WEBVTT - A Labor ‘landslide’ and disaster for Dutton 0:00:00.680 --> 0:00:03.560 From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. 0:00:03.560 --> 0:00:09.879 This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Sunday, May 4th. Well, 0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:13.280 it was quick, about 2.5 hours after the polls had closed. 0:00:13.280 --> 0:00:16.920 The election had already been called for the incumbent labor government. 0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:19.880 But as the night went on, Anthony Albanese's win was 0:00:19.880 --> 0:00:23.920 looking like a landslide and labor increased its majority in Parliament. 0:00:24.360 --> 0:00:28.160 For the opposition, it was disastrous. Its leader, Peter Dutton, 0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.440 has lost his own seat in parliament and recriminations will 0:00:31.440 --> 0:00:35.080 surely be savage. To talk us through the results and 0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:37.760 what it all means, we spoke to chief political correspondent 0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:44.200 David Crowe and federal political correspondent Paul Satchell. David, you 0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.080 are not one to overuse an adjective, but you wrote 0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:50.400 in your piece for Saturday night that Anthony Albanese's victory 0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:55.280 was historic, stunning and extraordinary. Why do you use those words? 0:00:55.920 --> 0:01:00.120 Because it's so unusual to get a first term government 0:01:00.230 --> 0:01:05.230 increasing its majority in this way. It doesn't happen very often. 0:01:05.230 --> 0:01:08.030 I was talking to Shane Wright, our colleague, earlier, and 0:01:08.030 --> 0:01:10.429 he's told me when it last happened, and now I 0:01:10.430 --> 0:01:14.429 can't remember just because it's a blizzard of information on 0:01:14.430 --> 0:01:19.149 election night, but it's incredibly rare. The other thing, of course, 0:01:19.150 --> 0:01:22.630 is that Anthony Albanese has become the first prime minister 0:01:22.630 --> 0:01:27.590 since John Howard in 2004 to get another term as 0:01:27.590 --> 0:01:30.590 an incumbent, and that's also been too rare in the 0:01:30.590 --> 0:01:34.550 last 20 years or so. Since Kevin Rudd in 2007, 0:01:34.550 --> 0:01:38.750 we've had one term prime ministers finally getting a prime 0:01:38.750 --> 0:01:41.790 minister who serves a second term with a bit of 0:01:41.790 --> 0:01:45.110 continuity in the job, with an agenda for a second term. 0:01:45.150 --> 0:01:47.670 He's even talking about a third term to our colleague 0:01:47.670 --> 0:01:52.310 James Massola. All of these things make it a really 0:01:52.310 --> 0:01:56.990 incredible night. And bear in mind, there had been talk 0:01:57.150 --> 0:01:59.830 only months ago about or weeks ago about labor going 0:01:59.990 --> 0:02:02.710 into minority government. And here they are with this increased 0:02:02.710 --> 0:02:07.070 majority and with this mandate, when households are doing it 0:02:07.070 --> 0:02:10.149 very tough and, you know, on other grounds they might 0:02:10.150 --> 0:02:12.350 want to boot out a government when when the cost 0:02:12.350 --> 0:02:14.670 of living is so bad. So on all those fronts, 0:02:14.710 --> 0:02:17.389 it's it's really quite an incredible outcome. 0:02:17.750 --> 0:02:22.109 Yeah. I've just come back from the Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL, 0:02:22.230 --> 0:02:25.630 which is where the the Labor Party faithful gathered tonight. 0:02:25.630 --> 0:02:28.990 And Albanese just gave his speech, his victory speech. It 0:02:28.990 --> 0:02:31.470 was exactly the same stage, exactly the same venue, where 0:02:31.470 --> 0:02:35.030 he gave his victory speech in 2022, where he talked 0:02:35.030 --> 0:02:37.109 a lot about the voice, which obviously didn't get a 0:02:37.110 --> 0:02:42.030 mention tonight. What did you think of of the speech, David? 0:02:42.030 --> 0:02:44.870 I thought it was, um, one of the best speeches 0:02:44.870 --> 0:02:48.150 that he has delivered in his political life. 0:02:49.830 --> 0:02:54.190 Serving as your prime minister is the greatest honor of 0:02:54.190 --> 0:02:54.989 my life. 0:02:57.669 --> 0:03:02.019 I think it was very inclusive. He did have, I guess, 0:03:02.060 --> 0:03:07.500 that pointed reference to acknowledging Indigenous Australians, which, given Peter 0:03:07.500 --> 0:03:11.060 Dutton started this or fuelled this, this debate about the 0:03:11.060 --> 0:03:13.420 welcome to country was a very pointed reference. 0:03:14.139 --> 0:03:18.300 And I pay my respects to elders past, present and 0:03:18.300 --> 0:03:21.540 emerging today and every day. 0:03:22.060 --> 0:03:25.019 But in every other way he was gracious towards Peter Dutton. 