WEBVTT - What happened to The Greens this year?

0:00:00.920 --> 0:00:05.720
<v Speaker 1>I'm Ruby Jones and you are listening to seven AM.

0:00:06.080 --> 0:00:08.280
<v Speaker 1>One of the big stories of the twenty twenty five

0:00:08.360 --> 0:00:12.400
<v Speaker 1>election campaign was the wipeout of the Australian Greens in

0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:14.920
<v Speaker 1>a stunning defeat. They lost three out of their four

0:00:14.960 --> 0:00:19.040
<v Speaker 1>Lower House MPs, including their leader Adam Bant. It left

0:00:19.040 --> 0:00:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the party with big questions about why they weren't growing

0:00:21.840 --> 0:00:25.800
<v Speaker 1>at a time when young people are more progressive than ever. Now,

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:28.240
<v Speaker 1>more than six months out from the election and under

0:00:28.280 --> 0:00:31.160
<v Speaker 1>the leadership of Larisa Waters, there are signs of where

0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:35.160
<v Speaker 1>the Greens want to go next. Today Quicky columnist Rachel

0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:39.000
<v Speaker 1>Withers on whether the Greens can clawback support or if

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 1>they've taken the wrong message from their defeat. It's Tuesday,

0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:50.200
<v Speaker 1>December thirty. Rachel, thank you for speaking with me. Let's

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:53.240
<v Speaker 1>go back to the start of the year. Before the election,

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the Greens had their largest presence in Parliament ever, four MPs,

0:00:57.520 --> 0:01:00.960
<v Speaker 1>twelve Senators, and they were predicting even more wins. They

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:04.760
<v Speaker 1>were riding high. So what was the Greens strategy heading

0:01:04.760 --> 0:01:05.399
<v Speaker 1>into the election.

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they had their eye on quite a number of seats,

0:01:09.480 --> 0:01:13.639
<v Speaker 2>but five lower House seats. Specifically was mcmar and Wells

0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 2>in Melbourne, Richmond and New South Wales and Stirt in Perth.

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:21.160
<v Speaker 2>And so they were on these really intense ground games,

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:23.760
<v Speaker 2>different depending on the seat, but all kind of modeled

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 2>on the Max channel of Atha strategy that he used

0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 2>to wid Griffith knocking on like every door. They didn't

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:32.720
<v Speaker 2>end up succeeding in any of them. None of the

0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:35.480
<v Speaker 2>swings are enough to win an extra seat, and they,

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:38.160
<v Speaker 2>as we know, lost three of the existing four.

0:01:38.400 --> 0:01:40.319
<v Speaker 3>The seat of Melbourne an extraordinary result here.

0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 2>It's projected now that Adam Band has now lost that seat.

0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 4>The Green's got the highest vote in Melbourne, but one nation.

0:01:47.800 --> 0:01:50.840
<v Speaker 5>And liberal preferences will get Labor over the line.

0:01:50.880 --> 0:01:53.320
<v Speaker 2>They were running really high on the anti Trump sentiment,

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 2>which they thought was going to benefit them. I would

0:01:56.840 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 2>say it actually ended up hurting them in the long

0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:02.640
<v Speaker 2>run because people flocked back to Labor I think. And

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:04.840
<v Speaker 2>there are a lot of areas where Labour's rote went

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:06.800
<v Speaker 2>up and the Greens went down because they wanted to

0:02:06.800 --> 0:02:07.920
<v Speaker 2>go with the safer option.

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>And you mentioned Max Chandler MafA. He obviously lost his

0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:16.119
<v Speaker 1>seat in the election, and he had this reputation while

0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:19.360
<v Speaker 1>he was very fiery, particularly when it came to talking

0:02:19.400 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>about housing, he was the Greens housing spokesperson.

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:24.799
<v Speaker 3>The government is trying to pull the wool over your

0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:27.760
<v Speaker 3>eyes and crush your hope that they're capable of doing

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.480
<v Speaker 3>anything real or substantial to tackle the housing crisis.

0:02:31.600 --> 0:02:32.680
<v Speaker 2>I mean, how do.

0:02:32.639 --> 0:02:38.400
<v Speaker 1>You think now the Greens reflecting on his style of politicking.

0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:41.160
<v Speaker 2>I think it's always up for interpretation, but the Greens

0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:46.880
<v Speaker 2>do seem to have slightly internalized the interpretation that that

0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 2>was too bolshy and obstructive. Labor was big on labeling

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 2>the Greens as blockers.

