WEBVTT - What does Albanese stand for?

0:00:01.360 --> 0:00:09.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am. Anthony

0:00:09.800 --> 0:00:12.799
<v Speaker 1>Alberzi leads a party that no longer argues in public.

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.119
<v Speaker 1>Labor presents as unified, consistent and on message, but behind

0:00:18.160 --> 0:00:21.480
<v Speaker 1>that unity is another story one. We're a party, once

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:25.760
<v Speaker 1>defined by its dissent and debate, has become scared of conflict,

0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:29.360
<v Speaker 1>to the point where its identity is formed not by beliefs,

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:32.680
<v Speaker 1>but by a commitment to staying in power no matter what.

0:00:33.640 --> 0:00:36.599
<v Speaker 1>Sean Kelly has worked up close with Anthony Alberanzi and

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 1>with Labor prime ministers before him, and he's been interrogating

0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:43.159
<v Speaker 1>what the government stands for and what its legacy will be.

0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 2>I've heard his very odd experience watching this government, which

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:50.800
<v Speaker 2>is that something about it has always puzzled me. And

0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:52.920
<v Speaker 2>that's part of where this essay came from. I was

0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:56.800
<v Speaker 2>trying to think, what does this government believe today?

0:00:57.160 --> 0:00:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Author of the new Quarter of the essay, The Good

0:00:59.360 --> 0:01:04.040
<v Speaker 1>Fight Kewey what happens when political identity is built on belonging,

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:16.880
<v Speaker 1>not belief. It's Monday, November seventy John, thanks so much

0:01:16.920 --> 0:01:18.679
<v Speaker 1>for coming on the show. It's great to see you again.

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 1>Anthony Abberaneze have recently stated that he's never seen the

0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Labor Party more united, and he went on to say

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 1>that that's a virtue.

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:30.280
<v Speaker 3>What I'm focused on is my united team that are

0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:33.200
<v Speaker 3>focused on the needs of Australians.

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 1>When you look at the Labor Party as a stands today,

0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:36.560
<v Speaker 1>do you see unity?

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 2>Okay? I do see unity In some ways. The party

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 2>is as unified as it's ever been. But another way

0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:46.760
<v Speaker 2>of putting that would be to say that the caucus

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:51.480
<v Speaker 2>is perhaps the quietest Labor caucus I can remember. And

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:55.080
<v Speaker 2>I think that does point to a couple of things

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:57.280
<v Speaker 2>which you can frame in different ways. If you're a politician,

0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:01.640
<v Speaker 2>you might say, well, that's great, it's a unified party

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:06.080
<v Speaker 2>with very little leaking, with very little descent. Great, that

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 2>allows us to go ahead with our political goals. But

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:11.600
<v Speaker 2>I think on the other side of things, it means

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:14.920
<v Speaker 2>that you don't necessarily have the type of debate you

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:17.760
<v Speaker 2>need to reach the best possible solutions. So I think

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:19.440
<v Speaker 2>this is really interesting if you look at it in

0:02:19.560 --> 0:02:23.639
<v Speaker 2>terms of Labour's history, there has always been, right from

0:02:23.639 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 2>its very beginnings, a struggle within Labor, and that struggle

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:33.359
<v Speaker 2>is between idealism and pragmatism between heading for the best

0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:37.239
<v Speaker 2>possible society, which once upon a time many people in

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 2>Labor would have called socialism, by which they didn't mean

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:43.760
<v Speaker 2>socialism exactly as we understand, but a form of equality

0:02:44.720 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 2>and pragmatism, the desire to win elections. And I think

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:53.160
<v Speaker 2>one of the really strange things about Labor is that

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 2>that struggle now seems to be inaudible. It's very hard

0:02:57.200 --> 0:02:59.520
<v Speaker 2>to say whether that struggle still exists or whether the

0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 2>party has started to prioritize winning elections far more than

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 2>anything else.

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:08.040
<v Speaker 1>What do you attribute this lack of internal debate and

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:11.120
<v Speaker 1>dissent to Shore, I mean, it's very Unlabor like.

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:13.519
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, look at it is. I think you've got a

0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 2>few factors here. Firstly, you have the fact that it's

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 2>become pretty much taboo to say I am a socialist.