0:03:25.780 --> 0:03:29.060 He made it so important at the start of the 0:03:29.060 --> 0:03:32.260 speech to simply thank Australians for their vote. He talked 0:03:32.260 --> 0:03:37.540 about kindness. He talked about unity, about confidence. It was 0:03:37.740 --> 0:03:41.100 a message trying to sort of lift up Australia at 0:03:41.100 --> 0:03:45.260 a time where global conditions are so hostile, really, to 0:03:45.300 --> 0:03:49.780 liberal democracies. Now, I'm not saying that he's got the 0:03:49.820 --> 0:03:53.780 answer and that there is this incredible second term agenda 0:03:53.780 --> 0:03:55.860 that's going to fix everything, because I think there are 0:03:55.860 --> 0:03:58.420 a lot of questions about that. But it was a 0:03:58.420 --> 0:03:59.930 very good speech in that way. 0:03:59.930 --> 0:04:02.930 It was very optimistic. He talked about how his mother 0:04:02.970 --> 0:04:04.930 had raised him to be an optimist and to see 0:04:04.930 --> 0:04:07.610 the best in people, and there was every reason for 0:04:07.650 --> 0:04:10.570 Australians to feel optimistic, which, as you say, is sort 0:04:10.570 --> 0:04:13.730 of against the global zeitgeist. Paul, you were in the 0:04:13.730 --> 0:04:16.250 room with the Dutton camp up in Brisbane, and you 0:04:16.290 --> 0:04:20.210 watched the opposition leader's concession speech, which I think we 0:04:20.210 --> 0:04:25.089 have to say was very gracious and refreshing, really, from him. 0:04:25.330 --> 0:04:27.810 Talk us through the night there. What was the vibe 0:04:27.810 --> 0:04:28.890 like in that room? 0:04:29.210 --> 0:04:31.610 Yeah. Well, for all the talk about comparing Dutton to Trump, 0:04:31.610 --> 0:04:34.890 some of it fair, some of it probably exaggerated. It's 0:04:34.930 --> 0:04:37.210 a great sign of our democracy that there was no, 0:04:37.450 --> 0:04:40.089 no suggestion that Dutton would ever do what Trump did 0:04:40.089 --> 0:04:42.849 and question anything about how the political process plays out. 0:04:42.890 --> 0:04:46.290 So it was gracious. He was he was, uh, he 0:04:46.330 --> 0:04:48.890 he was relatively upbeat for a guy who'd just been 0:04:48.970 --> 0:04:52.810 defeated so thoroughly. The room was quite warm when he 0:04:52.810 --> 0:04:55.849 emerged at about 930 in the W Hotel in Brisbane. 0:04:56.130 --> 0:04:59.600 He was watching upstairs with his family about 10 or 0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:02.120 15 minutes earlier. Some of his key supporters, including his 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:06.159 ministerial allies Steve Ciobo, Christian Porter, Michael Keenan, the campaign 0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:08.960 spokesman James Patterson entered the room with Tony Abbott as well. 0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:11.400 It was actually pretty light on for politicians. There weren't 0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.640 many current or former MPs there, except the ones I've named. 0:05:14.920 --> 0:05:17.159 He received a big applause when he rocked up Dutton, 0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:19.800 and then was really warmly allowed to exit the room 0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:22.640 with a long standing ovation. Well, tonight's. 0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:24.760 Not the night that we wanted for the Liberal Party 0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:26.880 or for our coalition, or indeed for our country. 0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:29.400 He's built up a lot of goodwill in the party. 0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:31.280 There are not many people on the moderate side, and 0:05:31.279 --> 0:05:33.920 certainly not on the right where he sits, who have 0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:37.000 much disdain for him. I think there was a there 0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:39.559 was a significant rump of people who just felt really 0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:42.200 sorry for a guy who they thought had given it 0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.320 his all, but also deep acknowledgement from even his staff 0:05:45.320 --> 0:05:48.560 and some of his close MPs who I spoke to 0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:52.360 in text and calls after, who just saw the result 0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:56.080 and realised that what they offered was totally, uh, not 0:05:56.080 --> 0:05:56.760 up to it now. 0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.480 We didn't do well enough during this campaign. That much 0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:02.919 is obvious tonight and I accept full responsibility for that. 0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:07.200 The campaign was poor. The policy offering was meek. Dutton 0:06:07.200 --> 0:06:09.680 proved to be someone who was by the end, the 0:06:09.680 --> 0:06:13.480 last Newspoll had him at the lowest popularity rating since 0:06:13.520 --> 0:06:16.920 Andrew Peacock in the early 90s, so he's shown himself 0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:19.840 to be one of the most deeply unpopular political party 0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:21.520 leaders in a long time. And that showed tonight. 