Speaker 1: Oh look. Thank you so much everyone and appreciate you
Speaker 1: waiting out here in the cold. I am just so
Speaker 1: thrilled to have had the support of my colleagues to
Speaker 1: be the leader of the Australian Greens.
Speaker 2: The risk of Waters is the new leader of the
Speaker 2: Australian Greens. She takes over as the party reels from
Speaker 2: a wipeout at the last election, losing three of their
Speaker 2: four seats in the House of Representatives, including their leader.
Speaker 1: And I want to send all of my love, as
Speaker 1: does our whole team to our former leader, Adam Bant.
Speaker 1: We miss him desperately and he was a wonderful leader
Speaker 1: for this party.
Speaker 2: Senator Waters's job now is to mend the image of
Speaker 2: the Australian Greens, as the perception cultivated by Labor that
Speaker 2: the party is obstructionist and militant arguably cost them votes.
Speaker 1: People elected us to get shit done and that's what
Speaker 1: we intend to do in the service of people on
Speaker 1: the plant.
Speaker 2: From Schwartz Media, I'm Michael Williams filling in for Daniel
Speaker 2: and Ruby. This is seven am Today, National correspondent for
Speaker 2: the Saturday Paper. Mike's second on Larissa Waters, why she
Speaker 2: won and whether she can rebuild the Greens. It's Monday,
Speaker 2: May nineteenth, Mike. The Greens have a new leader, Larissa Waters.
Speaker 2: So tell us who was she up against and how
Speaker 2: did they pick her?
Speaker 3: Well, let's start with how they picked her. They picked
Speaker 3: her in a very Green's sort of very secretive way.
Speaker 3: In fact, the Greens leadership selection process bears some resemblance
Speaker 3: to a papal conclave. In fact, it's even more inscrutable
Speaker 3: because at least in a papal conclave there are votes. Often,
Speaker 3: in the case of Green's leadership ballots, there is no
Speaker 3: formal vote taken. The party just talks about it until
Speaker 3: it reaches a consensus on who should be the leader
Speaker 3: or the deputy leader or whatever. And that's what happened
Speaker 3: with the leadership on Thursday. You know, the party room
Speaker 3: reached consensus that Larissa Wards was the one to lead.
Speaker 3: The two other assumed mooted candidates, Sarah Hanson Young and
Speaker 3: Marine Ferruki, pulled out and subsequently Ferruki was reconfirmed as
Speaker 3: deputy so to Larissa the ultimate winner. She is the
Speaker 3: most low profile of the three. I think you would
Speaker 3: say she's interesting. She's got an environmental background, she spent
Speaker 3: ten years before she went into the Senate working as
Speaker 3: a lawyer for the Queensland Environmental Defender's Office. I'm told
Speaker 3: by party sources that she is absolutely loved by the members.
Speaker 3: She really presents well. I guess the question is whether
Speaker 3: she's tough enough. You know, she's nice, but one source
Speaker 3: described her to me as kind of the vanilla option
Speaker 3: among the three. The former party leader, though and icon,
Speaker 3: Bob Brown, told me he suspect that she's underestimated and
Speaker 3: that we might be surprised at just how strong she
Speaker 3: can be once in the job.
Speaker 2: Do you think Bob's right, Mike, I mean, you've reported
Speaker 2: on the Greens for a long time. What do you
Speaker 2: make of Larisa Waters?
Speaker 3: Well, let me start by saying she's nice. She's certainly
Speaker 3: well credentialed. She's got degrees in both science and the law.
