November 2025

Read the Room: Fail to prepare, prepare to fail

Earlier this month, Shadow Treasurer Ted O’Brien was speaking to Sarah Ferguson on 7.30. It wasn’t a particularly Earth-shattering interview, and was largely unremarkable. It certainly wasn’t a train wreck, but it was obvious that O’Brien, a senior member of the shadow cabinet, hadn’t prepared. Well, he had prepared, just not in a very useful way.

During the interview, O’Brien argued that Labor had put the budget into deficit because they weren’t finding offsets for their spending measures. That is, they weren’t cutting spending elsewhere. Ferguson then asked O’Brien the most obvious, Journalism 101 question possible, (this is not to disparage Ferguson, she did what any journalist should do). She asked O’Brien: “What specific spending measures are you talking about that you would roll back or cancel — the spending the government shouldn’t have done?”

Since this really is a basic question, O’Brien, or his handlers, should have been prepared. Unfortunately, his wallet was lacking in receipts and his first response was to bamboozle with numbers:

“The government had $22 billion of additional decisions it made. Instead of finding offsets or savings in the budget to pay for those priorities, it just decided to spend more. That means they announced a $10 billion deficit. If they’d found those $22 billion in savings, they could have delivered a $12 billion surplus. And, by the way, they’re planning to do the same thing this financial year — a $42 billion deficit, $37 billion of which is driven by their own decisions.”

That’s 82 words, and he says billion six times. I know it makes sense to O’Brien, and on paper you can follow the logic, but in a fast-moving TV interview, it’s too convoluted. Whether it was designed to be deceptive is irrelevant, it’s a confusing mess and it looks like he doesn’t have an answer.

And Ferguson calls him on it: “I don’t want everyone to get lost in the billions. I want the detail. What specific measures would you either cancel or roll back? What are you criticising the government for enacting?”

O’Brien then gives a specific example, the fringe benefits tax carve-out for electric vehicles. However, Ferguson calls him out again for having used that example before and that she was hoping for something new.

Mercifully — for O’Brien — she moves the interview on to leadership tension in the Coalition.

Before we look at O’Brien’s lack of preparation, it’s worth noting that he couched his example in a defensive comment, saying it’s not for the opposition to find savings for the government.

It was lucky for O’Brien that Ferguson had bigger fish to fry, because she would have been well within her rights to respond with “it may not be the opposition’s job to find savings for the government, but it is your job to outline what you’d do if you were in power”.

The exchange is instructive for a few reasons.

Firstly, it made O’Brien look unprepared. When he was asked an obvious question, he ducked and hoped a string of numbers would do the job for him. When it didn’t, he reached for an already-used example.

The fact that his one example was his Plan B response suggests he really didn’t have any ideas of what the Coalition would do to rein in the deficit. And you know what? That’s perfectly OK. This parliament is still in its early days and there’s no need for the Coalition to be spelling out policy detail this far from the next election.

Which is exactly what he should have said. He didn’t need specifics, but he needed an answer that negated Ferguson’s line of questioning (which was obvious) and gave him some space to repeat his main talking point, which was that the opposition wanted fiscal discipline from the government.

He could have war gamed a response like:

“It’s the Treasurer’s job to manage his own budget. There are still budgets and MYEFOs before the next election, and as we get closer, we’ll have a clearer sense of priorities and what needs changing. Right now, our focus is restoring discipline to spending. And if Dr Chalmers needs a starting point, he can have that fringe benefits tax on EVs for free.”

It lets him use his one-and-only example in a cheeky way, puts the onus on the government, provides an explanation for why they don’t have specifics yet, and commits them to having them in a more reasonable timeframe.

The Spin: When the ‘fix’ makes it worse

There’s an old rule in communications: it’s not the stuff-up that kills you, it’s the cover up. Deloitte’s $440,000 report for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is a classic case study.

Let’s be honest, who didn’t laugh when one of the Big Four was busted charging the government for a report written by AI that was riddled with digital fever dreams? (And that schadenfreude is part of Deloitte’s problem, which we’ll get to.)

The firm used generative AI to help draft a review of the government’s jobseeker compliance framework. When the report landed, academics spotted fake references, invented cases, citations that didn’t exist. Classic AI “hallucinations”. Deloitte quietly reissued the report, added an AI disclaimer in the appendix, and called it fixed.

Except it wasn’t. The firm denied AI caused the errors, insisted the findings were sound, and told everyone the “matter was resolved with the client.” That client being, inconveniently, the federal government, meaning taxpayers had footed the bill.

Coming so soon after the PwC scandal, it was tone-deaf at best, since Deloitte failed to see how they were perceived in the public eye. They could have owned the mistake and moved on. Instead, they chose corporate defensiveness over transparency, guaranteeing another round of bad headlines about honesty, oversight and who’s really doing the work.

The public can handle human error. What they won’t forgive is being treated like they can’t see through bullshit. Deloitte’s initial stuff-up was bad, but their “nothing to see here” response made it really bad.

Eyes Up: Opportunities, tenders, and calls for input

The NSW Parliament’s Standing Committee on Social Issues is examining the health of the state’s live music scene, including regional areas. The inquiry will review progress on recommendations from the 2017 Music and Arts Economy report, assess implementation of the 2024 NSW Contemporary Music Strategy, and evaluate the impact of recent “Vibrancy Reforms”. It will also consider long-term sustainability measures for the sector — from venue protection and audience growth to funding, career support and red-tape reduction. Submissions close 27 February 2026.

The House Standing Committee on Education has launched an inquiry into how Australia can build stronger Asia capability through the education system and beyond. The inquiry will explore the teaching and learning of Asian languages, cultural literacy, and regional engagement across the life course — from early childhood through to tertiary education and into the workforce.

Worth Your Time: Smart finds we’ve bookmarked for you

New nonprofit magazine Equator aims to tell global stories beyond Western frames of reference. Founded by Pankaj Mishra, Mohsin Hamid, Nesrine Malik, Samanth Subramanian and Suzy Hansen, and edited by Guardian long-reads creator Jonathan Shainin, it wants to move past the reflexive “what does it mean for the US?” lens.

After visiting Yosemite and seeing El Capitan up close, my wife and I stumbled across ReThinking, which featured free solo climber Alex Honnold. Hosted by organisational psychologist and author Adam Grant, the show explores how people think, learn, and lead differently. The podcast digs into what drives high performers, how they deal with fear, and what we can learn from them about decision-making, resilience, and curiosity.

This New York Times profile of Zohran Mamdani charts his improbable rise from relative obscurity — a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist assemblyman — to frontrunner for mayor of America’s biggest city. The piece captures the energy and contradictions of his campaign: the grassroots idealism, the discomfort he causes party power brokers, and the careful recalibration he’s undertaken since his stunning primary win. It’s also a study in political transformation, showing a candidate learning in real time how to bridge ideology and governance. Whatever happens when the votes are counted later today, Mamdani’s story says something larger about where the Democratic Party is heading. Free link via The Sunday Long Read.