0:06:21.560 --> 0:06:24.240 Yeah. Okay, so the recriminations on the Liberal side are 0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:26.840 going to be, um, going to be swift and interesting. 0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:29.000 What does this sort of I mean, I don't know, 0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:30.960 are we calling it a landslide? It's a sort of 0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:34.640 huge increased majority. We don't know of what magnitude yet, 0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:38.279 but a pretty interesting and big result. Is it all 0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:42.839 about Albanese's personal popularity? Is it about the labor policy offering, 0:06:42.839 --> 0:06:47.000 or is it more disillusionment with Peter Dutton and the coalition? David, 0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:47.760 what do you think? 0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:51.000 I think the Peter Dutton factor was real, and it 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:54.679 was something that the coalition underestimated, because clearly they didn't 0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:59.270 position him better going into this if they wanted to 0:07:00.270 --> 0:07:03.950 get Australians to get to know Peter Dutton as a 0:07:03.990 --> 0:07:06.710 as a family man and so forth, they should have 0:07:06.710 --> 0:07:10.710 been doing more on that front last year. But really 0:07:10.710 --> 0:07:14.310 it was about, I think, the core offer from labor. 0:07:14.310 --> 0:07:16.790 And I think this goes back to something that I 0:07:16.790 --> 0:07:19.830 know Paul's been talking to labor people about for ages, 0:07:19.830 --> 0:07:23.989 and so have I. We all knew that labor felt 0:07:23.990 --> 0:07:25.910 they couldn't win if it was going to be about 0:07:25.910 --> 0:07:28.350 the last three years. It had to be about the 0:07:28.350 --> 0:07:32.070 forward offer. And I heard that phrase repeatedly, the forward offer. 0:07:32.070 --> 0:07:34.230 And that was about telling people, we're going to do 0:07:34.230 --> 0:07:37.190 the following things for the next three years. And that's 0:07:37.190 --> 0:07:41.710 where the liberals were, I think, complacent because labor knew 0:07:41.710 --> 0:07:43.950 exactly what they were going to do, and they figured 0:07:43.950 --> 0:07:47.710 it out late last year, and then they started doing 0:07:47.750 --> 0:07:50.670 doing it in January with more money for Medicare, which 0:07:50.710 --> 0:07:54.750 of course, Peter Dutton matched. But it was labor on 0:07:54.750 --> 0:07:57.980 the front foot saying, we are hearing you on the 0:07:57.980 --> 0:08:00.780 cost of living and we are doing the following things. 0:08:01.180 --> 0:08:04.140 Whether it was road funding or Medicare funding, the urgent 0:08:04.140 --> 0:08:09.540 care clinics and so forth, they were delivering something that 0:08:09.540 --> 0:08:13.340 helped households with their finances and that just kept going 0:08:13.340 --> 0:08:16.300 all the way through to the budget. All of those 0:08:16.300 --> 0:08:20.580 things worked. Mind you can't forget that Donald Trump was 0:08:20.580 --> 0:08:24.460 a factor because he brought this global turmoil to the 0:08:24.460 --> 0:08:28.180 Australian election. But Labour knew that it had to offer 0:08:28.180 --> 0:08:32.100 something to Australians, and it started doing that in a 0:08:32.100 --> 0:08:33.340 really disciplined way. 0:08:33.380 --> 0:08:35.740 I'd add further to that. I agree you can't understate 0:08:35.740 --> 0:08:39.660 the Trump factor, but domestic factors are also huge, and 0:08:40.059 --> 0:08:42.340 some of this will be written in our long feature 0:08:42.340 --> 0:08:45.140 story that we're writing with Matthew Nod and Natassia Chrysanthos 0:08:45.140 --> 0:08:47.020 in coming days. So I'm giving a bit away. But 0:08:47.020 --> 0:08:50.260 I think in hindsight, people will look at what Albanese 0:08:50.300 --> 0:08:52.939 developed in terms of his election strategy and Paul Erickson, 0:08:52.980 --> 0:08:57.020 the campaign boss, and realised that labor staked out the 0:08:57.020 --> 0:09:00.179 center ground at this election. They own the center ground. 