Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry
Mark Kenny:
G’day there and welcome to Democracy Sausage from the Australian National University. I’m Mark Kenny director of ANU’s Australian Studies Institute and I’m delighted to welcome back to Democracy Sausage federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. G’day there Jim.
Jim Chalmers:
It’s nice to see you again, Mark, thanks for having me back on your podcast.
Kenny:
It’s a great pleasure. There’s a fair bit happening in the world, it seems like the pace of events is such really, I don’t know. You have spoken about this, written about it a few times as well, the rate of change, the number of events that are happening globally and the significance of them and the combination of them. I think and the way things tend to sort of – we end up with these compound problems, don’t we, or compound challenges. I wonder how tiring that is for you but also how in a sense it makes things feel like they are moving so fast.
Take the election for example, a big moment in Australia and a huge historic result as you were, I think, at some pains to grapple with as the numbers tumbled out on election night as you were sitting there on the ABC. But the election itself even seems – even though the 48th parliament hasn’t sat yet – the election feels likes it was quite a while ago now.
Chalmers:
Old news.
Kenny:
It’s extraordinary, isn’t it?
Chalmers:
It really is.
Kenny:
And not in a good way necessarily because most of these events we’re talking about aren’t things that we would automatically dial‑in if we could. Wars breaking out and various calamities, environmental and so forth. How does it feel to you? Does it feel to you like, in politics now, there’s this sense that governments age more quickly because of, just the sort of cadence of events and exposure, and having to explain it and navigate it all?
Chalmers:
It feels almost exactly as you’ve described it, the pace of change and churn is accelerating. And in my part of the shop I think about the fact that even in the last not even 2 decades we’ve had 4 major economic shocks now – a GFC, COVID, an inflation shock and now the shock that comes from these escalating trade and geopolitical tensions. And so the world is moving fast, the global economy is in lots of ways a perilous place because of this cascading change that we’re seeing that we need to respond to.
And so I do feel like our responsibility really in this environment is, there’s an element of making our economy more resilient in the face of all this uncertainty and volatility but also a sense of working out how do we make our people, our economy, a beneficiary of all this churn and change.
It would be naive I think to assume that this change is temporary, short term and that we will return to some long period of normalcy like we saw after the end of the Cold War. And so this really dominates our thinking – the international environment, the pace of change, the way that change is accelerating really is the primary influence on the way we think about this second term.
Kenny:
Yeah you have written about this in the past. You’ve got a reputation, quite rightly, as a thinker and someone who reads a lot and thinks a lot about the big historical trends and the forces that are happening underneath it. How do you reflect on that period that you talked about – that you just made reference to – the period after the Cold War? Of course we always hear it described as framed by the end of history argument and all of that. Now sort of, I suppose, what are we, quarter of a century after the 90s have ended. How do we look back on that now? How do you look back on it?
Chalmers:
Well I look at it in sort of 3 periods. There’s the period from the end of the Second World War to the end of the Cold War.
Kenny:
Which we are saying is about sort of ‘89, ‘90 that sort of time.
Chalmers:
Yeah, that’s right. And you know momentous change in that period, dominated by the Cold War essentially. Then you had the end of the Cold War until the GFC, and others have described that as the Great Moderation.
Kenny:
I suppose you’d say until September 11 though wouldn’t you almost –
Chalmers:
Yeah in security terms, you’ll forgive me for having sort of an economic lens –
Kenny:
– an economic frame, yeah.
Chalmers:
But sure in the first decade of the 2000s, the world changed dramatically and the thing for us as Australians is we were among the primary beneficiaries of that period of moderation between the end of the Cold War and the early 2000s. We, the Australian economy, partly by choice, by intelligent policy choices in the ‘80s and ‘90s but also the way that the world was structured was very beneficial for Australia.
And now we think about these 4 shocks in 2 decades and also against the backdrop of all of this technological change, demographic change, our industrial base is changing and the world is fragmenting. And so now we have to work out collectively, not just as a government but as Australians, how do we become the primary beneficiaries of all of this churn and change in the same way that we were the primary beneficiaries of that period of calm from the end of the Cold War.