Speaker 3: The latter the lawd agree with honors. She's dedicated to
Speaker 3: the Green's original cause. She's diligent, she has a strong
Speaker 3: track record of work in Senate committees. There's a list
Speaker 3: as long as your arm on the Parliamentary website. And
Speaker 3: she's enduring. You know, she has shared the deputy position
Speaker 3: with three different co deputies under two leaders over seven years,
Speaker 3: so she's experienced. She's performed in a number of different portfolios,
Speaker 3: notably the portfolio of Women's Affairs, and has had some
Speaker 3: good runs on the board there. But I come back
Speaker 3: to the fact that she seems nice, and I don't
Speaker 3: say that glibly, but because she has something about her
Speaker 3: of the sort of Tanya plebasec. She connects with people,
Speaker 3: and given the party's current circumstance, it may well be
Speaker 3: that that's as important as anything, is that she seems
Speaker 3: nice and reasonable and not overly aggressive.
Speaker 2: Well, that makes a lot of sense. I mean you've
Speaker 2: reported widely, Mike about that perception that seems to have
Speaker 2: taken hold in the community, that the Greens have become obstructionists,
Speaker 2: that they're angry, and that that's this turn off for voters.
Speaker 2: What sense do you have of whether the Greens are
Speaker 2: hearing that message and whether the pick of Senator Waters
Speaker 2: might suggest they're trying to write the ship.
Speaker 3: Well, they know it's a problem. You know, whether it's
Speaker 3: a fair characterization or not is another matter, but they
Speaker 3: certainly know it's a problem, and they know also that
Speaker 3: it's a perception that Labor has assiduously cultivated over the
Speaker 3: past few years, and it landed pretty successfully in the media,
Speaker 3: particularly the right wing media. Greens Party members, including some
Speaker 3: in the party room, tell me they were picking it
Speaker 3: up at polling places as they handed out their Heart
Speaker 3: of Vote cards.
Speaker 4: My next question comes from Amazon.
Speaker 1: And you.
Speaker 5: So my question to Senator Schubridge.
Speaker 3: And you've really got a sense of this. I think
Speaker 3: on Monday night where Q and A had David Chubridge
Speaker 3: if the Greens on the panel, and one of the
Speaker 3: members of the audience stood up and asked a question.
Speaker 5: The Greens have seeing their support decrease during the previous term,
Speaker 5: particularly in electates where members held seats. Given the reduced
Speaker 5: support from members who are directly associated with moves to
Speaker 5: block legislation in the Senate, is now the time for
Speaker 5: the Greens to truly uphold their promise to work constructively
Speaker 5: with the government or will you continue to obstruct in
Speaker 5: the Senate and attack the government in the press.
Speaker 3: Chubridge, in response, talked about the need to work constructively.
Speaker 4: And there is now no excuse for us not having
Speaker 4: the kind of relationship with labor where we can just
Speaker 4: sit down and talk through the issues and hopefully put
Speaker 4: forward some of that incredibly important legislation and policy that
Speaker 4: we're going to need.
Speaker 3: Because you certainly didn't mention any names about, you know,
Speaker 3: pointing the finger at anyone for being obstructive. But Labour's
Speaker 3: Ed Husick, who was also in the panel, piped up
Speaker 3: at that point and he did name some names, and
Speaker 3: there was a slight mutual admiration thing going on, I
Speaker 3: think between Husick and Schuebridge, because Husick praised Chubridge for
Speaker 3: being consultative in their dealings and then said, but there's
Speaker 3: a big difference between a David Schubridge and a Max Chandler.
Speaker 6: Masa, David and I did have to work together and
Speaker 6: work together, I thought constructively on particularly issues around tech,
Speaker 6: where you don't agree with everything, but you reach common ground.
Speaker 6: That wasn't always the case though, and the most frustrating
Speaker 6: thing for us was around housing.