0:09:00.460 --> 0:09:04.420 They pushed the Liberal Party on cost of living and 0:09:04.420 --> 0:09:06.540 a number of other just core issues on health and 0:09:06.540 --> 0:09:09.660 education and various other policy areas out to the side. 0:09:09.660 --> 0:09:13.740 And Albanese commanded the center. In late October, labor people 0:09:13.740 --> 0:09:15.980 were looking at what Trump was doing to Kamala Harris. 0:09:16.260 --> 0:09:19.420 Paul Erickson had his election strategy laid out by late 0:09:19.420 --> 0:09:22.900 October and early November, and the core of it was 0:09:23.100 --> 0:09:26.340 a cost of living argument centered on Medicare, turned into 0:09:26.340 --> 0:09:29.140 a cost of living issue to talk about healthcare every 0:09:29.179 --> 0:09:32.620 day as a mechanism to say we are tangibly making 0:09:32.620 --> 0:09:36.340 your life easier and cheaper in a cost of living crisis. 0:09:36.620 --> 0:09:40.620 They hammered that home for months. They put economics at 0:09:40.620 --> 0:09:43.540 the core of their agenda, which labor people, particularly in 0:09:43.540 --> 0:09:45.300 kind of think tank land and on the right of 0:09:45.300 --> 0:09:48.300 the Labor Party, have been calling for for years. They've said, 0:09:48.300 --> 0:09:51.140 forget talking about social justice as the core of your 0:09:51.179 --> 0:09:54.459 offering and progressivism as the core of your offering, and 0:09:54.460 --> 0:09:57.730 make economics and living standards, the core of Labor's brand. 0:09:57.970 --> 0:10:01.730 Albanese and Paul Erickson did that, and incredibly, in the 0:10:01.730 --> 0:10:05.290 polls in recent weeks, even after a huge spike in 0:10:05.290 --> 0:10:08.010 interest rates and people having been worse off over the 0:10:08.010 --> 0:10:11.610 last three years in terms of real incomes, Labour is 0:10:11.650 --> 0:10:14.890 ahead on cost of living and economic management in most polls. 0:10:15.050 --> 0:10:19.170 That's an extraordinary result, a vindication of their strategy and 0:10:19.170 --> 0:10:21.850 a massive indictment on the party that's meant to be 0:10:21.850 --> 0:10:23.330 known as the better economic manager. 0:10:23.370 --> 0:10:24.210 Do you think it was also. 0:10:24.250 --> 0:10:26.930 A rejection of Trumpism? Because we can't. I mean, you know, 0:10:26.970 --> 0:10:29.330 lots of people vote during the campaign that Donald Trump 0:10:29.330 --> 0:10:33.329 was sort of like the third person in the campaign. Obviously, 0:10:33.370 --> 0:10:37.609 he was incredibly influential in terms of the global atmosphere, 0:10:37.610 --> 0:10:42.770 but also in terms of all of the allegations that 0:10:42.809 --> 0:10:46.209 Dutton or members of Dutton's party were aping Trump or 0:10:46.210 --> 0:10:48.250 stealing from him, or wanted to bring that kind of 0:10:48.290 --> 0:10:52.210 politics to Australia. He did have a go on woke issues, 0:10:52.210 --> 0:10:55.360 so-called woke issues, particularly towards the end of the campaign. 0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:57.839 How much of this can we see as a rejection 0:10:57.840 --> 0:10:59.440 of that kind of politics? 0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:02.200 David, I think we can see the election result as 0:11:02.200 --> 0:11:07.800 a rejection of Trumpist ploys in in Australian politics, because 0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:11.120 there have been some of those and I guess Jacinta 0:11:11.120 --> 0:11:16.800 Nampijinpa price as the coalition's spokesperson for government efficiency, picking 0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:20.880 up that kind of Doge theme from the US when 0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:24.199 she said Make Australia great again, it clearly had the 0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:28.719 overtones of a Trumpist line. If that was working for 0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:32.280 the coalition, they would have had a, you know, side 0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:35.360 by side with Peter Dutton for days afterwards. They didn't. 0:11:35.559 --> 0:11:38.920 She was hidden after that. So that tells you how 0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:41.600 they saw that playing out. But also, we know from 0:11:41.600 --> 0:11:45.000 our own polling that almost two thirds of Australians see 0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.319 the election of Trump as a bad thing for Australia. 0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:51.880 They don't like him. And over the course of the 0:11:51.880 --> 0:11:55.830 campaign that worked in Anthony Albanese's favor. I think of 0:11:55.830 --> 0:12:00.270 Anthony Albanese now. Given this dynamic as an anti-Trump, I mean, 0:12:00.670 --> 0:12:05.470 Albanese is always talking about orderly government. He presented a safe, 0:12:05.470 --> 0:12:09.189 friendly kind of face, even though he has been on 0:12:09.190 --> 0:12:11.309 the nose for so long on the cost of living. 