Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: Just before four point thirty last Wednesday afternoon, Anthony Green
Speaker 1: called it for the ABC. Green's leader, Adam bant had
Speaker 1: lost his seat. Fifteen years after band won the inner
Speaker 1: suburban seat of Melbourne from the ALP, Labor had taken
Speaker 1: it back along with another two, leaving the Greens with
Speaker 1: this a single seat in the House of Reps and
Speaker 1: no leader. The wipeout of the Greens came as a
Speaker 1: shock to the party that entered the campaign hoping to
Speaker 1: expand its influence and numbers in the Parliament. Today National
Speaker 1: correspondent for the Saturday paper Mike Second on where it
Speaker 1: all went wrong and what now for the Greens. It's Monday,
Speaker 1: May twelfth, Mike. Last Thursday, Green's Life. Adam Bantt finally
Speaker 1: addressed the media and conceded that he lost his seat
Speaker 1: of Melbourne. What did you make of his speech?
Speaker 2: Look, I guess some people would say it was not
Speaker 2: the most gracious.
Speaker 3: Look, thanks for coming out. I've got a few remarks
Speaker 3: that I'd like to make and won't be taking any
Speaker 3: questions at the end of it.
Speaker 2: Ironically, Peter Dutton's concession speech was probably the most gracious
Speaker 2: performance he ever gave, but frankly, I kind of liked
Speaker 2: what it said about Bett. You know, he got into
Speaker 2: politics because he was passionate about issues, particularly the environment
Speaker 2: and climate change, and he maintained that passion in defeat.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Melbourne voters for regularly giving me
Speaker 3: the highest vote, including in this election, and to thank
Speaker 3: you for the last fifteen years and the chance to
Speaker 3: do some amazing things together.
Speaker 2: It was a stunning outcome, you know. I thought his
Speaker 2: loss was even more surprising than that of Peter Dutton.
Speaker 2: In his seat of Dixon. He only held it by
Speaker 2: about one point seven percent at the twenty twenty two election,
Speaker 2: so it was in play. Band, in contrast, held his
Speaker 2: seat by a very multi ten percent. In fact, he
Speaker 2: barely needed preferences to win n twenty twenty two. His
Speaker 2: primary vote was forty nine points six percent, so he
Speaker 2: looked to have a pretty firm hold on it, even
Speaker 2: given the fact that since the last election there'd been
Speaker 2: a redistribution in his seat which took some of the
Speaker 2: more progressive areas out and put some more conservative areas in.
Speaker 2: But he still had a notional margin of six or
Speaker 2: seven percent. So yeah, short answer, I didn't see this
Speaker 2: coming and I don't think anyone did.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was very surprising. What about the other Greens
Speaker 1: seats lost, how surprising?
Speaker 2: Were a not nearly as surprising, frankly, but still a
Speaker 2: bit unexpected. The opinion polls during the campaign, even as
Speaker 2: they were showing the Dutton opposition was tanking, showed the
Speaker 2: Greens vote was holding or in fact increasing slightly. But
Speaker 2: the Green's three Brisbane seats Griffith, Brisbane and Ryan, it
Speaker 2: became increasingly clear. I think during the election campaign that
Speaker 2: those three seats were in play. All the parties put
Speaker 2: big resources into them. But the way they fell and
Speaker 2: probably in the case of Brian didn't fall, was still
Speaker 2: remarkable because it was all about preference flows. You know,
Speaker 2: it's a bit complicated, but let me try to explain.
Speaker 2: If we take Griffith for example, which was Max Chandler
Speaker 2: Mather's seat in twenty twenty two, he came first on
Speaker 2: the primary vote right, he got thirty four point six
Speaker 2: percent of the vote, so he finished first, but he
Speaker 2: was still well short of an outright majority. The Coalition
Speaker 2: came in second and Labour came in third. So what
Speaker 2: this meant was that Labor preferences were distributed because they
Speaker 2: go upwards according to the vote check, and they pushed
Speaker 2: Chandler Matha not just over the line, but to what
Speaker 2: looked like a very big win, you know, sixty forty
Speaker 2: after preferences. But this time around, the order in which
Speaker 2: the candidates finished changed, so Labor came first, Greens came second,
Speaker 2: and the Liberal National Party the Coalition party, came third.