0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 3>What absolute nonsense from the members, absolute nonsense, the leader

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:02.560
<v Speaker 3>of a political pay that stopped climate action the last

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:04.840
<v Speaker 3>time we were in government. On this side of the.

0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 2>House, they were pointing out in the election campaign that

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:10.360
<v Speaker 2>the Greens had voted with the Liberals on housing things

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.680
<v Speaker 2>like that, and so I think there was this argument

0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:18.160
<v Speaker 2>that Max Channelmaker had been too obstructionist. I think it's

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:20.320
<v Speaker 2>also important to remember, though, that a lot of people

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:23.040
<v Speaker 2>still did vote for the Greens and very much approved

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 2>of what the Greens were doing with those balance of

0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:29.600
<v Speaker 2>power Senate seats, and the Greens actually did maintain the

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:32.600
<v Speaker 2>same presence in the Senate until, of course, they lost

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:33.919
<v Speaker 2>her into clocks two Labor.

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:37.240
<v Speaker 4>In the first couple of weeks, Western Australian Senator Derinda

0:03:37.280 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 4>Cox has defected from the Greens to join the Labor Party.

0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:43.440
<v Speaker 4>What you can't do from the cross benches make change,

0:03:43.720 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 4>and being in the government and alongside the wonderful team

0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 4>that the Prime Minister has, you are able to make change.

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:55.160
<v Speaker 1>And this idea that the Greens were obstructionist, obviously Labor

0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:58.120
<v Speaker 1>pushed that very hard. To what extent do you think

0:03:58.160 --> 0:03:59.000
<v Speaker 1>that hurt them?

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:03.160
<v Speaker 2>With the view that actually the Greens aren't really made

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 2>for the House. It's really hard to win lower House

0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:08.520
<v Speaker 2>seats if you're not a major party. The Senate is

0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:10.800
<v Speaker 2>where they hold the balance of power. It's where they

0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:13.720
<v Speaker 2>get the votes. And it didn't hurt them that much

0:04:13.760 --> 0:04:15.720
<v Speaker 2>in the Senate where they actually now hold the full

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 2>balance of power. The government can now pass legislation with

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 2>the Greens or with the coalition and that's it. So

0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:24.320
<v Speaker 2>I don't actually think it hurt them that much in

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:28.159
<v Speaker 2>terms of their power in Parliament, which remains exactly the same,

0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 2>if not a little bit stronger.

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:33.880
<v Speaker 1>Okay, what about their strategy then of moving well beyond

0:04:33.920 --> 0:04:36.960
<v Speaker 1>climate and environment and trying to tackle things like the

0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:41.520
<v Speaker 1>cost of living, particularly housing, which we've mentioned gaza. What

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:44.479
<v Speaker 1>lessons do you think they've taken from having gone to

0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:47.960
<v Speaker 1>the election with this kind of broad suite of areas

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:50.800
<v Speaker 1>that they wanted to try and push for change.

0:04:51.000 --> 0:04:53.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they haven't backed away from any of those

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:56.719
<v Speaker 2>positions in terms of policy, but they're certainly not talking

0:04:56.800 --> 0:04:59.520
<v Speaker 2>about them as much as they were. Some of that

0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:02.000
<v Speaker 2>comes down to the fax Max Chaneler Maythor is not

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:03.560
<v Speaker 2>there anymore and he was the one doing all the

0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 2>talking along with the former leader Adam Bant. So I

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:10.400
<v Speaker 2>think you've got Larisa Waters, who's much more on the

0:05:10.400 --> 0:05:13.760
<v Speaker 2>climate side of things now leading things. But I am

0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 2>quite aware that none of their positions have actually changed

0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:20.760
<v Speaker 2>on those issues like gaza, like housing, like the cost

0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:23.479
<v Speaker 2>of living. It's just that the emphasis has changed a

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:24.440
<v Speaker 2>little bit. I think.

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:30.359
<v Speaker 1>Coming up, where is Larisa Waters going to take the

0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>Australian Greens. Well, let's talk a bit about Larissa Waters.

0:05:41.240 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 1>So Waters has been leader since the staffed the election.

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.400
<v Speaker 1>She took over obviously from Adam Bant, who'd been in

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:50.800
<v Speaker 1>the job of five years until losing his seat. So

0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.440
<v Speaker 1>as you have watched her, what have you noticed about

0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:55.040
<v Speaker 1>her approach?