0:12:11.510 --> 0:12:12.950 So he was an anti-Trump. 0:12:12.990 --> 0:12:15.830 He even talked about kindness and respect very pointedly in 0:12:15.830 --> 0:12:20.230 his victory speech tonight. Paul, do you see this result 0:12:20.230 --> 0:12:23.470 as partly a rejection of that sort of anti-woke stuff 0:12:23.790 --> 0:12:27.069 that is very much associated with the Trump agenda? 0:12:27.270 --> 0:12:30.670 Partly. I'd also just say that as the Canadian election 0:12:30.670 --> 0:12:36.190 result proved Trump's erratic nature, his trashing of conservatism around 0:12:36.190 --> 0:12:38.870 the world has flipped the script in other Western countries 0:12:38.870 --> 0:12:45.189 and allowed centre left progressive leaders to become the Patriots, 0:12:45.470 --> 0:12:50.470 the ones talking about kind of nationalistic Australia first Canada 0:12:50.510 --> 0:12:54.150 first policies, which is something they've never been able to 0:12:54.270 --> 0:12:57.429 do with as much authority as the conservatives in their country, 0:12:57.429 --> 0:13:02.110 because those conservatives are now portrayed as buddies with the 0:13:02.150 --> 0:13:05.470 US president who's having a crack at all these allies. 0:13:05.750 --> 0:13:08.510 So it's it's we're in uncharted territory. 0:13:08.950 --> 0:13:12.150 Yeah. What were some of the more surprising results of 0:13:12.150 --> 0:13:14.309 the night I want to talk about? You know, David, 0:13:14.309 --> 0:13:15.550 I don't know if you've had much of a look 0:13:15.550 --> 0:13:18.270 at the Greens vote. I want to talk about Tasmania, 0:13:18.270 --> 0:13:23.110 where labor was incredibly successful. Victoria and of course, Dutton's 0:13:23.110 --> 0:13:26.390 seat of Dickson. Let's just go first to the Greens vote. 0:13:26.390 --> 0:13:28.150 Have you had much of a look at that? 0:13:28.190 --> 0:13:31.710 Yes. And it hasn't been great for the Greens. Some 0:13:31.710 --> 0:13:35.390 of the results are very close. I haven't talked to 0:13:35.390 --> 0:13:38.790 anybody about what's what they're seeing in Brisbane for instance 0:13:38.790 --> 0:13:42.030 in the Brisbane seats that is. But of course these 0:13:42.030 --> 0:13:44.590 are sort of must haves for the Greens. They did 0:13:44.590 --> 0:13:47.750 so well at the last election. Max Chandler-mather was their 0:13:47.750 --> 0:13:52.470 spokesperson on housing in Griffith. Stephen Bates in Brisbane, Elizabeth 0:13:52.470 --> 0:13:56.740 Watson-brown Brown in, uh, Ryan. They want to hold those seats, 0:13:56.740 --> 0:14:01.460 but they haven't done that. Great labor is is within 0:14:01.460 --> 0:14:04.300 sight of turning things against them. Uh, I think it's 0:14:04.300 --> 0:14:07.900 different in Melbourne, where there's concern about the labor seat 0:14:07.940 --> 0:14:11.020 of wills, but you cannot see across the board that 0:14:11.059 --> 0:14:13.620 this is a big victory for the Greens. It's been 0:14:13.620 --> 0:14:17.900 much more interesting in terms of the teal contests and 0:14:18.140 --> 0:14:23.740 in previously safe Liberal seat of Bradfield in Sydney. Nicolette 0:14:23.740 --> 0:14:27.020 Buehler has won that seat. It's a, you know, shocking 0:14:27.020 --> 0:14:31.020 defeat for the liberals and it just highlights this teal trend. 0:14:31.020 --> 0:14:33.860 So I can't say I was surprised by that because 0:14:34.060 --> 0:14:37.380 I'd been watching that seat really with a lot of interest, 0:14:37.380 --> 0:14:39.420 and I thought there was a chance that Nicolette Buehler 0:14:39.420 --> 0:14:42.780 could do it. But to see it actually happen and 0:14:42.780 --> 0:14:44.620 continue that trend is really something. 0:14:44.660 --> 0:14:48.380 What about Dixon? Paul? Um, what what happened for Peter Dutton? 0:14:48.420 --> 0:14:51.540 I mean, it's been several elections now when labor has 0:14:51.580 --> 0:14:54.170 sort of said that Dixon's in contention and that Dutton 0:14:54.170 --> 0:14:55.730 might lose his seat. There was a lot of talk 0:14:55.730 --> 0:14:57.810 of that sort of two elections ago, but this time 0:14:57.810 --> 0:14:59.730 it actually happened. It's quite stunning. 0:14:59.770 --> 0:15:02.290 Yeah, labor had been talking about this for weeks now. 0:15:02.450 --> 0:15:05.170 They've been doing big fundraising drives, saying to people around 0:15:05.170 --> 0:15:07.890 the country, donate because we think we can beat Peter Dutton. 