Speaker 3: Of course. Matha was the rather hardline housing spokesman for
Speaker 3: the Greens in the last parliament and he lost his
Speaker 3: seat and after the election, of course, Anthony Alberanezi made
Speaker 3: a big point of calling him out for his quote
Speaker 3: unquote offensive behavior in the parliament. And it's not only
Speaker 3: Labor of course that is pointing this out, and it's
Speaker 3: not only people at the polling boost. You know Drew
Speaker 3: Hutton who helped found the party with Bob Brown all
Speaker 3: those years ago. He's no longer actively involved, but he
Speaker 3: was quoted in the nine media this week complaining of
Speaker 3: a quote hyper militant approach by the party over the
Speaker 3: past three years and also accusing them of having a
Speaker 3: terrible way. He put it, of expressing their moral superiority,
Speaker 3: and he said they needed to get out and talk
Speaker 3: meaningfully with ordinary Australians.
Speaker 6: How are the Greens going to be different under your
Speaker 6: leadership compared with what it was like under Adam Band?
Speaker 6: Is there going to be a bit of a change
Speaker 6: in direction, even a subtle one.
Speaker 2: Well, look, Mike. Both in her press conference and in
Speaker 2: her first interviews as leader, Larissa Waters went out of
Speaker 2: her way to praise Adam Band, but also to stress
Speaker 2: the sheers and a quote a different person.
Speaker 1: But I am a different person and I bring a
Speaker 1: different style. I really want to get outcomes. I really
Speaker 1: want to work with the current government to try to improve.
Speaker 2: Why do you think she felt it was so important
Speaker 2: to separate herself from Band and to distinguish her own
Speaker 2: leadership style from his.
Speaker 3: Well, there's a few factors. I spoke to a number
Speaker 3: of people in the party room in the lead up
Speaker 3: to the leadership change. You know, they spoke obviously on
Speaker 3: the condition of anonymity, But under bands leadership, I was
Speaker 3: told by a couple the Greens sort of long standing
Speaker 3: process of collective decision making became more of a top
Speaker 3: down model. One person actually called it command and control
Speaker 3: was the way they put it. And to some extent
Speaker 3: they told me this was a matter of circumstance because
Speaker 3: at the last election the Greens inherited four new and
Speaker 3: inexperienced senators and three new House members, so that's almost
Speaker 3: half the party room. So obviously, you know, they were
Speaker 3: learning their way, and maybe that gives some excuse for
Speaker 3: the leadership group to have a bit more influence. But
Speaker 3: the way it was put to me, and I'm quoting
Speaker 3: someone here, there was a definite A team and a
Speaker 3: B team, and you know, the A team made the cause.
Speaker 3: I should note here, incidentally, that the A team included
Speaker 3: all three of the mooted candidates for the leadership, you know,
Speaker 3: Hans and Young Feruki and Waters. So to some extent
Speaker 3: that was a criticism of them, I think as well
Speaker 3: as ban but I get the impression and that the
Speaker 3: party roumors made this known to Larisa Wards, that they
Speaker 3: want it to be a bit more consultative, and I
Speaker 3: think she's going to be. The people I spoke to
Speaker 3: also felt that under band the party focused too much
Speaker 3: on trying to expand its numbers in the House of
Speaker 3: Representatives and as part of that, on attacking Peter Dutton
Speaker 3: rather than articulating a positive agenda. It probably looked like
Speaker 3: a good idea a few months back when it looked
Speaker 3: like it might be a tight run race in the House,
Speaker 3: but obviously it didn't work out.
Speaker 5: That way.
Speaker 2: After the break. Why Labour needs the Greens, whether or
Speaker 2: not they'd like to admit it, Mike, I've been fascinated
Speaker 2: to read in your reporting the ways in which other
Speaker 2: factors may have contributed to the greens poor showing, and
Speaker 2: one of them in particular that you've singled out was
Speaker 2: the idea that less emphasis on climate and the environment
Speaker 2: was causing damage to their brand. How well placed will
Speaker 2: Larissa Wards be to refocus the party's attention on this area.