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:58.840
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I would say she's definitely taking a slightly more

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:01.640
<v Speaker 2>conciliatory top towards Labor.

0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:04.960
<v Speaker 5>We want the Labor Party to be bold and we

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 5>want to help them to fix the problems that people

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:11.240
<v Speaker 5>are facing. We will be firm but constructive because this

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.120
<v Speaker 5>isn't about politicians, this is about the people that need

0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:14.599
<v Speaker 5>our help.

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 2>But she has really leaned into rhetoric about we are

0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:20.680
<v Speaker 2>here to get shit done, we are here to get

0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:23.320
<v Speaker 2>things past. I mean she says the words get shited done.

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 2>That's not me paraphrasing. She loves that phrase. She said

0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:27.440
<v Speaker 2>it in some of her opening interviews.

0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:30.160
<v Speaker 5>People elected us to get shit done, and that's what

0:06:30.200 --> 0:06:31.000
<v Speaker 5>we intend to do.

0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:34.839
<v Speaker 2>She's not disavowing what was going on before, but I

0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:37.320
<v Speaker 2>think Labor is much more willing to work with her

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.039
<v Speaker 2>to get shit done. So it does feel like a

0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:43.359
<v Speaker 2>bit of a shift. We've seen Labor and the Greens

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:47.520
<v Speaker 2>working together already on the environment legislation, which let's remember

0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 2>Sarah Hanson Young was working perfectly nicely with former Environment

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:55.040
<v Speaker 2>Minister Tony Fobisecon. But this time we're actually seeing success

0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:59.120
<v Speaker 2>and we're actually seeing agreements being struck, and Labor and

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:01.280
<v Speaker 2>the Greens kind of talk quite nicely about each other

0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:01.800
<v Speaker 2>in public.

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:05.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk a little bit more about that deal. So

0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:09.400
<v Speaker 1>the Greens got some concessions, so protections of native forests,

0:07:09.960 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>preventing fast track approvals for colon gas, a.

0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Few other things.

0:07:13.960 --> 0:07:17.160
<v Speaker 1>But I mean, overall, I mean, how significant is it

0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:20.559
<v Speaker 1>that this went through? And also what should we take

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:24.760
<v Speaker 1>from the way that the Greens and labor worked together

0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:27.320
<v Speaker 1>and the way they spoke about each other throughout this process.

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:31.520
<v Speaker 6>I want to thank those people who participated in good

0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 6>faith negotiations, including the Senators Waders and Hanson Young who've

0:07:39.480 --> 0:07:40.960
<v Speaker 6>negotiated in good faith.

0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:43.000
<v Speaker 2>I think there is a lot of people who are

0:07:43.040 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 2>disappointed that this went through in the way that it did.

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:48.280
<v Speaker 2>I think a lot of Green's diehards would have actually

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:50.920
<v Speaker 2>liked to see them push harder and push for more.

0:07:51.600 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 2>My interpretation from the rhetoric that was coming out, especially

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 2>from Anthony Albineasy, was they put the things they wanted

0:07:57.960 --> 0:08:01.560
<v Speaker 2>on the table, we had our life, they accepted them,

0:08:01.680 --> 0:08:04.280
<v Speaker 2>and then we found the midpoint. And to me, that's

0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 2>actually how these negotiations should work. I often used to

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:11.240
<v Speaker 2>think in the last Parliament when housing took years and

0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 2>years to get through, is like, you're going to get

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:15.840
<v Speaker 2>there in the end. Just do it quickly, Just establish

0:08:15.880 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 2>where your red lines are, both be fair to each

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 2>other based on the percentage of the vote that you have,

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 2>and just get it done. Everybody can argue they should

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 2>have been more given or more taken, but at the

0:08:25.840 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 2>end of the day, I think that's how we want

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 2>our center left and left wing party in the Senate

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:31.880
<v Speaker 2>to work together.

0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:36.520
<v Speaker 1>What did you make of the fact that Anthony Albernezi,

0:08:37.000 --> 0:08:39.800
<v Speaker 1>who is well known for his dislike of the Greens,

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 1>at the end of all of this calling the party mature.