Kenny:
Yeah, because during that period I suppose the rules held. There was a thing called the international rules‑based order, there was a sense in which there was at least a predictability about the framing of whatever might happen. Whereas now we don’t have that. We have this sort of sense of, particularly with the US being in a sense the chief architect and enforcer of that international order, having itself begun to walk away from it in quite dramatic ways, economic ways of course with tariffs and everything which we can come to.
But that really – on top of things like pandemics and financial crises and the like – it really makes it, it means that we basically now have what replaced the predictability of the rules is the unpredictability of what follows, almost as a permanent dynamic.
Chalmers:
I think that’s a good way to describe it. Unpredictability is a good way of thinking even about these trade tensions that we’ve got right now because from day‑to‑day, week‑to‑week, the state of the negotiation between the US and China is changing. It’s the unpredictability that is making people wary, making investors wary and decision makers wary. It’s the sense of a lack of stability and predictability, I think as you rightly point out.
And we’ve got this big fragmentation in the world and we shouldn’t over‑interpret that but we shouldn’t under‑interpret it either. The world is fragmenting, it has a huge influence on how we think about our own economy. And again it’s against these – we’ve got all these short term volatility – we see the gold price, the oil price bouncing around, stock markets have been bouncing around before and since so‑called Liberation Day, but that kind of masks a bigger structural change in the global economy.
There’s a big change in the way that the world conducts its business now. And the responsibility on us as decision makers in government, but also in the private sector and the community more broadly, is to work out how do we make our people beneficiaries of that rather than victims of it.
Kenny:
And as you said in the early 2000s for example we were in a very good position to be beneficiaries. I remember covering budgets during that time and they were constantly framed by revenue upgrades, mostly from resources, and the budget was constantly in better shape than it was predicted to be.
Now we are talking about a different world, much less predictable one. But I think I’ve heard you say, and I put the question to you I suppose rhetorically but where would you rather be in the circumstance that we’re in now, would it be Australia or somewhere else? We are still pretty well positioned.
Chalmers:
For sure. I hope it’s not talking out of school, but when Governor Phil Lowe and I used to go to these G20 conferences and we would sit there and we’d – when we were speaking in between the sessions or having a cup of tea or something we’d say, we’d look around the room and you’d say, who would you rather be in this group than us. And it’s an important bit of perspective and what I try to do in the speech at the National Press Club is to say we shouldn’t choose between these false binaries.
There’s a bunch of people that will always talk the economy down. There’s a bunch of people – and maybe politicians are sometimes guilty of this – who will only ever talk the place up. Let’s just put it into its proper perspective.
Australia in lots of ways is outperforming the world. The fact that we’ve got inflation down, while keeping unemployment low, we’ve got real wages growing again, the combination of things that we’ve got in our economy is something that a lot of our peer countries would like to see in their own economies. And we can recognise that at the same time as we can recognise our economy is not productive enough, the budget needs to be more sustainable, we need to be more resilient in the face of all this global uncertainty that you and I are talking about today.
And so I think it’s not just possible to have those views simultaneously, it’s imperative that we do. That we have the proper perspective about our economy. Our economy in global terms is performing quite well, particularly our labour market, which in lots of ways to me is the most important thing, how people are actually earning and providing for their loved ones –
Kenny:
It’s like how the economy works for people.
Chalmers:
It’s the people‑facing part of the economy matters the most to me. And in some of those areas it’s been extraordinary, we’ve got the lowest average unemployment of any government in the last 50 years, at the same time as we’ve got inflation down and got real wages up.
So it’s a long way of saying, let’s have some perspective about the economy. I’m going to try and get better at saying here is all the things that are going really well that we’re really pleased about, here are the things where we need to be doing better if we want to lift living standards for people in our country. Productivity, budget sustainability, resilience in the world, these are the things where we can acknowledge and work together on making things better.
Kenny:
Well let’s go to that productivity thing, because the Prime Minister recently at the Press Club and then you in the speech to the Press Club as well talking about productivity. And I think you have made the point before that the first term, how did you put it, the first term was basically –
Chalmers:
Primarily.
Kenny:
– primarily about fighting inflation but with an eye to productivity and the second term is about lifting productivity with an eye to keeping inflation under control. Is that sort of broadly what you were saying?
Chalmers:
Yeah it is, and I said that the morning after the election on the Insiders panel. I’d sat kind of in one corner of the ABC studio for about 6 or 7 hours in the evening and rocked up to the other corner of the studio in the morning. And that is how I see it.