Speaker 3: Well, First, you're absolutely right that has been a criticism,
Speaker 3: and I understand that that was raised not in the
Speaker 3: party room meeting that elected the new leader, but there
Speaker 3: was one a couple of days beforehand to sort of
Speaker 3: look at the direction of the party, and that was
Speaker 3: definitely one of the themes of it. And it's certainly
Speaker 3: also true that compared with Band and particularly Chandler Matha,
Speaker 3: she comes more out of that stream in the party,
Speaker 3: you know, from an environmental background, as obvious from her history.
Speaker 3: I guess so I suspect that we're going to see
Speaker 3: Larissa Waters chart a slightly new course in the Parliament.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean that the party will drop issues like
Speaker 3: housing and gaza. You know, social justice has always been
Speaker 3: one of the Green's pillars, but I suspect we'll see
Speaker 3: a change in emphasis, and to some extent that will
Speaker 3: be due to the new leader. And to some extent
Speaker 3: also it's kind of dictated by the election outcome. Right,
Speaker 3: while the Greens failed in the House of Reps, they're
Speaker 3: actually much more powerful in the Senate than they were.
Speaker 3: And you know, these two factors say to me that
Speaker 3: the Greens will you know, be focusing very heavily on
Speaker 3: what they can do in the Senate and first and
Speaker 3: foremost in the Senate, I would suggest, you know, we'll
Speaker 3: be getting better environmental laws, you know, working with Labor
Speaker 3: who were going to reintroduce what they call their Nature
Speaker 3: Positive suite of legislation that they failed to get through
Speaker 3: in the last parliament.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you mentioned the Nature Positive laws because you
Speaker 2: know famously that negotiation was going well and was kibosh
Speaker 2: by the PM at the last minute. But we have
Speaker 2: a new environment minister as well, in Murray Watt. How
Speaker 2: do you think the nature Positive laws negotiations are likely
Speaker 2: to go between what and waters?
Speaker 3: You're right, in the previous parliament, Sarah Hanson Young and
Speaker 3: Tanya Plebisek, the then Labor Environment Minister, formed a pretty
Speaker 3: good working relationship. They did actually make progress and reach
Speaker 3: agreement on aspects of the Nature Positive laws, and then
Speaker 3: they went to the Prime Minister's office and he kiboshed them,
Speaker 3: you know, largely at the behest or at the claimed
Speaker 3: behest of the w a premier. He literally claimed responsibility
Speaker 3: for it. So going to the new parliament, Murray what
Speaker 3: the new minister is seen by the Greens as much
Speaker 3: more pro development and potentially pro mining an a fixer
Speaker 3: for the government. I mean, he's a deal maker. I
Speaker 3: spoke to Bob Brown about this and I'll quote him.
Speaker 3: He said, the appointment of Murray, what is a torpedo
Speaker 3: into the hopes of environmentalists right around Australia. It's confrontational
Speaker 3: by alban easy. So that's his view and I suspect
Speaker 3: if he's reading it that way, so's the Greens party room.
Speaker 3: Bottom line here is Waters is going to have a
Speaker 3: tough job.
Speaker 2: All right. So the big question Mike ultimately has to
Speaker 2: be can the Greens do this rebrand? Can they change
Speaker 2: tone without backing down from what they believe in? Is
Speaker 2: the inevitable product of a brand change a softer, less
Speaker 2: effective presence in the Parliament.
Speaker 3: Well, there's certainly not painting it that way right. What
Speaker 3: they're saying is that they're here to deal with the
Speaker 3: government and they're here to be cooperative, but they're not
Speaker 3: walking away from the issues they care about. The broadview
Speaker 3: seems to be that they need to change their tone,
Speaker 3: not their policies. I spoke with another former leader, Richard
Speaker 3: de Natalie, who led the party before Adam Bann, and
Speaker 3: the way he put it was that in terms of substance. Actually,
Speaker 3: the platform that they took to this election, which wasn't
Speaker 3: so successful, was the same as the one that they
Speaker 3: took to the previous election, at which they were very successful,
Speaker 3: and essentially the same as the one that they took
Speaker 3: to the election before that. So, you know, he said
Speaker 3: things like reforming capital gains tax and the negative gearing,
Speaker 3: you know, things that they've been banging on about for
Speaker 3: ten years. About housing, he said, they're still going to
Speaker 3: be banging on about. It's really just a question of tone.