0:03:21.360 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 2>You know, once upon a time people could describe their

0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:26.080
<v Speaker 2>beliefs with a single word, I'm a communist, I'm a socialist,

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 2>I'm an anti communist. And with the fall of the

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 2>Berlin Wall and the death of the Soviet Union, I

0:03:32.280 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 2>think our landscape of belief kind of collapsed into a

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 2>flat plane. And I think that means that the Labor

0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:43.440
<v Speaker 2>Party doesn't have that very clear ideal towards which it's

0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:46.960
<v Speaker 2>heading anymore. And the lack of a clear ideal is

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 2>a problem because what an ideal does is provides a

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:54.160
<v Speaker 2>mechanism of accountability. You can always compare yourself to that

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:56.680
<v Speaker 2>ideal and say, well, look at the things we're doing,

0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:00.040
<v Speaker 2>are they helping us get closer to that thing. I

0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:03.440
<v Speaker 2>don't think Labor feels as though it has a clear

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.920
<v Speaker 2>ideal which it can articulate. The second thing that's happened

0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:10.440
<v Speaker 2>is that that battle, that struggle used to go on

0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:13.760
<v Speaker 2>within the Labor Party, but at some point the Greens

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 2>came along and I think that has meant over time

0:04:17.560 --> 0:04:21.839
<v Speaker 2>that that ideal, that pursuit of policy purity has migrated

0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:25.039
<v Speaker 2>outside of the Labor Party into the Greens. And I

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 2>think that that is part of why you don't see

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 2>such debate within the Labor Party. And I think it's

0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 2>all something that the Labor Party has almost started to

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:36.839
<v Speaker 2>define itself in opposition to that idea of pursuing ideals.

0:04:37.400 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 3>For the Greene Political Party, this isn't about the Australian people.

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>This is about then.

0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:48.160
<v Speaker 3>They want the issue, not the outcome. The ideal In protests,

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:49.920
<v Speaker 3>we focus on.

0:04:49.920 --> 0:04:54.880
<v Speaker 2>Progress, and that has seen pragmatism come even further to

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 2>the fore. And so I think this means that there

0:04:57.440 --> 0:04:59.720
<v Speaker 2>is an overall difficulty in labor, which is that it's

0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:03.400
<v Speaker 2>not entirely clear what labor is trying to do anymore.

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:06.479
<v Speaker 1>So what's been the cost of that sort of lack

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.120
<v Speaker 1>of friction within the caucus? I mean, how has it

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:12.960
<v Speaker 1>changed the way that the Labor Party is actually governing

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:13.799
<v Speaker 1>at the moment.

0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 2>I think you can see it in certain policy areas.

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 2>The one that comes to mind most readily is gambling.

0:05:19.279 --> 0:05:21.279
<v Speaker 2>When the Party has been willing to say we will

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:25.080
<v Speaker 2>do something about gambling, but we won't ban online ads,

0:05:25.279 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 2>which is the thing that everybody, of course has been

0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 2>talking about. And I think you see the Party often

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 2>stopping short of things. You know, they'll say, we will

0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:37.599
<v Speaker 2>do something about supermarket pricing, but we will defend the

0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:40.839
<v Speaker 2>existence of this, calls will work soligopoly, and again and

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 2>again we see Labor Party just kind of step clear

0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:48.040
<v Speaker 2>from the strongest possible answer to things. Now, that's not

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.920
<v Speaker 2>necessarily a bad thing in each individual instance, but as

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:53.720
<v Speaker 2>a whole, I think what it adds up to is

0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:57.200
<v Speaker 2>a party that is incredibly conflict averse, and that is

0:05:57.200 --> 0:05:59.440
<v Speaker 2>actually something the party has been talking about right from

0:05:59.480 --> 0:06:02.760
<v Speaker 2>the start. They would boast about not frightening the horses,

0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:07.600
<v Speaker 2>by which they meant not provoking huge debates, not provoking

0:06:07.600 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 2>their opponents to come out and bash them, and that

0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:18.000
<v Speaker 2>was in certain respects successful. But I think the question

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:21.159
<v Speaker 2>is whether over time that costs the Labor Party something else,

0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:25.720
<v Speaker 2>and I think it does. I think again, you come

0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:28.719
<v Speaker 2>back to this question. If it's not fighting these fights,

0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:32.240
<v Speaker 2>if it's not willing to go into battle with entrenched interests,

0:06:32.680 --> 0:06:35.520
<v Speaker 2>then what exactly is it that it cares about?

0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>Coming up Albanese's three great faiths, Labor, the Catholic Church,

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:50.159
<v Speaker 1>and the rabbit. As Sean Alberanze tells us that the

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:55.000
<v Speaker 1>party is unified under our labor hat. So to the

0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 1>question what does the party currently stand for? That's the

0:06:58.680 --> 0:07:00.080
<v Speaker 1>heart of your essay.

0:07:00.200 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 2>Look, I think that this labor hat thing is so interesting.