0:15:07.970 --> 0:15:10.210 Albanese spent the first day of the campaign on, I 0:15:10.210 --> 0:15:13.170 think it's March 29th, in Dixon, and then he swung 0:15:13.210 --> 0:15:15.570 through in one of the final days. There was a 0:15:15.570 --> 0:15:17.650 lot of talk at the start of the campaign about 0:15:17.650 --> 0:15:21.130 this being an Albanese mind game. He does like political 0:15:21.130 --> 0:15:23.770 games and getting in the heads of his opponents. He 0:15:23.770 --> 0:15:26.290 at the time said he really believed it was on 0:15:26.330 --> 0:15:29.090 the on the brink of falling. Even his colleagues didn't 0:15:29.090 --> 0:15:32.370 really believe him. But there's been a huge swing against 0:15:32.370 --> 0:15:35.970 the Liberal Party across or the LNP in Queensland in 0:15:35.970 --> 0:15:39.010 seats like Bonner. There were huge swings, various other suburban 0:15:39.010 --> 0:15:41.090 seats where labor had been putting in a lot of 0:15:41.090 --> 0:15:44.050 resources into in the last year or two, particularly led 0:15:44.050 --> 0:15:46.010 by Murray Watt and Jim Chalmers, to build the brand 0:15:46.010 --> 0:15:48.450 back there and in the city of Brisbane as well. 0:15:48.450 --> 0:15:50.690 There were big swings, as we just mentioned, to the 0:15:50.730 --> 0:15:54.560 to labor from the Greens. But in terms of Dixon itself, 0:15:54.680 --> 0:15:56.600 it's hard to know about local factors. There was a 0:15:56.600 --> 0:16:00.240 new teal independent, Ali Smith, who was really heavily backed 0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:04.480 by climate 201 13.1% of the primary vote. At this 0:16:04.480 --> 0:16:08.120 stage of counting, Dutton has lost 8% of his primary. 0:16:08.120 --> 0:16:10.760 At this stage, Labor's only up two and a half, 0:16:10.760 --> 0:16:14.600 so the independent clearly caused Dutton problems. Huge amounts of 0:16:14.600 --> 0:16:17.920 money spent by labor and the climate, 200 independent and 0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:22.280 lots and lots of Labour ministers and MPs and party 0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:25.160 heavyweights swung through Dixon to get to gain momentum there. 0:16:25.160 --> 0:16:28.760 So perhaps the voters of Dixon when the when the 0:16:28.800 --> 0:16:31.440 when the heat. Really. Well I don't want to go 0:16:31.440 --> 0:16:34.600 too far there but when when they maybe really thought 0:16:34.640 --> 0:16:38.240 thought about Dutton as their candidate in a really high 0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:41.320 profile race where it actually looked like there was a 0:16:41.320 --> 0:16:44.400 chance of flipping it, maybe they saw something, something they 0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:44.960 didn't like. 0:16:45.000 --> 0:16:47.880 Yeah, I'm not sure how much people were tuned into this, 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:49.840 but certainly he was asked, I think in the last 0:16:49.840 --> 0:16:52.200 debate if he or he was asked recently if he 0:16:52.240 --> 0:16:54.080 would be happy to have a nuclear reactor in his 0:16:54.080 --> 0:16:57.120 own electorate, and he said yes. So I don't know 0:16:57.120 --> 0:17:00.760 if that was that was something that people were tuned into. 0:17:00.880 --> 0:17:04.440 Let's just talk quickly about the coalition. Paul. Um, Peter 0:17:04.440 --> 0:17:07.840 Dutton took total responsibility for the loss. But I mean, 0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:10.080 what's your sense of what happened? Was it was it 0:17:10.119 --> 0:17:13.320 his fault? Was it was it miscommunication with the with 0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:16.000 campaign HQ? Was it the fact that he just went 0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:19.080 off piste and did his own thing and didn't listen 0:17:19.080 --> 0:17:22.639 to the party? Um, the party elders. What was it? 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.760 It's it's there's so many factors that make it complex. 0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:29.840 And so it's clearly deep and structural. The problem in 0:17:29.840 --> 0:17:32.840 the party to blame any one breakdown in communication or 0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:37.560 relationship or attitude in a certain, um, cohort of his 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.840 staffing unit just seems simplistic. I mean, the party the 0:17:40.840 --> 0:17:44.639 party is broken. Um, they've had three years in a 0:17:44.640 --> 0:17:47.960 cost of living crisis to develop an economic narrative, have 0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:51.280 totally failed to do so and have gone backwards on 0:17:51.390 --> 0:17:55.110 an already record low primary vote with a deeply unpopular 0:17:55.109 --> 0:17:59.510 prime minister in Scott Morrison. So it's the recriminations will 0:17:59.510 --> 0:18:04.270 be really severe. There'll be huge questions directed towards the pollster, 0:18:04.270 --> 0:18:07.310 Mike Turner at Freshwater, because there has been a sense 0:18:07.310 --> 0:18:09.590 in the party, a real sense. I don't think a 0:18:09.590 --> 0:18:14.190 fake false spin sense that their internal polling was better 0:18:14.190 --> 0:18:16.430 than the national polling and that this result would not 0:18:16.430 --> 0:18:18.550 play out. So there'll be huge questions about why that 0:18:18.550 --> 0:18:23.510 didn't play out. The