address today and for your ongoing support of the Club. I wanted to ask you about defence spending as it is an issue that's being considered globally at the moment. You've said time and time again that you don't want to set an arbitrary target where other countries around the world have started to sort of accelerate their funding. I just wanted to ask for sort of an insight into your thinking. So, if you're not going to set an arbitrary target, that's fair enough. But do you accept the global trend at the moment is to accelerate defence funding in this challenging strategic environment? And are you sort of open to lifting Australia's ambition above and beyond what's already been announced and budgeted for?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we have $57 billion over 10 years. $10 billion over the forwards of additional investment. It seems to me that if the Health Minister or the Comms Minister or the Infrastructure Minister came to us and said, 'we want you to spend X percentage of GDP but we won't tell you what it's for,' that - they wouldn't get far in an ERC process. And there is no reason why defence shouldn't be governed by anything other than one factor. What do we need? What is the capability we need to keep us safe? Our capability will always be supported, any submissions, by myself as Prime Minister. Because our first order is to keep us safe and we do that through capability, but we do it through something else as well - our relationships. The work that we have done with our neighbours, including Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, has been, I think, a real distinction between what we inherited and our status with ASEAN nations and Pacific Island Forum nations and Indian Ocean nations as well. And that is one of the things that we need to take account of as well and something that my Government is very focused on.
CONNELL: So, the percentage of GDP spending on defence could go up, but it will be based on needs rather than - here's a figure. Is that fair to say, in a future budget?
PRIME MINISTER: Yeah, of course. We will always provide for capability that's needed. But you saw the alternative. You don't have to theorise about it. You saw it during the election campaign, an announcement of $21 billion by the Coalition. They couldn't say where it was coming from or where it was going to. Australians voted on 3 May against a, frankly, unprepared for government Opposition, which was unprepared in so many ways. The only area in which they were prepared was in rhetoric and you can't defend a country with rhetoric. You defend it with assets.
CONNELL: Mark Riley from Seven News.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, we had quite a debate during the campaign on housing, but mostly for first home buyers with supply and demand side promises. And while we were out there on the campaign trail, the mean price of a house in Australia went above a million dollars for the first time. And affordability is a massive issue, but so is supply. Your Housing Minister just in the last couple of days has said it's just too hard to build a house in Australia. You have two big targets out there, 1.2 million houses, 130,000 for first home buyers. What will you do specifically and what do you want the states to do to make it easier to build a house in Australia.
PRIME MINISTER: It is too hard, and one of the areas is regulation. So, there's a conscious decision made by myself as PM to appoint Clare O'Neil as Minister for Housing and Cities, because one of the things that we have to do is to make it easier. Developers say that it's just too complex, adds to costs as well. So, we have to look at ways in which we can bring costs down. I must say, that the actions of state governments right around the country are very positive. You know, the courage, frankly, that someone like Chris Minns has shown, to give one example on Rosehill - he was right. He was absolutely right in putting forward something that was controversial and in the end people knocked back, in spite of the fact it had the support of the leadership of the racing industry. But that's the sort of thing that we're going to need to do. You can't deal with supply issues without having the courage to do things like that. Or indeed, my local government area in the Inner West has produced a plan for planning that leads to, substantially, tens of thousands of additional people close to public transport. There'll be blowback for that. I'm sure I'll get representations as the local Member, but you've got to be prepared to do that. But what Clare has pointed towards is a very conscious decision. We had discussions when I was working out the Ministry and she has clear ideas about how to cut through. Some of that regulation is national and that's what, in terms of building standards, just unnecessary regulation. I want to make sure that housing is fit for purpose and all of that. But if we can cut through on some of the red tape, then that will reduce costs.
CONNELL: Next question, Anna Henderson from SBS.
JOURNALIST: Thank you. It's been an extremely traumatic time over the last week or so in the Indigenous community across the country. We've had the death in custody of 24 year old disabled Warlpiri man, Kumanjayi White, and a separate death in custody investigation after the death of a 68 year old Wadeye man who was remembered for his work lobbying for bilingual education. Advocates say on average, 40 Aboriginal people have been taken into custody in the NT every day since August 2024 after the legal changes in that jurisdiction. And 88 per cent of the prison population in the NT is Indigenous. Has your Government and previous governments, as Marion Scrymgour, your Envoy, said this week, dropped the ball on dealing with the death and custody issue in this country? And the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency is now urging a federal intervention into the NT justice system. Is that something you're considering?