0:08:42.840 --> 0:08:45.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I thought it was in part a dig at

0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:48.920
<v Speaker 2>the coalition who were not behaving maturely apparently they couldn't

0:08:48.920 --> 0:08:51.560
<v Speaker 2>even get their demands down on paper. But it also

0:08:51.559 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 2>felt like a bit of a dig at Max Channel

0:08:53.600 --> 0:08:56.840
<v Speaker 2>maythan Adam Bant implying that they had not been mature

0:08:56.960 --> 0:09:00.760
<v Speaker 2>in the past. I think Labor themselves were acting a

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.079
<v Speaker 2>little bit more mature. For one, we didn't hear any

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 2>Greens political party from Labor. They love to call the

0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:10.000
<v Speaker 2>Greens the Greens political party when they're not getting along.

0:09:10.440 --> 0:09:12.320
<v Speaker 2>But I also think the fact that labor came to

0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:16.840
<v Speaker 2>the table and was willing to negotiate quickly and fairly,

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.880
<v Speaker 2>according to some was also a mark of maturity from

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:23.520
<v Speaker 2>labor that we don't often see. The thing that is

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:25.640
<v Speaker 2>forgotten is at the end of the day, labor and

0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:27.839
<v Speaker 2>the Greens can only strike a deal if labor is

0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.400
<v Speaker 2>also willing to strike one, and sometimes they're just not

0:09:30.440 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 2>willing to work with the Greens at all. So in

0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:35.560
<v Speaker 2>this case they were both a bit mature, and I

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:36.960
<v Speaker 2>guess I'd like to see more of it.

0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:40.960
<v Speaker 1>Is there anything we lose though by having a quieter

0:09:41.600 --> 0:09:43.160
<v Speaker 1>and more cooperative Greens.

0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:46.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Look, I think as we saw with the housing

0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.040
<v Speaker 2>build which stretched on and on, I'd say they got

0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:51.920
<v Speaker 2>more in the end of that negotiation. I think in

0:09:51.960 --> 0:09:55.160
<v Speaker 2>this case, with the climate trigger in particular, which is

0:09:55.200 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 2>what environmental groups really wanted from this, they recognized that

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:01.880
<v Speaker 2>they weren't going to get it. Labor is not particularly

0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 2>strong on this stuff, and so at the end of

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:06.959
<v Speaker 2>the day, I think they can choose to negotiate with

0:10:07.040 --> 0:10:10.160
<v Speaker 2>labor or let labor go to the coalition and produce

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:11.480
<v Speaker 2>something much worse.

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:14.200
<v Speaker 1>And how should we be thinking about the Greens and

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:16.680
<v Speaker 1>their popularity at this moment in time. I mean, I

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:19.280
<v Speaker 1>know there were a lot of factors that led into

0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:25.319
<v Speaker 1>the election result, but you know, regardless, they're certainly less vocal.

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:28.880
<v Speaker 1>They're not growing in popularity at this moment in time,

0:10:29.000 --> 0:10:33.439
<v Speaker 1>despite young people, young women in particular, becoming more progressive.

0:10:33.520 --> 0:10:34.360
<v Speaker 1>Why do you think that is.

0:10:34.640 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think that they are picking up heaps and

0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:40.559
<v Speaker 2>heaps of the young vote, and heaps of women in particular.

0:10:40.800 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 2>The gap between women and men in the Australian election

0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:46.800
<v Speaker 2>study voting for the Greens was amazing. It's like eighteen

0:10:46.800 --> 0:10:48.400
<v Speaker 2>per set of women are now voting for the Greens.

0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:51.240
<v Speaker 2>They're to eight per set of men. At the same time,

0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:53.760
<v Speaker 2>you've got other groups aging out of voting for the

0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:56.600
<v Speaker 2>Greens Jen and X a lot of them have turned

0:10:56.600 --> 0:10:59.120
<v Speaker 2>to labor have kind of decided that sort of more

0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:01.440
<v Speaker 2>center left policy is where they want to be. So

0:11:01.480 --> 0:11:04.880
<v Speaker 2>there's churn of the generations at the same time. Yes,

0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:07.240
<v Speaker 2>with the state of the world right now, the state

0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:09.960
<v Speaker 2>of the climate, state of the economy, stay, with inequality,

0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:11.920
<v Speaker 2>the state of housing, you would think that the Greens

0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:15.040
<v Speaker 2>would be doing better than they are you would think

0:11:15.120 --> 0:11:17.400
<v Speaker 2>that this was their year to win, But I do

0:11:17.480 --> 0:11:20.719
<v Speaker 2>think they are a balance power in the Senate and

0:11:21.080 --> 0:11:24.320
<v Speaker 2>unless a third party rises up to replace them, they're

0:11:24.320 --> 0:11:26.560
<v Speaker 2>going to be there for a very long time. And

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 2>so I don't think it really matters if they grow

0:11:30.520 --> 0:11:34.120
<v Speaker 2>that much, and especially if the Coalition remains a basket

0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:34.880
<v Speaker 2>case in the Senate.