Speaker 2: So instead of Labor preferences being distributed and flowing to
Speaker 2: Max Chandler Mather, Coalition preferences flowed and they went to
Speaker 2: the Labor candidate, which led to what appeared to be
Speaker 2: a hammering basically sixty forty in the other direction. So
Speaker 2: that was the pattern. Their Brisbane followed essentially the same pattern,
Speaker 2: and the Greens candidate, Stephen Bates, was behind Labor on
Speaker 2: the primaries and the Coalition preferences went to Labor and
Speaker 2: he was gone. I spoke to the excellent election analyst
Speaker 2: Ben Rowi about this, and he said, this is a
Speaker 2: peculiarity of the preferential voting system that we will see
Speaker 2: more and more over time, and that is that anytime
Speaker 2: the top two contenders are not clear. You know, once
Speaker 2: you get into a three way contest, preferencing gets, as
Speaker 2: he put it, really weird. And he says the Greens
Speaker 2: have a much better chance of winning seats when they're
Speaker 2: up against a Liberal in the final count than when
Speaker 2: they're up against Labor because of the way the preferences flow.
Speaker 2: So if we go to the third Brisbane seat, Brian,
Speaker 2: that shows the flip side of this. There Elizabeth Watson
Speaker 2: Brown one in twenty two. Her vote share actually declined
Speaker 2: at this election. It was down to just twenty eight
Speaker 2: point seven percent, so seven points adrift of the L ANDP.
Speaker 2: And yet she appears to have squeaked back into office
Speaker 2: and the reason for that was that the order of
Speaker 2: finishing of the parties didn't change. Labour again finished third
Speaker 2: and so Labour preferences flowed to her. As Rowi summed
Speaker 2: it up, the preferential system has delivered kind of a
Speaker 2: perverse result here, which is that the more conservative seat
Speaker 2: wound up electing the more left wing candidate, i e.
Speaker 2: The Green, The more progressive seat ended up electing the
Speaker 2: less left wing candidate with Labor.
Speaker 1: So while there was a minus swing away from the Greens,
Speaker 1: was this more of a case of the coalition crashing
Speaker 1: and bringing the Greens down with them.
Speaker 2: Not entirely, but to a considerable extent. You know. Someone
Speaker 2: in the Greens described it to me by way of
Speaker 2: a sporting analogy. They said it was like one of
Speaker 2: those races where one competitive falls on trips another on
Speaker 2: the way down. The bottom line here is that while
Speaker 2: the Greens lost seats in the House of Representatives, including
Speaker 2: that of their leader Adam Bant, their primary vote was
Speaker 2: only down a little So in this election, the Greens
Speaker 2: actually did not do that badly in terms of their
Speaker 2: overall vote share, it was only down about half a percent.
Speaker 2: And bear in mind also that there is this long
Speaker 2: term trend away from the major parties. So last Saturday,
Speaker 2: almost a third record opted for someone else. Younger voters,
Speaker 2: particularly young women, are far more inclined to vote for
Speaker 2: the Greens than previous generations were. At this election shore
Speaker 2: more of them went for labor. But should the Albanese
Speaker 2: government fail to sufficiently address the concerns of these younger voters,
Speaker 2: you know, on issues like housing, social justice, the environment,
Speaker 2: climate change, the Greens remain an obvious alternative and continue
Speaker 2: to be an entirely viable political outfit, which is possibly
Speaker 2: more than can be said at this stage for the
Speaker 2: Liberal Party, I.
Speaker 1: Think after the break Adam band in the big red toothbrush. So, Mike,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the actual campaign. The Greens ran. What
Speaker 1: was their pitch to the electric.
Speaker 2: Well, the mantra, the relentless slogan that they kept saying
Speaker 2: was keep Dutton out, push Labor to act. You know,
Speaker 2: this was repeated endlessly by Bantony his team.
Speaker 3: We're in reach of winning new seats across the country.
Speaker 3: This is our chance to deliver again for real change,
Speaker 3: to keep Dutton out and to get Labor to act.
Speaker 3: Vote won Greens.
Speaker 2: And the intent of it was obvious. You know. They
Speaker 2: were framing the Greens as a progressive safeguard that if
Speaker 2: voters delivered a minority parliament, and let's remember that that
Speaker 2: looked a very real prospect only a month or so ago,
Speaker 2: they and the cross Bench would be there to stop
Speaker 2: the worst instincts of the Liberals. In retrospect, though, it
Speaker 2: doesn't look as smart, does it, because obviously, when voters
Speaker 2: went into the polling booths, they decided that the best
Speaker 2: way to keep Dutton out was just to vote Labor
Speaker 2: and not the Greens.
Speaker 1: So you think the Greens made a major miscalculation on
Speaker 1: betting that a minority government was almost an inevitability.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so. I think so. You know, there's
Speaker 2: central campaign issues. I wonder about that too. I think
Speaker 2: the Greens always do best when the focus is on
Speaker 2: environment and climate, and it wasn't in this campaign.
Speaker 4: Okadam, We've got to talk about the toothbrush.
Speaker 1: We can't not talk about it. Obviously, you want dental
Speaker 1: in medicare instead.