Kenny:
Imagine what it’s like for David Speers.
Chalmers:
Exactly. I guess the point that I’m trying to make is we already have a productivity agenda. It’s substantial, it’s ambitious. But the bulk of our first term was about fighting inflation. And in the second term I think we still care about inflation, cost of living, real wages, still a huge focus of us but we will focus more on productivity, more on the supply side of the economy.
When we talk about productivity, I think it’s important to remember it comes back to what we were just saying about the labour market more broadly. Productivity can come across as this kind of cold and soulless concept. It’s about how efficiently we use inputs to create outputs in our economy.
Kenny:
Is it widely understood, do you think, in the electorate when politicians and economists talk about productivity? What’s your – you’re an MP right, you represent people, you have your own electorate, you’re dealing with constituents all the time, right. What’s the general understanding of this as a term?
Chalmers:
It’s not a word that people use when they bail you up at Coles or Woolies. I acknowledge that. But it’s really the most important thing that will deliver higher living standards for people. And so I try not to think of productivity as that cold and soulless concept. Productivity is about a more dynamic economy, which lifts living standards, and a more dynamic society where we create more opportunities for more of our people.
And what I’m trying to do is I’m trying to broaden the national policy and political conversation beyond the tired old fights over things like industrial relations. Productivity is about how we adapt and adopt technology, it’s how we transform our energy resources, it’s about making our businesses more competitive, it’s about the care economy, it’s about human capital, how we invest in people.
Kenny:
A lot of these things are things that as you say, they’re good, everyone would agree they’re all public goods. They’re things that should happen and so forth. Many of them – particularly if we think about human capital and getting more from people because they can contribute more and that adds to dynamism in the economy and creativity and opportunities all those brilliant things – but in a sense they’re long‑term investments that are required aren’t they?
We are sitting here in a university. University education and training, obviously been a strong priority of the government. But it needs that’s the – I guess what I’m getting at is these aren’t things that you can just sort of flick a switch and make happen, right. They take long‑term planning and thinking and commitment and funding.
Chalmers:
Well 2 things about that. I mean, first of all there are 2 visions for productivity. And this is not the place for partisan reflections but there’s a view that says we’ll only get productivity if we make people work harder and longer for less. That is essentially our political opponent’s view of productivity.
We think we’ll get productivity if we invest in people, their ability to adapt and adopt technology in a more modern economy. And so the way that our opponents think about productivity, that will never be our jam. That will never be – that’s not what we are on about.
We are not trying to screw down people’s wages and working conditions. We think there’s a better way to go about it. But I think you’re absolutely bang on when you talk about – I think of it as the delayed gratification when it comes to productivity policy. There are some elements of economic policy where you get a bang for your buck sooner.
Productivity is one of those things you got to chip away at and I’ve tried to point out, there’s not one thing as you rightly say, you can’t just flick one switch. If there was one switch we could flick somebody would have flicked it already to make our economy more productive. You’ve got to chip away, you’ve got to have a broader idea of productivity and you’ve got to work with people and bring people together. And that’s what we intend to do.
Kenny:
Let’s take a quick break and be back in a moment. Welcome back. I’m talking with Treasurer Jim Chalmers, ANU alum, among many things. Dr Chalmers, the productivity matter we were just talking about, there’s going to be this roundtable, the Prime Minister has announced, and you’ve spoken about at the Press Club as well.
Obviously, the criticism that people will make if they want to will be another talk fest. We see these from time to time. From what I understand you’re girding against this, you’re trying to design it in ways that will mean that it has to deliver something more than kind of rhetoric and disagreement in a sense.
Chalmers:
Exactly right. I mean first of all I acknowledge it’s kind of unusual to have the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at the National Press Club 8 days apart but it’s deliberate. Because what we’re trying to do is in the Prime Minister’s great speech that he gave at the Press Club. And what I’m trying to do as well, is to say we’ve got a big agenda, it’s ambitious, our priority is delivering what we took to the election but we’ve got an obligation to work out what comes next.
And the best way to do that, the tone that Anthony sets in our government is to try and do that together. And I know when you bring people together there will always be an element of people who want to say that it’s failed before it’s even happened. And it might be that people bring the same old talking points and maybe progress is hard to come by. But that’s not a reason not to have a crack at it and see where there might be common ground.