Speaker 3: And he made what I thought was a very good point.
Speaker 3: You know, he said that he keeps reading about how
Speaker 3: the Greens today are not the party of Bob Brown anymore.
Speaker 3: But he went back and pointed out that when it
Speaker 3: was the party of Bob Brown, he said, they fucking
Speaker 3: hated us just as much. That's a quote I should add.
Speaker 3: That's not my obscenity, you know, he said, when Bob
Speaker 3: stood up and took on George Bush in the Parliament,
Speaker 3: remember famously, when he was a lone voice protesting against
Speaker 3: the way we treated the refugees on Tampa, the same
Speaker 3: people were out there trying to smash him. It was
Speaker 3: the same criticism, you know, that the Greens were too
Speaker 3: hard lined, that they were too inflexible. So Dina Tali
Speaker 3: actually sees this election as a bit of a glitch.
Speaker 3: The way he interprets it and the way he said
Speaker 3: some people had explained it to him was that people
Speaker 3: were so scared of a Dutton prime ministership that they
Speaker 3: chose to vote Labor, you know, and Bob Brown, he
Speaker 3: made the point to me that Labour actually only received
Speaker 3: thirty four percent of the first preference vote and that
Speaker 3: its huge majority was built very much on the preferences
Speaker 3: from Greens and from Teals, all of whom are far
Speaker 3: more progressive in particularly on climate and the environment than Laborers.
Speaker 3: So the government Labor needs the Greens. As much as
Speaker 3: they might hate the fact that they do, they still
Speaker 3: need the Greens. And I would also make the point that,
Speaker 3: you know, what goes up must come down in politics
Speaker 3: as in everything else, and governments inevitably disappoint. So it's
Speaker 3: entirely possible that by the time time of the next
Speaker 3: election some of the shine will have come off the
Speaker 3: Albanesi government and some of those rep seats the Greens
Speaker 3: either lost or narrowly missed out On could very well
Speaker 3: be back in play. But in the meantime, I just
Speaker 3: think that they've probably made a wise choice in Larisa Waters,
Speaker 3: because it's going to be very hard for Labor for
Speaker 3: Anthony Alberanzi to portray the Greens as angry, you know,
Speaker 3: as people are looking at the open, friendly face of
Speaker 3: Larisa Waters.
Speaker 2: Well, it's been a pleasure looking at your open friendly
Speaker 2: faces today. Thanks mate, Thanks for joining us anytime.
Speaker 3: Cheers.
Speaker 2: Also in the news, Anthony Alberanzi has joined other world leaders,
Speaker 2: royals and pilgrims at the inaugural mass of Pope Leo
Speaker 2: the fourteenth at Saint Peter's Square in Rome. Pope Leo
Speaker 2: is the first American pontiff in the history. Born in Chicago,
Speaker 2: the sixty nine year old was elected after a conclave
Speaker 2: that lasted just over twenty four hours. And the Liberal
Speaker 2: Party is divided over climate, according to senior front bencher
Speaker 2: Anne Ruston. Speaking on Insiders, Ruston said it's no secret
Speaker 2: people in the party don't agree on net zero. Leader
Speaker 2: Susan Lee has committed to review the Liberal Party's entire
Speaker 2: agenda as right wing members intensify their push to scrap
Speaker 2: the target. Senator Jacinta nampenjimper Price has blamed that zero
Speaker 2: for causing the cost of living crisis. Meanwhile, Senator Alexantik
Speaker 2: said the target should be abandoned in order to appeal
Speaker 2: to the electorate. Dumping the target would end bipartisan political support.
Speaker 2: Are Michael Williams, This is seven Am. Daniel James will
Speaker 2: be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: At one