Speaker 2: We had bent running around with the giant red toothbrush
Speaker 2: about putting dental into medicare.
Speaker 3: Well, people are putting off going to the dentists because
Speaker 3: they can't afford us. And when you do go, if
Speaker 3: you need something more than a routine treatment, or your
Speaker 3: child needs braces, it can run into the thousands of dollars.
Speaker 2: Not a bad idea, I would suggest, but I'm not
Speaker 2: sure it cut through.
Speaker 1: There's been a trend though, where the Greens have been
Speaker 1: losing votes in what you might consider their heartland, particularly
Speaker 1: in places like Victoria, first in state and local elections
Speaker 1: and now federally. What are people within the party saying
Speaker 1: is the reason for.
Speaker 2: That well's you won't be surprised to know. There's a
Speaker 2: number of different interpretations on this, so there's a degree
Speaker 2: of argument within the party. But you're right, some people
Speaker 2: in the party and outside the party attribute this to
Speaker 2: the sort of broadening of the suite of issues that
Speaker 2: the Greens now champion, you know, in particular, a lot
Speaker 2: of people single out Gaza and they're very strong support
Speaker 2: for the Palestinians and they're very strong criticism of Israel.
Speaker 2: Oddly enough, Ben Ray suggests that the Gaza issue appears
Speaker 2: to have won the party some big swings in some seats,
Speaker 2: you know, like Chiffley and Werrowa in Western Sydney, which
Speaker 2: have quite substantial Muslim populations but not big enough to win.
Speaker 2: And he says that he doesn't think that Gaza explains
Speaker 2: why the vote was going down in their heartland. But
Speaker 2: some of the Greens I spoke to who wanted to
Speaker 2: stay anonymous, argued that it wasn't so much the party's
Speaker 2: policy positioning that has been damaging, but more the sort
Speaker 2: of immoderate way that those positions have been argued. You know,
Speaker 2: on Gaza, for example, it's one thing to accuse Israel
Speaker 2: of committing crimes under international law. But it's quite another
Speaker 2: thing to accuse the Australian government of being and I'm
Speaker 2: quoting here, complicit in Israel's genocide. You know. That was
Speaker 2: what Marine Ferruki had to say a couple of months ago.
Speaker 4: So long as we have defense contracts with Israeli weapons companies,
Speaker 4: the Labor government is complicit in genocide. So long as
Speaker 4: we refuse to impose sanction on Israel, this Labor government
Speaker 4: is complicit in genocide, and there are no excuses for inaction.
Speaker 2: The Greens have always had a broad social justice agenda,
Speaker 2: but some people in the party argue that there hasn't
Speaker 2: been enough emphasis on the core turf of environment and climate,
Speaker 2: and that the party has come to be seen not
Speaker 2: just as obstructive, but as aggressively obstructive. In the last parliament,
Speaker 2: you know, I spoke to some who said the feedback
Speaker 2: they were getting from voters on the booths was that
Speaker 2: the party seemed and are quoting here, too angry and
Speaker 2: too personal in its critiques of the government.
Speaker 1: It was a point that Anthony Alberanezi and the Labor
Speaker 1: Party really hammered that the Greens had been obstructionists throughout
Speaker 1: the first term.
Speaker 5: That they simply combined with the coalition in what I
Speaker 5: termed the null alition to provide blockages, and that occurred
Speaker 5: across a range of portfolios, housing, Treasury as well the environment.
Speaker 1: In his first interview since the election, he spoke about
Speaker 1: the no elition the Greens had formed with the opposition.
Speaker 1: So did that sentiment resonate with voters? Do you think?
Speaker 2: What I think is that Anthony Albanizi is the canniest
Speaker 2: politician in Australia and the fact that he kept hammering
Speaker 2: that point suggests that Labor knew it was resonating, and
Speaker 2: I think there is some truth to it. You know,
Speaker 2: they perhaps held out too long in some cases. Of course,
Speaker 2: the counter argument is that they got some results. Max
Speaker 2: Chandler matha hung out and hung out and hang out
Speaker 2: in housing policy and eventually got a few billion dollars
Speaker 2: extra out of the government by doing so. But along
Speaker 2: the way it got a bit ugly.
Speaker 5: He should have a good look at the way that
Speaker 5: he asked questions in the Parliament and maybe what he
Speaker 5: needs as a mirror and a reflection on why he's
Speaker 5: no longer in parliament.
Speaker 2: And the Prime Minister singled out Chandler Matha, in particular
Speaker 2: in that interview that you mentioned, noting that Chandler Mather
Speaker 2: had stood up at a CFMU rally in front of
Speaker 2: sign that described him as a Nazi Albanzi I think
Speaker 2: was genuinely offended by that. Chandler Mather also took it
Speaker 2: up to Albo for owning a rental property and put
Speaker 2: that in terms that Alberanze found offensive and you know,
Speaker 2: were frankly pretty strong.