Kenny:
There’s an acceptance right across the board that productivity is an issue. That lifting productivity is the ticket to higher living standards and to insulating the economy as well against some of these external shocks. So it’s a good starting place, but then you get as you say, people sort of usually retreating in to certain camps defending their position and looking for gains from others.
Chalmers:
There might be a bit of that but let’s see how far we can get if we don’t take that approach. I think broadly people do understand it would be better if our economy was more productive, our budget more sustainable and that we are more resilient in a world that is as uncertain as it is.
I think that is broadly understood and what I want to try to do at this roundtable is to go beyond problem ID into ideas. I want people to bring specific things and I want them to help build consensus, not just leave it to the government to build consensus.
Kenny:
So in other words within the framework of this round table you are looking for people to be talking to each other?
Chalmers:
Each other yeah.
Kenny:
So that the unions for example talking with employers. And together perhaps agreeing on something they can agree on, which will shift the needle as they say.
Chalmers:
And there are so many areas where this is so important. I mean technology, artificial intelligence is going to be a game changer in our economy.
Kenny:
It is for everyone right.
Chalmers:
Yeah and we need to work together to work out how do we get the best version of that. And so that is our hope and let’s be blunt about it, it remains to be seen how much appetite there is for that. But I think we owe it to ourselves to try to work out where there’s common ground. That’s what the round table is all about.
People have been terrific about it in the conversations I’ve had with them so far, already there’s a heap of interest. People will be able to feed in, even if they’re not in the Cabinet room that week and so I think it’s set up to succeed, it remains to be seen whether it will.
Kenny:
So we’re going to be looking for the productivity of the productivity roundtable.
Chalmers:
That’s right, or we’ll get the Productivity Commission to measure it.
Kenny:
Yeah because it’s not – you can’t measure it just by butchers paper can you, and annoying‑smelling textas. It’s literally about, I mean the term people often use is concrete, but what’s substantive or concrete comes from it, and can actually result in policy changes. And you’re confident that that can actually achieve something?
Chalmers:
I’m confident about that. We’ve got a big agenda on productivity, even this week the Cabinet agreed some next steps. We’ve got the Productivity Commission working on a bunch of stuff. We really have everything we need to succeed except consensus and I hope that seeking consensus is not a naive undertaking. I feel cautiously confident that we can make some progress but it remains to be seen.
Kenny:
Consensus of course was the big word in the 1980s with Bob Hawke in particular and the summits that were held and so forth. And we know of course Kevin Rudd had his 2020 – I can’t remember what it was called exactly.
Chalmers:
2020 Summit I believe.
Kenny:
I think it was summit. This is much more, I suppose surgical in a sense.
Chalmers:
Deliberately. We did the Jobs and Skills Summit at the start of our government and I don’t like how that’s been caricatured, the outcomes of that. I actually think we made a lot of progress then.
But rather than hundreds of people in the room, we will host a small group in the Cabinet room. We won’t do a lot of problem ID, the problem is broadly understood. We want people to bring their ideas. We want them to be responsible and realistic about that. We want them to see the whole chessboard when it comes to our national economy, not just their own kind of specific narrow interests.
Kenny:
Yeah because that’s always the frustration for governments isn’t it, it’s all very well for various interests to be pushing their position and perhaps that’s the way our economy and our society has been set up. But our governments have to try to look at the whole – as you say – chessboard, and figure out the implications of each of those moves and what it does to the whole.
Chalmers:
And even in budget terms, it’s very easy to call for huge tax cuts. It’s very easy to call for huge new outlays in one area or another. I don’t dismiss people who call for those things but we have to make it all add up at the end of the day. And so hopefully the kind of guidance we give people about how they approach this opportunity in the Cabinet room in the second half of August, hopefully people take that seriously. I think we will make more progress if they do.
Kenny:
Yeah. Now I mentioned before how you were there on election night and you were watching the events unfold. Do you think in the frame of what we have just been talking about the fact that it is such a stonking majority that the government has. And whilst it’s not impossible for the government to be turfed out at the next election, it’s not impossible but it doesn’t seem very likely to anyone who has been watching the game for a long time.