PRIME MINISTER: Can I say that, something I've said before - all governments have not done well enough in any of these areas. We, you know, attempted during our last term to break with business as usual. We attempted to do that. I think we, you know, can't be accused of shying away from that. We did it and we did it because we needed to engage in a different way with First Nations people. Look, I'm confident that Malarndirri McCarthy, who - my Minister - who, I don't think I'm breaching her privacy here, has dealt with the death of her father over the weekend, which is why she isn't here, is dealing with those issues, personal issues. But then she will, I think, be very focused on how do we do better? Now, in general, the idea of federal intervention, which is, frankly, an easy thing that people come up with. You know, why aren't you sending the AFP? Why aren't you doing that, without them saying where it leads. I need to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues, is my starting point. I think it comes out all the time with a range of issues. But we do need to engage directly and constructively with First Nations people. Now, people voted clearly in the referendum against the model that was put forward by First Nations people themselves in the Uluru Constitutional Convention in 2017. But we need to find different ways of engaging respectfully, of listening in a different form as well.
CONNELL: Next question comes from Andrew Clennell from Sky News.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Angus Houston, the co-author of your Defence Strategic Review, told the US Studies Centre last November that AUKUS boats, quote "must be a net addition to Australia's military capability. The only way they can be a net addition to Australia's military capability is to increase our defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP as we move into and through the 2030s." Will you take note of what he said? It may be in Australia's interest to stand up for the US on trade, but is it really in our interest to stand up to Donald Trump when it comes to how much we spend on defence? And if we don't spend more on defence, couldn't the Americans threaten to not build or give us the AUKUS submarines?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that. That's my view. Now, if others think that that's not the case, then it's up to them to make that case. Angus Houston's been a friend of mine for a very long period of time and I always pay attention to anything that Sir Angus Houston has to say. But I've made it very clear, we will support the capability that Australia needs. I noticed in your question you haven't put forward one thing - one thing - that we should be investing in that we're not investing in.
JOURNALIST: Has Angus Houston told you that (inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER: That's my point. That's my point. Arbitrary figures, you know, lead to a cul-de-sac. And we want to make sure as well that every single dollar that Defence spends results in actual assets and under the former Government, there are a lot of media releases, just not many assets. And what we want to do is to make sure that we improve the capability of our defence forces. And that's what we're doing, for example, by manufacturing missiles here, which will be manufactured this year - something that never happened before.
CONNELL: Phil Coorey from the AFR.
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Tom. Hi, PM. I want to go back to Tom's question about the Productivity Summit because there was a lot of cynicism in the business community after the Jobs and Skills Summit that most of, if not all of those outcomes were pre-ordained, especially on IR. Now, it's hard to talk to a business group about productivity at the moment without them mentioning the first and second tranches of IR laws you passed in the first term and you've got plans now to enshrine penalty rates in legislation. Is your message to any of the business groups going to attend your summit, don't waste your breath if you're going to raise IR?
PRIME MINISTER: People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I'm a Labor Prime Minister and I support penalty rates. I'm a Labor Prime Minister and I support real wages increasing. I'm a Labor Prime Minister and I support an economy that works for people, not people working for an economy. And, you know, if we look at the differentials of how workers on the minimum wage have come out in the last 20 years - pick whatever figure you like - and how chief executives of the top ASX companies are going. I reckon, you know, I reckon workers would be, you know, happy to be halfway to where their increases have come. So, workers getting a fair crack is not something that is, you know, something that we will abandon. We support workers getting a fair crack for their contribution. What we do support is companies being successful. We support proper negotiation between workers and businesses to achieve productivity improvements and we support, you know, living standards not going backwards. You know, I spoke a lot in the speech about the Australian way. And one of the things that the Australian way is, is to not have people who feel like they don't have a stake in the economy. And I think we see that in some places in the world, and a rise of populism - whether of the far right or the far left - as a result of that. That's not what I'm seeking here. I'm seeking an Australian way that does things differently, that looks at some of the division that's there in some international societies and says, "Gee, it's a good thing that people feel like they have a stake in Australian society and in our success." And that's something that I think is a big division in Australian society. I mean, we put forward a submission to the Fair Work Commission in our first Cabinet meeting, was approved - of this year - just like it was in 2022. It's resulted in a real wage increase. Is that a good thing? Yes, it is.