strategy of not dealing in the 0:18:23.510 --> 0:18:26.070 same way as most political leaders in the past, with 0:18:26.109 --> 0:18:29.510 mainstream press throughout the term, and focusing the strategy towards 0:18:29.510 --> 0:18:32.950 two GB and Sky news, as David has written about extensively, 0:18:32.990 --> 0:18:36.710 will also come under severe question after just a quick 0:18:36.710 --> 0:18:40.350 point to finish off after the 22 result. They were 0:18:40.350 --> 0:18:42.949 in the mid 50s in terms of seats. Their primary 0:18:42.950 --> 0:18:45.670 vote was really low under Dutton for a period, but 0:18:45.670 --> 0:18:48.869 the party was galvanised by the voice referendum. It lifted 0:18:48.869 --> 0:18:51.380 them off the floor. It instilled discipline over a year 0:18:51.380 --> 0:18:54.300 or even more, which was like a long campaign within 0:18:54.300 --> 0:18:56.980 the term. And I think that in part meant that 0:18:56.980 --> 0:19:00.260 there was no period of soul searching and real examination 0:19:00.260 --> 0:19:03.060 of what the party stood for, its policy agenda, its 0:19:03.060 --> 0:19:05.260 recruitment of talent, all those things that make a healthy, 0:19:05.260 --> 0:19:09.500 vibrant political party. This result has to force that if 0:19:09.500 --> 0:19:12.060 it doesn't, it never will. I mean, Labour went through 0:19:12.340 --> 0:19:16.220 similar periods in the mid 2000 when Howard kept beating them. 0:19:16.619 --> 0:19:19.180 They had another period of of of reckoning after Bill 0:19:19.180 --> 0:19:21.820 shorten lost. So this happens to both sides of politics. 0:19:21.820 --> 0:19:25.139 But there needs to be serious, serious examination of the 0:19:25.140 --> 0:19:27.580 party and what it what it is. And there has 0:19:27.580 --> 0:19:30.780 to be over the next few months or maybe even year, 0:19:30.820 --> 0:19:33.300 a period where there's no no focus on opinion polling 0:19:33.300 --> 0:19:35.740 and just focus on how do we get ourselves to 0:19:35.780 --> 0:19:37.860 be a governing party again. 0:19:38.140 --> 0:19:43.500 The liberals have always done well when they're genuinely a 0:19:43.500 --> 0:19:46.500 broad church, to use that old phrase. That phrase is 0:19:46.500 --> 0:19:49.660 used so much because it's such a good phrase. They 0:19:49.660 --> 0:19:52.860 know that that's how they succeed. And that's not really 0:19:52.859 --> 0:19:56.100 the the best description of them right now. Well, after 0:19:56.100 --> 0:20:00.220 this result, they're like a rump. But I think Peter 0:20:00.220 --> 0:20:03.060 Dutton has been given a lot of credit for uniting 0:20:03.540 --> 0:20:06.619 the team and keeping them all together after the 2022 0:20:06.619 --> 0:20:11.380 election outcome, that defeat, and he did keep them united, 0:20:11.780 --> 0:20:14.500 but he kept them united by not making them too 0:20:14.500 --> 0:20:17.300 much of a broad church. He had a, you know, 0:20:17.500 --> 0:20:23.500 deliberately conservative, um, approach, very conservative, I think Liberal Party 0:20:23.500 --> 0:20:26.699 over the last couple of years, picking fights on culture 0:20:26.700 --> 0:20:29.780 wars and woke agendas and so forth, and maybe that 0:20:29.780 --> 0:20:32.260 wasn't the way to succeed. We now see what Australians 0:20:32.260 --> 0:20:36.460 think about it. So unity came at an incredible cost 0:20:36.460 --> 0:20:40.540 because they didn't actually have a deep think about their 0:20:40.540 --> 0:20:43.780 philosophy and their direction in the last couple of years. 0:20:44.060 --> 0:20:46.300 And really we could see that with their policy agenda 0:20:46.340 --> 0:20:49.100 because it was relatively thin and it didn't, you know, 0:20:49.140 --> 0:20:53.970 they complained about the catastrophe facing Australia, and then they 0:20:53.970 --> 0:20:55.889 came up with a bit of a damp squib on 0:20:55.890 --> 0:20:59.170 the policy front as a solution to that catastrophe. Um, 0:20:59.170 --> 0:21:01.330 they didn't seem to have the courage of their convictions 0:21:01.330 --> 0:21:03.690 on what they were really fighting for, because I think 0:21:03.690 --> 0:21:06.490 they hadn't really worked out what those convictions were. 0:21:06.730 --> 0:21:08.410 Yeah. I mean, you've got to conclude that they just 0:21:08.609 --> 0:21:11.490 they didn't do any work, really any proper work on policy. 0:21:11.530 --> 0:21:13.890 They they just they had a lot of time and, 0:21:13.890 --> 0:21:16.969 and they didn't use that time. David, you wrote in 0:21:16.970 --> 0:21:21.690 your piece tonight that everything at this election has approved 0:21:21.690 --> 0:21:24.170 the path ahead will not be easy. So you're not 0:21:24.170 --> 0:21:26.530 sort of letting Albanese off the hook? What do you 0:21:26.530 --> 0:21:27.730 mean by that, exactly? 