I mean it is just, that would be such a dramatic turnaround from the current situation. I’m not asking you to comment on that particularly but what I am interested in is whether that changes the dynamic in a thing like this productivity roundtable and in the way generally people are looking at things. There’s a sort of a, I think a level of predictability, about who it is that these interests groups will be dealing with for this term and probably the next. Is that an opportunity for everyone?
Chalmers:
First of all, I don’t believe that a third term is assured. I don’t think those assurances –
Kenny:
I know you have to say it and I agree.
Chalmers:
No, no I believe it. There’s no assurances in politics. There’s no assurances in politics. I do think that there is a sense of relief that the election’s resolved and resolved decisively. I do think that there’s an element of that in the broader community and in the stakeholders I deal with. A little bit of an element of predictability in a very unpredictable world to join up where we began this conversation. So there is, I think that.
For us, you mentioned sitting on the set on election night. The kind of 3 stages I progressed through were firstly surprise, secondly relief. An overwhelming sense of relief. And then thirdly most importantly a sense of gratitude and the reason I mentioned that sense of gratitude is because whether this government has 3 more years to live or 6 more years to live, I am more determined than I’ve ever been to make the most of the opportunity.
Because when you think about where we were at at the end of 2024, it was conceivable that we could lose the election and the clarifying impact of that when you think about the clock is ticking on all of us. The clarifying impact of what could have been a close run thing but turned out to be a decisive thing. Surprised, relieved and grateful and determined to make the most of this opportunity for however long it lasts.
Kenny:
James McGrath, who you were on with, seemed to be moving through those stages slightly more slowly. His weren’t identical stages, they were the opposite I suppose. But he took some time it seemed to me to accept what the numbers were saying. But nonetheless as you say it was a very dramatic night. Just dwelling on that for a moment, how did you feel or how do you feel now reflecting on the sort of brutality of the way your fellow Queenslander Peter Dutton was ejected from politics altogether in that process? There’s a finality about it.
Chalmers:
First of all, on James, I genuinely felt for James. We’ve lost our share of national elections too and it’s just, it dawns on you at some point that you’ve got to do opposition for another 3 years and it’s a horrendous –
Kenny:
Slog.
Chalmers:
So I respect James and I felt for him sitting next to him, and it was a rugged night for him. Yeah, the brutality of 2 leaders of 2 of the 4 biggest parties in the parliament hit the fence on election night. That’s an extraordinary thing. And a brutal thing.
The thing you will notice, I hope you notice, is I don’t dance on anyone’s political grave. I think politics is tough enough as it is when you’re in it that you shouldn’t dump on people when they’re out of it. And there’s a psychological thing about your own local community telling you they don’t want you anymore, I can only imagine that that is especially rugged for him. But I don’t want to dance on his political grave.
I hope he doesn’t mind me saying that I’ve been in touch with him since he lost. We had a friendly exchange. He played politics as hard as anyone, if not harder than most. And so we acknowledge that too but I genuinely wish him well and his family. Politics is hard yards for everyone and to be disposed of with that level of brutality I can only imagine is really tough.
Kenny:
Yeah. I think it should be said that people who dealt with him, with Peter Dutton at a personal level, his colleagues. And he was popular at a personal level because there was a warmth about him and I’ve certainly said this in things I’ve written in the past as well. He was as you say, a very hard political player but he wasn’t like some other leaders that I won’t mention that weren’t particularly popular with their colleagues. Nonetheless, an extraordinarily badly‑designed campaign, it’s just unbelievable.
Look in the brief amount of time we’ve got left, can I explore this idea that the Prime Minister has used a bit and you’ve used in your speech as well, made reference to this idea of progressive patriotism. I’m quite fascinated by this. I think the idea that the political right has had a mortgage on patriotism in the past I think is wrong. But it’s an ill‑defined concept at least or it’s a work in progress. How would you frame it?
Chalmers:
First of all you’re being characteristically humble, Mark, in not pointing out to all of your listeners that you have been grappling with, publicly, with some of these concepts for some time. I have listened to you and read you with interest in the past about this concept about patriotism. And really what Anthony is talking about when he talks about progressive patriotism is this sense that we can have Australian answers to these very difficult global questions.
His progressive patriotism is really about Australian exceptionalism. It’s about the fact that we’ve built together, not just governments, but as a country, we’ve built together Medicare and superannuation, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and all these sorts of things, which around the world other countries envy.