CONNELL: Next question, Charles Croucher from the Nine Network.
JOURNALIST: Hello, Prime Minister. You've seen the vision of Lauren Tomasi, my colleague and friend, who was shot while doing her job covering the situation in Los Angeles yesterday. If you get a chance to speak with Donald Trump in the next seven days, will you raise that incident? And what were your thoughts when you saw what happened?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I spoke with Lauren this morning and she's going ok. She's pretty resilient, I've got to say, but that footage was horrific. That was the footage of an Australian journalist doing what journalists do at their very best, at their very best, which is to go into an environment that's not comfortable. But where, in LA, it is not unreasonable to think that she would not have been targeted with a rubber bullet. It is not unreasonable to think that she could go about her coverage, clearly, as people can see in the footage, clearly identified as media. And so we have already raised these issues with the US administration. We don't find it acceptable that it occurred. And we think the role of the media is particularly important.
JOURNALIST: Is that something you'll raise personally, though, with the President?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, discussions I have with the President are discussions between myself and the President. That's the way I deal with people - diplomatically, appropriately and with respect. So I'll leave the discussions with the President till they occur rather than foreshadow them.
CONNELL: You said targeted, was that how it was raised by the Australian Government? That she was seemingly targeted by police?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, she was clearly identified. Was clearly identified. You know, there was no ambiguity. She wasn't, you know, wearing a trackie, she was wearing a helmet, and something that identified her as media. And, you know, it is not acceptable that a journalist, I say this here at the National Press Club, from time to time, I will have disagreements with journalists - that won't shock you. Sometimes, even with Sky journalists. But, you know, I respect the role that the media play, and people should respect the role that the media play in our modern society.
CONNELL: I know you've never disagreed with a question from Greg Brown from the Australia.
PRIME MINISTER: Never.
JOURNALIST: Thanks, PM. In the context of the debate about defence spending, you've said that we have strategic competition in the region, but I was hoping for you to really simplify that so voters understand your thinking on this. So, do you think China is a national security threat to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: I think that our engagement with the region and the world needs to be diplomatic, needs to be mature and needs to avoid the, you know, attempts to simplify what are a complex set of relationships. And Australian journalists should do the same. And I believe -
JOURNALIST: But isn't it less about simplifying it, like for what you're arguing?
PRIME MINISTER: We have strategic competition in the region.
JOURNALIST: But does that mean China is a potential military threat to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: We have strategic competition in the region. We have that, we have a Defence Strategic Review which outlines what Australia's defence needs are. And we engage constructively in the region, including with China and including with ASEAN nations. And what we say is that it is in Australia's interests, and indeed the world's interests, for there to be peace and security in our region and indeed around the world. That's our position. That's the mature way in which we are able, as a middle power, to exercise influence in the region.
CONNELL: Next question, Paul Sakkal from the SMH and the Age.
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Prime Minister. Thanks, Tom. Prime Minister, you might meet the US President next week. Would you be willing to walk away from that meeting without a deal if the Americans don't offer a good one? And on the productivity roundtable, if there are big ideas that come out of it, do you commit to going to the next election with those policies or could you legislate in the interim?
PRIME MINISTER: Well on the latter, I don't want to preempt it. I want people to be able to have a discussion. To be able to have a discussion without screaming headlines saying, you know, this is going to happen because someone has raised it. I want people to be able to have a mature discussion around a room to see, where is it? Are there win wins on productivity? Are there win wins, I think in a whole range of areas. For example, on, you know, approvals, things that was in the speech. Approvals of things like housing, industry, how do we get things moving quicker but which are more sustainable as well? How do we use that to boost productivity going forward? And on any arrangements, as we did with the European Union, we'll only sign up to things that are in Australia's national interest. So, on things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the media bargaining code, our biosecurity in agriculture, they're not on the table as far as we're concerned. But are there areas in which Australia and the United States can have win wins? Yes, I believe that there are, and I will engage in those discussions respectfully, as we have over recent months.
CONNELL: Next question, Dana Daniel from the Canberra Times.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Prime Minister. You've spoken about the importance of a free media to democracy. Traditional media companies have lost millions of dollars in revenue since Meta stopped paying for news on its platforms and they say that this threatens their viability. Your Government's announcement in December that a levy would be imposed on those who refused to pay seemed to hit a wall after Donald Trump's tariff announcement and a promised discussion paper is overdue. Will the progressive patriotism that you spoke about in your speech include Australia leading the world in safeguarding the viability of public interest journalism? And how soon can we expect the news media bargaining incentive to be legislated?