0:21:28.050 --> 0:21:32.090 Well, I was remembering, um, an interview that we did with, um, 0:21:32.090 --> 0:21:35.810 Jim Chalmers last year. Remember this jacket where he, uh, 0:21:35.810 --> 0:21:37.369 we asked, you know, is there going to be an 0:21:37.369 --> 0:21:40.050 election spendathon. And he said no. Well, guess what? There 0:21:40.050 --> 0:21:44.010 was an election. Spendathon. Right. They spent a lot. Now 0:21:44.010 --> 0:21:47.129 they say they're improving government services. And I think Australians 0:21:47.130 --> 0:21:50.000 respond to that because they want a caring government in 0:21:50.000 --> 0:21:53.200 this global turmoil that looks after them and delivers services 0:21:53.200 --> 0:21:57.080 like Medicare. But there's been a lot of spending going on. 0:21:57.520 --> 0:22:02.560 There are no budget surpluses in the foreseeable future. The 0:22:02.560 --> 0:22:07.240 economy has low productivity, right? We used to worry about that. 0:22:07.240 --> 0:22:10.480 We used to be a nation that actually paid attention 0:22:10.480 --> 0:22:13.960 to that, paid attention to economic reform, to tax reform. 0:22:14.880 --> 0:22:18.640 Are we going to rediscover that? It could take a 0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:23.520 majority government that's safe, that's got a mandate to try 0:22:23.520 --> 0:22:26.119 and look at some of these things. It's not an 0:22:26.119 --> 0:22:28.879 easy job, but somebody's got to do it. And the 0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:31.360 time to do it is when you've got a mandate 0:22:31.359 --> 0:22:34.240 and a majority. So I think it's going to be 0:22:34.240 --> 0:22:38.000 challenging for Anthony Albanese and for Jim Chalmers, because there's 0:22:38.000 --> 0:22:39.440 so much that needs doing. 0:22:39.640 --> 0:22:42.160 If the big question for the coalition side now is 0:22:42.160 --> 0:22:45.840 how do they regenerate if they can regenerate? The big 0:22:45.840 --> 0:22:48.640 question for Albanese now is can he be bigger? Can 0:22:48.640 --> 0:22:51.870 he be bolder? Can the nature of his government change? 0:22:52.070 --> 0:22:55.350 One of his long time close friends said to me 0:22:55.350 --> 0:22:57.990 the other day that if he wins with a majority, 0:22:58.350 --> 0:23:02.030 he'll be extremely vindicated and proud of what he's just achieved. 0:23:02.030 --> 0:23:05.310 And he showed that with his emotion tonight. But he'll also, 0:23:05.350 --> 0:23:07.670 according to this person, go into what he described as 0:23:07.670 --> 0:23:10.949 legacy mode, where he'll be thinking not just about how 0:23:10.950 --> 0:23:13.590 to get another win. Although another win would be fantastic. 0:23:13.790 --> 0:23:16.510 He'll be thinking about how does he go out, having 0:23:16.550 --> 0:23:19.350 achieved big reforms now, and he'll want to do a 0:23:19.350 --> 0:23:21.550 couple of things that mark him out, not just as 0:23:21.550 --> 0:23:25.190 someone who's won two successive elections to be the first 0:23:25.190 --> 0:23:28.270 person after John Howard, but how he's done that and 0:23:28.270 --> 0:23:31.150 done big things. And he even though he's done some 0:23:31.150 --> 0:23:34.310 creditable things and he calls himself a reformer, even his 0:23:34.310 --> 0:23:38.070 colleagues think the last term was far from ideal, far 0:23:38.070 --> 0:23:41.710 from big enough. Far from long term. Enough in its thinking. 0:23:42.230 --> 0:23:45.830 So can he reach to change the GST deal and 0:23:45.830 --> 0:23:49.110 do proper tax reform? A big new social program. Who 0:23:49.109 --> 0:23:50.869 knows what that might be, but can he change the 0:23:50.869 --> 0:23:53.230 nature of the government and be bigger and bolder? Will 0:23:53.230 --> 0:23:55.230 be the big question and the big pressure point on him. 0:23:55.230 --> 0:23:57.189 I'm sure we'll gather again to talk about that in 0:23:57.190 --> 0:23:59.710 the not too distant future. It's very late. You guys 0:23:59.710 --> 0:24:01.830 have been up all day. You've done an amazing job. 0:24:01.830 --> 0:24:05.629 Thank you for coming and talking and what a fascinating result. 0:24:05.670 --> 0:24:06.990 Long live democracy. 0:24:07.950 --> 0:24:09.390 Thanks to you guys all. Bye. 0:24:09.430 --> 0:24:10.070 Thanks, Paul. 0:24:12.590 --> 0:24:16.790 Today's episode was produced by Julia Katzel. Our executive producer 0:24:16.790 --> 0:24:19.869 is Tami Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio. 0:24:20.670 --> 0:24:22.869 To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop, 0:24:22.869 --> 0:24:26.470 follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you 0:24:26.470 --> 0:24:29.830 listen to your podcasts. To stay up to date with 0:24:29.830 --> 0:24:33.270 all the election coverage and exclusives, visit The Age and 0:24:33.270 --> 0:24:37.510 The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism, subscribe 0:24:37.510 --> 0:24:44.430 to us by visiting The Age or. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley. 0:24:44.470 --> 0:24:45.590 Thank you for listening.