And so a sense of patriotism which is progressive, which is exceptional and what I try to say in my contribution to this in tipping my hat to him. And this idea that he has prosecuted, is it’s also very pragmatic, it’s very practical. It’s not especially ideological. It’s progressive in the sense that it’s about being more inclusive, looking to the future not just to the past. But it’s practical, it’s pragmatic, it’s about problem solving. That’s what we intend to bring to this reform task in the second term.
Kenny:
Yeah so things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, universal health insurance, Medicare, that sort of roped in to this, right. I guess what I’m trying to get at is what’s beyond what we already do and know, what’s the use of the term if it is just to describe in a sense what we already do?
Chalmers:
I think it’s about recognising this huge opportunity that Australia has because of the progress we’ve made together, because of the way that we think about ourselves and each other. The responsibilities that we have to each other, we don’t believe in this kind of scorched‑earth view of the world that says when the world economy is going berserk it’s everyone for themselves.
And so I think that’s central to it, that’s the progressive part of it, this sense that we’re all in it together at the worst times and in the worst crises. And also a sense of confidence and optimism that despite everything that’s coming at us from around the world we have it within us to respond effectively, not just to play defence, not just to play off the back foot, but to make this work for us. And that’s the mindset that we all need to have.
Four shocks in 2 decades, all of this churn and change in the world, a lot of progress we’ve made as Australians. A lot to be proud of, but a lot that we need to do together and we have everything we need, as I said before, except this sense of consensus about the way forward and if Anthony’s second term is to be anything it’s about the search for that.
Kenny:
One of the things that’s really challenged the consensus, this will probably be the last question here, but one of the things that’s challenged that consensus, probably the most dramatic challenge to any sort of political consensus over the last 15 years or so has been the argument over climate change. It has just been so divisive and so unproductive to go back to a theme we have been talking about before. Just the amount of time that’s been wasted and policy reversals and division and so forth.
You’ve studied, I mean you wrote your PhD about Paul Keating’s period you’ve thought about this a lot, right. The idea of the great reform era of the ‘80s and ‘90s, the things that have been done there. Most of those things of course as is well known can’t be done again, they don’t need to be done again.
But the big reform question now it seems to me and I’m interested in your thoughts about this is decarbonisation of the economy. It’s the transition. We often hear that you shouldn’t waste a crisis. I guess you could also say you shouldn’t waste a huge majority, right. Is this a mandate to accelerate the process of Australia’s economic transition because that’s about resilience as well isn’t it?
Chalmers:
The energy transformation is a big part of our reform agenda, and we come at that with ambition not because we’ve got a big majority but because we’ve got a big responsibility. And we do have a big opportunity to be again as the whole world’s energy sources transform and transition, Australia’s got a really compelling role to play in that. I’m excited about our critical minerals, I’m excited about our human capital base, our renewables sector.
And so I think one of the reasons why we’ve been, I say we, charitably, why the kind of ideology of the extremes on climate change has dominated the conversation. But in the investor communities I knock around in, this is not seen as an especially ideological thing. This is seen as to be about the future of our economy. The future of our industrial base, how we attract and deploy capital more efficiently. This is a very mainstream idea apart from the ideological extremes of X and social media.
Kenny:
We understand that Sussan Ley is reviewing all policies and one of those policies it turns out is apparently, is the commitment to net zero. Or at least that’s what a number of people are urging the Coalition to do, is to walk away from commitment to net zero by 2050. What’s your feeling about that?
Chalmers:
I think if they walked away it would show they haven’t learnt anything from the last couple of elections. And it feels like from my distance I’m not an expert on the internals of the Liberal and National parties, but it feels like they are setting themselves up for a big barney on this.
And that’s not good for the way we think about our economy, the way we think about attracting capital and investment, the way we think about certainty in our economy, that would be a bad thing. First of all, if they spent the next 3 years fighting about this but also if they walked away from something that most sane people see as a sensible way to go for an economy like ours.
Kenny:
Jim, thanks so much for coming on Democracy Sausage again, for being back here on your old alma mater, the campus of ANU. It’s been a great pleasure talking to you and we’ll look forward to doing so again at some point.
Chalmers:
I really enjoyed being back, Mark, and having another great chat, thanks so much.
Kenny:
That’s Democracy Sausage for this week. Until next week bye for now.