PRIME MINISTER: We certainly support the news bargaining code, and we've made it very clear, for example, to the US we made it clear publicly that that's not on the table any more than the social media ban for under 16s is on the table either. We respect the role of, particularly local papers. As a local here in Canberra, it plays a vital role and it is of critical importance that those media organisations are able to survive. Now, media is changing. Legacy media isn't everything, but it's important and I respect the role that it plays, just like I respect new media as well. I did, well documented, I did 20 podcasts this year leading up to the election. I'll do other, I've got another one on Thursday morning. I'll continue to engage because you have to engage with people where they are. But where they are, Canberra Times is a good example. You have articles about local issues, including ones that are very difficult to read, including Josh Papali'i's two tries against us on Sunday - that brings heartache. But it's a wonderful story. It's a great story from a great Canberran and he was page one of the Canberra Times in the lead up to that game, breaking the record for most number of games played. The Telegraph or the Herald weren't covering that. Couldn't care less about that because it wasn't a big deal. It's a big deal in this town, in this city, and that's important. It's an example of why local media is essential.
CONNELL: So whatever Donald Trump might say, no compromise, no changes?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no. We're dealing with our policies, including on the news media bargaining code.
CONNELL: Okay. Next question, Ben Westcott from Bloomberg.
JOURNALIST: Ben Westcott from Bloomberg. Thank you for your speech, Prime Minister. And speaking of podcasts, we'd welcome you on the Bloomberg Australia podcast anytime you want to pop on over.
PRIME MINISTER: Speak to Ms Murphy.
JOURNALIST: I want to get some clarity on the Port of Darwin. During the election campaign, you said you wanted to see it back in Australian hands, but we do know since then there has been some approaches by US companies to potentially look into purchasing the Port or taking the lease. Are you adamant that it must be in Australian hands after it leaves Landbridge or would a friendly partner nation also be ok?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, private equity has a different perspective, of course, when it comes to investing in infrastructure, and so you'd want to examine what the nature of any bid is. But I've said very clearly that it is, in my view it's in, we won't preempt those processes. But my view is very clear and was clear at the time of the Federal Government, Coalition Government giving an incentive to the Northern Territory Coalition or CLP government to flog off what was, in my view, an Australian national asset. So I think it should be in Australian hands is what I've said very clearly. And I'd need some convincing of that. You know, I think that that was a wrong decision. I haven't changed my view since it was made.
CONNELL: Tess Ikonomou from AAP.
JOURNALIST: Thank you very much for your time, Prime Minister. Millennials and Gen Z are making up a greater share of the electorate and despite both being younger voters, Gen Z are less anchored to the two party system. What impact will this have on policy and your messaging?
PRIME MINISTER: I think we saw during the election campaign a different campaign in how to reach those people. I did, last week I was in, I've slowed down since the election, I did Hobart, South Australia, Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra last week. And I did FM radios on a whole range of those as well as AM radios, and am doing a podcast on Thursday. You've got to talk with people where they're at and engage with them about issues. I, frankly, was somewhat surprised at the decision by the Coalition to oppose the cut in HECS debt. I thought that was at least as tone deaf as supporting an increase in income tax rates, which is what they went to the election with, or opposing working from home. You've got to look at the changes that are there in society and how we engage with people and what are their issues that they're concerned with. And a whole lot of new media, I won't give free ads to the ones that are, engage with those people and reflect what their opinions are going forward. So I think it will change the way that politics works. One of the things I'm really proud about is this morning we had a gathering of new Members of Parliament, sort of O Week where they come along and I was able to speak to them, including, you know, a 21 year old Senator, Charlotte from South Australia. You know, I look around everything from the Cabinet Room to the Caucus, you know, we have more women in the House of Representatives whose name people begins in A - starting with Anika Wells - than Liberal or Nationals have women on the floor of the House of Representatives. You know, our team are diverse, and that includes a range of younger people, not just 21 year olds, but other people in their 20s and early 30s who've got elected - that's great. That's what the Parliament should be. It should reflect Australian society.