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:07.520
<v Speaker 2>Jim Chalmers described the Labor Party this year as centrist.

0:07:07.560 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 4>Obviously, there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of

0:07:10.880 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 4>the road centrist governments like ours don't consider, you know,

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:19.600
<v Speaker 4>we don't consider inheritance taxes, we don't consider changing the

0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:21.760
<v Speaker 4>arrangements for the family home those And.

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:24.840
<v Speaker 2>As Richard Datis wrote this year, you know that difficultly

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 2>with Centrists. It means you're not defining yourself in relation

0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 2>to particular beliefs. You're just defining yourself according to who's

0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:33.240
<v Speaker 2>on the right of you and who's on the left

0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 2>of you. You're essentially a little tugboat being tossed by

0:07:37.040 --> 0:07:41.160
<v Speaker 2>by great waves. Anthony Albanese, when I put that label

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 2>centrist to him in twenty twenty three, said we're Labor

0:07:45.440 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 2>and that to me sounds better, but I still think

0:07:49.400 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 2>it doesn't leave us with a much clearer sense of

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:55.920
<v Speaker 2>what the party stands for. And I think this is

0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 2>related to a trend in Anthony Albanese's rhetoric, which is

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:02.160
<v Speaker 2>it's often to find him negative terms rather than in

0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:06.120
<v Speaker 2>positive terms, by what labor wants not to do rather

0:08:06.160 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 2>than what it wants to do. So you could see

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:10.520
<v Speaker 2>this when he was talking about the Australian way during

0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:15.360
<v Speaker 2>the election campaign. It started with a determination not to

0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:17.800
<v Speaker 2>be like America, not to be Donald Trump, and it

0:08:17.800 --> 0:08:19.800
<v Speaker 2>would say we don't need to copy the ideologies of

0:08:19.840 --> 0:08:20.520
<v Speaker 2>any other nation.

0:08:20.720 --> 0:08:24.920
<v Speaker 3>Why on Earth would we try to mimic anywhere else.

0:08:25.960 --> 0:08:29.040
<v Speaker 3>We don't want a wager system where people have to

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:33.800
<v Speaker 3>rely on tips to make ends meet. We don't want

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:39.240
<v Speaker 3>Australian students burdened by a lifetime of debt. And we

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:44.080
<v Speaker 3>never ever ever want an American style health system in

0:08:44.120 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 3>this country.

0:08:46.679 --> 0:08:50.559
<v Speaker 2>Which is fair enough, but it is saying Australia should

0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:53.280
<v Speaker 2>be as it is now, not like something else. And

0:08:53.320 --> 0:08:55.920
<v Speaker 2>he did a similar thing when he was asked earlier

0:08:55.960 --> 0:08:59.440
<v Speaker 2>this year what he meant with his famous phrase, I

0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:00.120
<v Speaker 2>like fid.

0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 1>I like fighting tories. That's what I do. That's what

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:05.320
<v Speaker 1>I do.

0:09:05.440 --> 0:09:08.120
<v Speaker 2>And he said, well, what that means is not giving

0:09:08.200 --> 0:09:10.440
<v Speaker 2>up the gains that have been made. And I think

0:09:10.440 --> 0:09:12.720
<v Speaker 2>that's a fascinating way to describe it, because it's looking

0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 2>backwards as saying we don't want to give up what

0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:17.839
<v Speaker 2>has already been done, not about fighting for new things,

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.120
<v Speaker 2>not about fighting for change, and that is a really

0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 2>conservative framing for the Australian Labor Party, it's a really

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:28.080
<v Speaker 2>conservative framing for any center left party, because he had

0:09:28.200 --> 0:09:31.079
<v Speaker 2>left parties have traditionally been about change. And I think

0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:34.360
<v Speaker 2>it's really interesting that Anthony Albanez he constantly defines himself

0:09:34.400 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 2>by reference to the three great faiths he has the

0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:40.120
<v Speaker 2>Labor Party, the Catholic Church and the South Sydney Rabbitos.

0:09:40.760 --> 0:09:44.520
<v Speaker 3>Say that I was raised with three great faiths, the

0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:48.720
<v Speaker 3>Labor Party, the Catholic Church and Chastity regul League Football

0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:49.800
<v Speaker 3>Club by my mum.

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 2>And that because what I think that really means is

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:57.920
<v Speaker 2>defining himself by tribes. You know, it's not a set

0:09:57.920 --> 0:10:01.480
<v Speaker 2>of beliefs, it's institutions that he belongs to and supports.

0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:04.680
<v Speaker 2>I think that's interesting because it is on some level

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:08.599
<v Speaker 2>de finding yourself in opposition rather than with reference to

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:11.000
<v Speaker 2>a particular belief, to a particular thing you were trying

0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:11.200
<v Speaker 2>to do.

0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Alban Eazy has said he didn't know why anyone would

0:10:14.840 --> 0:10:17.600
<v Speaker 1>go into politics if they didn't want to leave a legacy.

0:10:18.080 --> 0:10:20.760
<v Speaker 1>So what do you think he wants his legacy to be.

0:10:21.200 --> 0:10:24.120
<v Speaker 2>I think he would point to two things. One he

0:10:24.160 --> 0:10:27.000
<v Speaker 2>would say, I want to leave home a universal childcare,

0:10:27.720 --> 0:10:31.160
<v Speaker 2>and that absolutely may still happen. But it is worth

0:10:31.280 --> 0:10:35.880
<v Speaker 2>noting that the progress towards universal childcare has been much

0:10:35.960 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 2>slower than the government foreshadowed early on, and the time

0:10:39.720 --> 0:10:42.120
<v Speaker 2>frame has kept slipping a little bit. But that is

0:10:42.160 --> 0:10:44.280
<v Speaker 2>certainly one aspect of what he would hope to be

0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:44.840
<v Speaker 2>his legacy.

0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:49.880
<v Speaker 3>Our labor government believes firmly that every child should have

0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:54.080
<v Speaker 3>the right to quality, affordable early education.

0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:58.520
<v Speaker 2>The other thing that he points to is the transition

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 2>to renewable energy, and the government believes very strongly that

0:11:02.400 --> 0:11:05.480
<v Speaker 2>this is a revolutionary thing, that this is the most

0:11:05.559 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 2>significant thing that they are doing, that it is a

0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:11.520
<v Speaker 2>huge wave of economic change, and also of course changed

0:11:11.559 --> 0:11:12.880
<v Speaker 2>the way we approach the climate.

0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:19.120
<v Speaker 3>Every assailing who knows that climate change is a challenge

0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:22.599
<v Speaker 3>we must hate together to meet for their future.

0:11:22.280 --> 0:11:29.719
<v Speaker 1>Of our environment, and.

0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:34.840
<v Speaker 3>Knows the fact that renewable energy is an opportunity we

0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:37.320
<v Speaker 3>must work together to seas.

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:41.640
<v Speaker 2>Trying to feature of our Again. There are really big

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:46.120
<v Speaker 2>questions about just how much Australia's emissions are falling, and

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:49.160
<v Speaker 2>you also have to factor in the fact which the

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:53.440
<v Speaker 2>Albanezy government basically likes to ignore, which is that Australia

0:11:53.480 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 2>is in the top five exporters of fossil fuel emissions

0:11:57.240 --> 0:11:59.920
<v Speaker 2>around the world. I mean, that is a staggering fact

0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:03.480
<v Speaker 2>that really should shame us as a country, but we

0:12:03.760 --> 0:12:04.839
<v Speaker 2>just don't talk about it.

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:07.280
<v Speaker 1>So how do you think he's going in terms of

0:12:07.559 --> 0:12:11.160
<v Speaker 1>achieving the legacy that he's hoping to build, how would

0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:13.079
<v Speaker 1>you assess that at this point?

0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:16.720
<v Speaker 2>I think one of the great difficulties in assessing this government.

0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:20.240
<v Speaker 2>One of the reasons I've really struggled with what to

0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:22.440
<v Speaker 2>think of them all the way along and still do,

0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:27.520
<v Speaker 2>is that the nature of incrementalism, the nature of approaching

0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:32.319
<v Speaker 2>things gradually, is that the moment of judgment always seems

0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:35.200
<v Speaker 2>to be somewhere down the track. If your argument to

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:38.360
<v Speaker 2>the Isralian people is we are going about things slowly,

0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:44.320
<v Speaker 2>we are accumulating small changes over time into something that

0:12:44.360 --> 0:12:48.079
<v Speaker 2>will be larger and more significant, then you can always say, well,

0:12:48.080 --> 0:12:50.959
<v Speaker 2>that moment's coming. But I think it's important to remember

0:12:51.440 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 2>that we are three and a half years in. One

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:57.880
<v Speaker 2>of the arguments that the government makes is that the

0:12:57.960 --> 0:13:00.439
<v Speaker 2>reason you need to win several elections in you need

0:13:00.480 --> 0:13:04.280
<v Speaker 2>to embed changes so that the following government, the following

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:09.040
<v Speaker 2>coalition government, can't tear them down. Now that sounds fair enough,

0:13:09.559 --> 0:13:12.360
<v Speaker 2>except that when it's applied to previous governments, what you're

0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:16.160
<v Speaker 2>really talking about is reforms that happened early. Because at

0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:19.240
<v Speaker 2>this point, let's say the government loses after three terms.

0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:21.920
<v Speaker 2>We're really only talking about a term and a half

0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 2>in which to embed those policies. So I think that

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:31.000
<v Speaker 2>incrementalism argument loses power the longer the government is there.

0:13:31.040 --> 0:13:33.040
<v Speaker 2>And it loses power for another reason too, which is

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 2>that you could actually look at the results and say, well,

0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:43.000
<v Speaker 2>are these things being solved. I think there's something really

0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 2>interesting about this decision not to pick fights, this decision

0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:50.200
<v Speaker 2>to avoid political trouble. It does work in a certain way.

0:13:50.240 --> 0:13:52.920
<v Speaker 2>It means you don't get strips torn off you, it

0:13:52.920 --> 0:13:55.079
<v Speaker 2>means you don't have the media piling on your head.

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.520
<v Speaker 2>These are political advantages. But I think that over time,

0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:04.320
<v Speaker 2>every prime minister's strength ends up becoming their weakness. Every

0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:09.000
<v Speaker 2>prime minister ends up having a quality which works for them,

0:14:09.240 --> 0:14:11.360
<v Speaker 2>and because it works for them, they lean on it

0:14:11.440 --> 0:14:14.880
<v Speaker 2>ever more heavily, and because they lean not too heavily,

0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:17.560
<v Speaker 2>eventually it ends up hurting them. And you saw that

0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 2>with Gough Wicklam. You know his boldness, he meant that

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:24.520
<v Speaker 2>he eventually crashed. Similarly, but in the opposite way. Anthony

0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:27.280
<v Speaker 2>Albanize's caution has worked for him. It may work for

0:14:27.360 --> 0:14:30.160
<v Speaker 2>him for a longer period, and at some point if

0:14:30.160 --> 0:14:32.880
<v Speaker 2>he doesn't learn to balance that caution with boldness in

0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:36.160
<v Speaker 2>some other respects. Then I think that caution could end

0:14:36.240 --> 0:14:38.360
<v Speaker 2>up hurting him in the same way that Whitlam's boldness

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:43.400
<v Speaker 2>ended up hurting him.

0:14:43.520 --> 0:14:46.120
<v Speaker 1>Sean, it's a fascinating essay. Thanks so much for coming

0:14:46.120 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 1>on the Showutte talking to us about it.

0:14:47.640 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much for having me on. It was lovely

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:50.120
<v Speaker 2>to see you again.

0:14:51.920 --> 0:14:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Sean. Kelly's quarterly essay, The Good Fight What Does Labor

0:14:55.080 --> 0:15:05.600
<v Speaker 1>Stand For? Is out today. Also in the news, a

0:15:05.640 --> 0:15:08.560
<v Speaker 1>dead lockover who will host next year's cop Climate Summit

0:15:08.920 --> 0:15:11.280
<v Speaker 1>is said to be broken this week as this year's

0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:14.480
<v Speaker 1>conference in Brazil comes to an end. Australia is up

0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.479
<v Speaker 1>against to a Kia for hosting rights, with the Albanesi

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.760
<v Speaker 1>government hoping to stage the global summit in Adelaide, but

0:15:20.880 --> 0:15:23.840
<v Speaker 1>despite pursuing the right to host cop the government has

0:15:23.840 --> 0:15:26.800
<v Speaker 1>not outlined the cost, with some reports suggesting it could

0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:30.760
<v Speaker 1>be as high as two billion dollars, and Prime Minister

0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:35.120
<v Speaker 1>Anthony Alberesi as endulgs Victorian Premier Jacinder Allen's new juvenile

0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:38.760
<v Speaker 1>justice laws, which will allow children as young as fourteen

0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:42.400
<v Speaker 1>to be jailed for life for violent crimes. The new

0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:45.760
<v Speaker 1>measures have been widely criticized for breaching human rights obligations,

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 1>but the PM described the move as consistent with the

0:15:49.040 --> 0:15:52.840
<v Speaker 1>premier's commitment to keeping Victorian safe. We will bring you

0:15:52.880 --> 0:15:56.640
<v Speaker 1>an episode on the new laws tomorrow. I'm Daniel James.

0:15:56.720 --> 0:16:07.120
<v Speaker 1>This is seven a m. Thanks for listening.