0:11:35.440 --> 0:11:37.480
<v Speaker 1>And so what do you think their biggest challenge is then,

0:11:37.559 --> 0:11:38.600
<v Speaker 1>for the rest of this term.

0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:41.440
<v Speaker 2>I think trying to have an impact and trying to

0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:45.320
<v Speaker 2>be recognized for anything, because at the end of the day,

0:11:45.320 --> 0:11:48.199
<v Speaker 2>people vote for them if they think that they're delivering.

0:11:48.760 --> 0:11:51.319
<v Speaker 2>I was thinking before this about what wins they've had

0:11:51.360 --> 0:11:54.719
<v Speaker 2>this year. They have helped Labor pass things like it's

0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:57.120
<v Speaker 2>hex steps cut, but they wanted that to go further.

0:11:57.679 --> 0:11:59.160
<v Speaker 2>It was going to pass with or without them, so

0:11:59.200 --> 0:12:01.160
<v Speaker 2>they just had to fall in line. Same with the

0:12:01.200 --> 0:12:04.839
<v Speaker 2>super changes. They would really like Labor to go further

0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:09.840
<v Speaker 2>on those changes to high superannuation balances, but Labour's walking

0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 2>away from it and there doesn't seem to be anything

0:12:11.600 --> 0:12:14.679
<v Speaker 2>the Greens can do when Labor are feeling cowardly.

0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:18.040
<v Speaker 1>So Rachel, we've spoken about how the Greens have become

0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:22.200
<v Speaker 1>less visible on some of those big social issues, you know,

0:12:22.280 --> 0:12:25.360
<v Speaker 1>things like the cost of housing, of education, the cost

0:12:25.400 --> 0:12:29.560
<v Speaker 1>of living in general. Do you think that moving away

0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:33.199
<v Speaker 1>from tackling bigger social issues will end up hurting them more,

0:12:33.240 --> 0:12:35.199
<v Speaker 1>particularly among younger voters.

0:12:35.600 --> 0:12:38.440
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I think issues like that are what is

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:41.920
<v Speaker 2>driving the younger generation to vote for them, the young

0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:45.160
<v Speaker 2>people who are completely locked out of the economy and

0:12:45.200 --> 0:12:49.080
<v Speaker 2>housing market we've created. And I think if another party

0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:53.319
<v Speaker 2>offers similar or better solutions on those matters, things like

0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:57.040
<v Speaker 2>the Victorian Socialists, they might start to see those voters

0:12:57.040 --> 0:12:59.120
<v Speaker 2>move away from them. And those are the voters that

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:00.640
<v Speaker 2>are actually sticking with right now.

0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:04.320
<v Speaker 1>Rachel, thank you so much for your type.

0:13:04.520 --> 0:13:20.520
<v Speaker 7>Thank you Ruby, thanks for listening.

0:13:20.800 --> 0:13:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Tomorrow on seven am, I'm bringing you an interview with

0:13:23.240 --> 0:13:25.520
<v Speaker 1>one of the authors behind one of my favorite books

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:28.520
<v Speaker 1>of twenty twenty five. Chloe Hooper, along with her friends

0:13:28.520 --> 0:13:31.720
<v Speaker 1>and colleagues Sarah Krasnystein and Helen Ghana, spent much of

0:13:31.720 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 1>the year reporting from the town of Morwell as the

0:13:34.000 --> 0:13:37.840
<v Speaker 1>triple murder trial of Aaron Patterson unfolded. These three incredible

0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:40.559
<v Speaker 1>writers were drawn not just to the story, but also

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:43.320
<v Speaker 1>to trying to understand what the country's fascination with this

0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:47.000
<v Speaker 1>crime says about us all. What followed is the mushroom tapes,

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>conversations on a triple murder, a book that wrestles with

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:54.720
<v Speaker 1>ideas about power, money, marriage and murder. My conversation with

0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Chloe Hooper will be in your feed tomorrow.

0:13:56.840 --> 0:14:05.280
<v Speaker 7>Catch you then,