Speaker 5: So you know, I think he should have a look
Speaker 5: at the way that he conducted himself in question time,
Speaker 5: including the questions that he asked of me, which I
Speaker 5: found pretty offensive and which some of which were ruled
Speaker 5: out of order.
Speaker 2: So I think so. So it'll be interesting to see,
Speaker 2: you know, now that Chandler Mayth has gone, now that
Speaker 2: the leader's gone, if the Greens adopted somewhat more cooperative
Speaker 2: or at least polite approach to negotiations with the government
Speaker 2: in the future.
Speaker 1: So do you think the public still sees that its
Speaker 1: valuable in terms of holding the government to account in
Speaker 1: the Senate?
Speaker 2: Oh? I do? I do? I mean, you know, their
Speaker 2: performance in the House of Reps was poor, but because
Speaker 2: Labour's win was so big that's kind of irrelevant. You know,
Speaker 2: they're going to have probably ninety out of one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty lower House seat. But the Greens still performed
Speaker 2: very well in the Senate. They held all their seats.
Speaker 2: They've got eleven Senate seats, which, as it happens, is
Speaker 2: exactly enough to give Labor the votes it needs to
Speaker 2: pass legislation. And this may not have happened entirely by accident.
Speaker 2: I spoke to the Greens New South Wales Senator David Shubridge,
Speaker 2: and let me quote him. He said, I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people were really anxious about getting Peter Dutton
Speaker 2: with a side surf of Trump, and that played out
Speaker 2: with people voting Labor out of fear of Dutton in
Speaker 2: the lower House and then voting with their heart for
Speaker 2: the Greens in the Senate. And you know, I think
Speaker 2: that's right. I think that the electorate at large does
Speaker 2: not like a government to control both houses, and I
Speaker 2: think in the current climate they probably want a labor
Speaker 2: government that is slightly less timid than the last one was,
Speaker 2: you know, a bit bolder on policy, and certainly Greens
Speaker 2: in the balance of power will be pushing in that direction.
Speaker 1: And obviously whether the Greens adopt a less combative approach
Speaker 1: when dealing with the government will come down to leadership
Speaker 1: and left the way and see who the new leader is,
Speaker 1: and they'll hold the balance of power in the Senate.
Speaker 1: The Government is going to have to negay shape with
Speaker 1: them at some point. So what do we know about
Speaker 1: what the Greens agenda will be for the next parliament.
Speaker 2: Well, Adam Bann at that media conference on Monday he
Speaker 2: spelled it out, you know, and he made the point
Speaker 2: he said, the government now can't blame any independent senator
Speaker 2: for not getting its reforms through.
Speaker 3: The only thing stopping getting dental into medicare, stopping you
Speaker 3: coal or gas mines, or rebalancing unfair housing tax breaks
Speaker 3: is the government itself.
Speaker 2: And he's absolutely right. He was absolutely right also when
Speaker 2: he said that this could be the most progressive parliament
Speaker 2: Australia's ever seen. It comes down essentially to how bold
Speaker 2: Labor is because the Coalition can't stop them if they
Speaker 2: want to do radical things, because the Greens will happily
Speaker 2: wave it through. So it will be interesting to see,
Speaker 2: won't it. It really comes back I guess not so
Speaker 2: much to the Greens as to where the labor has
Speaker 2: the nerve to actually push the envelope a little bit
Speaker 2: on some of these things.
Speaker 1: Nerve is one word for it. Mike, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thanks sir, cheers.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, dumped Industry and Science Minister
Speaker 1: Ed Husick has called the Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles
Speaker 1: a factional assassin. Hoosick was acts last week as Males
Speaker 1: and the Victorian Right successfully argued to take a front
Speaker 1: bench place from the new South Wales Right. Attorney General
Speaker 1: Mark Drayfus has also been sacked, and mister Hughesy questioned
Speaker 1: why the Prime Minister didn't use the huge mandate of
Speaker 1: his win to protect the two ministers from the factional fight.
Speaker 1: The new cabinet will be announced today and hours after
Speaker 1: the US President Donald Trump announced to cease fire between
Speaker 1: India and Pakistan. Both countries have accused the other of
Speaker 1: breaching it. Clashes between the two nations have been escalating
Speaker 1: for weeks, triggered by a mass shooting of tourists in
Speaker 1: India controlled Kashmir. India blame Pakistan repeated violations of the
Speaker 1: truth and said it was retaliating. Both countries are nuclear armed.
Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.