CONNELL: Do you ever get a bit nervous when maybe a younger staff member sends out a bit of an edgy insta post and you're not quite sure what it means but you're assured it's going to go well?
PRIME MINISTER: That's why they give us young staff to explain it. No, look, I mean, I think politics has changed as well. Like people, I say this at National Press Club so it'll appear in a transcript in future years. People need to chill out about stuff that people will have on social media. You know, if people are held to account for what a 21 year old has on social media in 10 years' time, then we won't have anyone willing to put their hand up in public life. You know, it needs to change the whole way that we deal with those issues as part of the way of dealing with it. So less, you know, we don't go through what people put on social media. It's up to them. They're accountable for it. But there's no centralisation of that because it just wouldn't work. It just wouldn't work at all. And I understand the pressures that young people, you know, are under, which is very different from the pressures that were on, you know, I wouldn't particularly appreciate everything being documented when I was in young Labor, let me tell you.
CONNELL: Alright, on that note, we're trying to get through two more. Karen Barlow from the Saturday paper.
JOURNALIST: Hello, Prime Minister. Both the new leaders of the Coalition and the Greens, Sussan Ley and Larissa Waters, have indicated a different approach to Labor this coming term, reflecting I guess their personal styles as well as Labor's thumping majority. What's your approach in this coming term about negotiating your agenda? Are you going to get more involved in some of the negotiations? What are you going to be doing this term? How are you going to approach it?
PRIME MINISTER: I lead a cabinet government that empowers Ministers. So Ministers go off and negotiate, but there's nothing unusual about me involving myself at some stage - usually with Senator Gallagher, when it gets to the crunch. And you know, we did that last December. I foreshadow things that aren't negotiable and I did that on the front page of the Herald, I think that that week of the last sitting week, but we got a phenomenal amount of legislation done. We got a whole lot done as well when Parliament resumed in February and then on Budget Week. One of the things that people missed, I think, was on the Wednesday just how much we got through the Senate, both houses, which is why we start from a position where a whole lot of our Budget and forward agenda is through. You know, Free TAFE, NBN, tax cuts, through, done and dusted. But I'm respectful. I contacted both the leaders, I've sat down already with Sussan Ley, as well as sitting down with David Littleproud. I've offered to sit down with Larissa Waters. I welcome constructive dialogue, I welcome input as well. We'll treat the crossbenchers with respect. We have 94 votes, but that actually doesn't make a difference compared with 78 - because 78 wins and 94 wins. You don't win bigger, you win, you pass legislation. We treat people with respect. If they've got ideas, we're up for it. We're up for it. And I welcome the fact that Sussan has made some constructive discussion and Larissa as well. But, you know, we'll wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding. I think they've both got issues with their internals that, fortunately for me, is something that I don't have.
CONNELL: We'll see Sussan Ley here on the 25th - there's a bit of a plug. Final question, Katina Curtis from the West Australian.
JOURNALIST: Thanks, Prime Minister. You've obviously spoken about doing things the Australian way. There does seem to be an American book that has been passed around your economics team, Abundance from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Several of them have referenced it. Have you read it?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
JOURNALIST: How do you see that abundance agenda applying in Australia? And one of the things it talks about a lot, particularly around housing, is the way that people who just don't want progress because they want to hold onto what they've got, kind of weaponise environmental laws and litigation. That's obviously in a US context, but I think we see it happening here with NIMBYism. How do you intend to stop that?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I'm not going to comment on a book that I haven't read, which is probably a good idea. I'm old fashioned, I only launch books that I read which caused, in the last term, Daniel Mulino, who wrote a three and a half thousand word page book for me to not launch his book, as worthy as I'm sure it was. But I did launch Andrew Charlton's book - it was much smaller. So hint there for parliamentary colleagues, if you want me to launch your book, make it a bit shorter so it's realistic for me to do so given the amount of reading of cabinet papers, et cetera, that I have to do. But, so I won't comment on that. Suffice to say, look, our job is to just serve our national interests. I think the Australian characteristics and Australian politics are different from the United States. You know, I think that the events we're seeing in the United States are something that no doubt many books will be written about in future years and at some stage down the track I'll have time to read them, but I can't imagine that being the case over the next three years.
CONNELL: Well, thank you very much for your time today, Prime Minister. It's not quite a Medicare card, but we've got another membership to add to your collection.
PRIME MINISTER: You only need one Medicare card.
CONNELL:
