WEBVTT - Did the Greens become election ‘roadkill’? 0:00:01.760 --> 0:00:05.280 From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. 0:00:05.559 --> 0:00:10.320 This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Cylinder Morris. It's Wednesday, 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:17.520 May 7th. This election was always going to be the 0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:20.959 test for the Greens, because the thinking had long been 0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:24.760 that any election after a Labour government's first term would 0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:28.720 be their moment. This would be when disgruntled labor voters, 0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:32.840 disappointed that Anthony Albanese hadn't gone far enough on social issues, 0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:36.960 would turn in disgust to the Greens. They would be 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:43.159 absolutely harvesting votes today. National affairs editor James Massola on 0:00:43.159 --> 0:00:47.600 why the Greens dream of more seats turned instead into 0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:56.080 a profound loss. So, James, just to start off, what 0:00:56.080 --> 0:00:59.040 was the position that the Greens held prior to the 0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:01.560 election and what was the party actually hoping to achieve? 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:03.440 You know, as the votes were being tallied. 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.800 Sure, Sam, and thanks for having me on. Look, before 0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:09.959 the election was called, the Greens had 11 seats in 0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.000 the Senate and four seats in the lower house. They 0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:15.560 had started the last term with 12. But of course, 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:17.720 Lidia Thorpe defected to the crossbench. 0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:20.040 Okay. And so, I mean, is it safe to say 0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:22.520 that their expectations were a bit sky high, like they 0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:27.160 were seeking to regain four existing seats and add five more? 0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:30.600 Yeah. Look. That's right. Um, like every political party, the 0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:34.120 Greens went into this election with high hopes and talking 0:01:34.120 --> 0:01:36.760 up big plans and bigger ambitions if you like to 0:01:36.800 --> 0:01:40.200 win more seats. So they. The party had been hoping 0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.400 to win Wills in Victoria, just sort of bordering Melbourne. 0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:48.240 So inner city Melbourne they had hoped to win Richmond. 0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:50.520 A woman named Mandy Nolan was running for a second 0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:52.400 time there. She had a good, they believed, a very 0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:55.760 good chance of winning. Uh, Fremantle in WA was another 0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:57.360 target seat for them, and there was a couple of 0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:01.310 others that, in my view, were perhaps a bit more optimistic. 0:02:01.310 --> 0:02:03.950 But yeah, they had five target seats for this election. 0:02:03.950 --> 0:02:04.790 That's right Sam. 0:02:04.830 --> 0:02:07.630 Okay, so let's talk through the results then. Because before 0:02:07.630 --> 0:02:10.230 recording you described it as, you know, mixed. They had 0:02:10.230 --> 0:02:13.750 some big swings towards them, but they've also lost key seats. 0:02:13.750 --> 0:02:16.310 And at the time that we're recording this on Tuesday morning, 0:02:16.630 --> 0:02:19.709 the party's leader Adam Bandt, is perilously close to losing 0:02:19.710 --> 0:02:22.309 his own seat in Melbourne. So what's happened. 0:02:22.350 --> 0:02:24.790 Like much of this election, Sam, it's a stunning story 0:02:24.790 --> 0:02:27.950 and one that I think will be, uh, kind of 0:02:28.510 --> 0:02:31.390 looking over the entrails of or reading the tea leaves 0:02:31.430 --> 0:02:33.389 or whatever metaphor you want to use for some time 0:02:33.389 --> 0:02:36.190 to come. So look, first of all the numbers, it 0:02:36.190 --> 0:02:39.750 looks like the greens will win six seats in the 0:02:39.750 --> 0:02:42.430 Senate again. So they're not going backwards in the Senate. Um, 0:02:42.430 --> 0:02:44.390 but in the lower house it's a different story. And 0:02:44.389 --> 0:02:47.270 for the Greens, it's not a great story. As you mentioned, 0:02:47.310 --> 0:02:50.550 Adam Bandt is trailing in the seat of Melbourne at 0:02:50.550 --> 0:02:54.430 the moment. It's something like a 5% lead that his 0:02:54.430 --> 0:02:58.390 labor opponent enjoys at the moment, with about 65, 66% 0:02:58.389 --> 0:03:00.549 of the vote counted that, you know, that's not an 0:03:00.550 --> 0:03:04.110 insurmountable lead by any means, but it's going to be tough. Um, 0:03:04.110 --> 0:03:07.950 I'd say the potential or rather a potential future leader 0:03:07.950 --> 0:03:11.310 of the Greens, Max Chandler-mather, you know, very outspoken in 0:03:11.310 --> 0:03:14.150 the previous term, very high profile for a first term MP. 0:03:14.190 --> 0:03:16.669 He's lost in the seat of Griffith. That was Kevin 0:03:16.669 --> 0:03:21.550 Rudd's seat once. Labor has got it back. Similarly, in Brisbane, 0:03:21.870 --> 0:03:26.389 Stephen Bates, a much lower profile MP. He's lost his seat. Um, 0:03:26.430 --> 0:03:29.709 Samantha Ratnam, who's the former state Greens leader in Victoria. 0:03:29.750 --> 0:03:33.630 She was attempting to win Wills and she's not going 0:03:33.630 --> 0:03:35.550 to get there. We believe at this point in time. 0:03:35.870 --> 0:03:38.910 Similarly with Mandy Nolan in Richmond. So what we are 0:03:38.910 --> 0:03:41.950 looking at is a scenario where the Greens most likely 0:03:41.950 --> 0:03:44.470 have gone, will go down from four seats in the 0:03:44.470 --> 0:03:47.870 lower house to one. Um, the only person who looks 0:03:47.870 --> 0:03:50.390 like they're on track to hang onto their seat is, um, 0:03:50.430 --> 0:03:54.029 Elizabeth Watson-brown in the seat of Ryan in inner city Brisbane. 0:03:54.070 --> 0:03:56.430 Okay, so let's talk about what's happened here because Greens 0:03:56.430 --> 0:03:59.030 leader Adam Bandt, you know, he's blamed the mixed results 0:03:59.030 --> 0:04:02.830 on Liberal Labor preference deals, which he says were designed 0:04:02.830 --> 0:04:04.830 to lock the Greens out. So is he right? Is 0:04:04.830 --> 0:04:05.750 this what's happened? 0:04:06.070 --> 0:04:08.470 Look, these preference deals have played a part in locking 0:04:08.470 --> 0:04:10.550 out the greens and some of these seats. But I mean, 0:04:10.590 --> 0:04:14.070 that's my view, Sam. That's part of politics. Adam Bandt 0:04:14.070 --> 0:04:17.710 was elected to parliament in 2010 off the back of 0:04:17.710 --> 0:04:21.029 Liberal Party preferences. They put him ahead of the then 0:04:21.150 --> 0:04:25.110 labor candidate, Cathy O'Toole. I believe her name was. And 0:04:25.350 --> 0:04:27.349 you know, she missed out. He got up. So yes, 0:04:27.350 --> 0:04:29.510 he can be cranky about it, but it's the ebb 0:04:29.510 --> 0:04:31.350 and flow of politics. It's part of the rough and 0:04:31.350 --> 0:04:35.270 tumble of politics. Um, another thing I think, you know, personally, 0:04:35.270 --> 0:04:37.229 I find quite interesting in that, you know, band has 0:04:37.230 --> 0:04:39.750 been quick to point out, is that the Greens have 0:04:39.750 --> 0:04:42.710 actually increased their overall vote at this election. You know, 0:04:42.750 --> 0:04:45.110 across the country, if you tally it all up, the 0:04:45.110 --> 0:04:48.390 problem has been simply Sam. They haven't increased it in 0:04:48.390 --> 0:04:52.350 the places it needed to increase. It wasn't concentrated in 0:04:52.350 --> 0:04:55.190 the correct seats. It was more of a small surge 0:04:55.190 --> 0:04:57.909 or small rise across the country. 0:04:57.950 --> 0:04:59.950 Okay. So tell us so where where did they need 0:04:59.950 --> 0:05:01.950 to put their focus that they just didn't, you know, 0:05:01.950 --> 0:05:05.030 where is the massive mistake here I guess. 0:05:05.270 --> 0:05:09.190 Yeah. Look I'm not it's that's a difficult question to answer, Sam, 0:05:09.190 --> 0:05:13.589 because I don't know that you could sort of immediately say, well, they, 0:05:13.630 --> 0:05:16.470 you know, didn't realize that they needed to win Melbourne or, 0:05:16.510 --> 0:05:18.870 you know, they weren't trying in Griffith or anything like that. 0:05:18.870 --> 0:05:21.190 I mean, they, they were trying they were campaigning hard. 0:05:21.190 --> 0:05:24.870 Max Chandler-mather in particular is a great on the ground campaigner, 0:05:24.870 --> 0:05:27.390 as we saw in 2022. So I don't think there 0:05:27.390 --> 0:05:30.190 was a strategic failure in the sense that they weren't 0:05:30.270 --> 0:05:33.190 doing the work. The work was being done. They were 0:05:33.190 --> 0:05:36.310 working hard in their target seats like Wills and Richmond 0:05:36.310 --> 0:05:39.710 to there were resources put in on the ground in 0:05:39.710 --> 0:05:42.070 those target seats and in the seats that they wanted 0:05:42.070 --> 0:05:45.750 to hold on to. What has happened simply is, I guess, 0:05:46.270 --> 0:05:49.950 a microcosm or a replication of what's happened around the country, 0:05:49.950 --> 0:05:54.510 which is simply that Labor's vote surged, the coalition vote sank. Um, 0:05:54.510 --> 0:05:57.029 and and the Greens have kind of been I think 0:05:57.029 --> 0:05:58.419 you'd have to say roadkill. 0:05:58.460 --> 0:06:01.380 Right. Okay. Well, let's get into the issues here because, well, 0:06:01.420 --> 0:06:03.860 for one thing, I'm really fascinated about what happened to 0:06:03.860 --> 0:06:06.460 the youth vote here because we know for the first time, 0:06:06.820 --> 0:06:10.900 Gen Z millennials, they outnumbered baby boomers in the federal election. 0:06:10.900 --> 0:06:13.460 So you would have thought that this might lead to 0:06:13.500 --> 0:06:16.979 the Greens doing particularly well this time around. So what happened? 0:06:17.300 --> 0:06:21.060 Yeah, again, one of the most fascinating aspects of this result. 0:06:21.100 --> 0:06:24.460 And again, they're just there are so many at this election, um, 0:06:24.940 --> 0:06:29.300 the Greens identified before the last election, renters as a 0:06:29.300 --> 0:06:33.380 growing cohort of mostly younger people that they could target, 0:06:33.380 --> 0:06:36.380 that they could harvest the votes of that they could, 0:06:36.420 --> 0:06:39.140 you know, they hoped, turn into the next generation of 0:06:39.140 --> 0:06:42.380 Greens voters. And that worked in 2022. And we saw 0:06:42.420 --> 0:06:46.659 through the 22 to 25 Parliament, the 47th Parliament, that 0:06:46.660 --> 0:06:50.900 they maintained that focus on housing and on renters quite successfully. Um, 0:06:50.900 --> 0:06:52.900 you know, much to the annoyance of the Prime Minister, 0:06:52.900 --> 0:06:55.539 as we saw in some of those exchanges between him 0:06:55.540 --> 0:06:59.460 and Chandler-mather in Parliament when the Greens initially blocked the 0:06:59.460 --> 0:07:02.580 Housing Australia Future Fund. So what's happened now? I mean, 0:07:02.620 --> 0:07:04.460 I'd like to see the data of something like the 0:07:04.460 --> 0:07:07.860 Australian National University's election survey. I'd like to see some 0:07:07.860 --> 0:07:11.180 of that data to absolutely know for sure that it's correct. 0:07:11.180 --> 0:07:15.340 But what I suspect is, is that Labor's policies on 0:07:15.340 --> 0:07:18.700 housing were, well, they cut through. They were seen to 0:07:18.700 --> 0:07:20.740 be effective. They were seen. I mean, there was a 0:07:20.740 --> 0:07:23.420 suite of policies that the government was offering. Right. Um 0:07:23.420 --> 0:07:27.340 Housing Australia Future Fund, the government going essentially sort of 0:07:27.380 --> 0:07:30.940 guarantor so that you could buy as a first home buyer, 0:07:31.220 --> 0:07:33.860 a house with a deposit of just 5%. And the 0:07:33.860 --> 0:07:35.620 government would help you with the rest so you could 0:07:35.620 --> 0:07:39.380 avoid mortgage insurance. There was a number of other policies too, obviously, 0:07:39.380 --> 0:07:41.260 and I think I think it cut through. I think 0:07:41.260 --> 0:07:44.660 labor actually, it's just as simple as they ran a 0:07:44.660 --> 0:07:48.740 good campaign, they had a good policy offering. Um, housing, 0:07:48.740 --> 0:07:51.420 as we know, is one of the most hot button 0:07:51.420 --> 0:07:53.660 issues in the country. And it worked. 0:07:54.340 --> 0:07:56.300 And do you think that maybe the reason the Greens 0:07:56.300 --> 0:07:59.660 haven't succeeded here is because they wanted the perfect solution 0:07:59.660 --> 0:08:02.100 for housing, and perhaps they were just not seen as 0:08:02.100 --> 0:08:06.220 a very serious policy platform, you know, because they would 0:08:06.220 --> 0:08:08.420 accept nothing less than perfection, perhaps. 0:08:08.460 --> 0:08:11.780 Yeah, exactly. It was a case of the greens making 0:08:11.780 --> 0:08:14.900 the perfect the enemy of the good in some ways. 0:08:14.900 --> 0:08:17.580 And there'll be Greens supporters listening to this who will 0:08:17.580 --> 0:08:20.900 resent me saying this. But in some ways it's analogous 0:08:20.900 --> 0:08:24.660 to their decision to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme 0:08:24.740 --> 0:08:27.380 towards the end of 2009, when they voted with the 0:08:27.380 --> 0:08:31.380 Liberal Party, they defeated Kevin Rudd's CPRS, and that then 0:08:31.540 --> 0:08:33.660 kicked off the whole sequence of events that led to 0:08:33.660 --> 0:08:38.100 the change to Julia Gillard, the very poor 2010 election 0:08:38.100 --> 0:08:42.060 for labor, a whole series of of, you know, issues, problems, 0:08:42.059 --> 0:08:43.980 whatever you want to call them flowed from that. And 0:08:43.980 --> 0:08:47.220 I think that's happened here too. You know, personally, Anthony 0:08:47.260 --> 0:08:51.420 Albanese and I do mean personally was determined to defeat 0:08:51.460 --> 0:08:54.500 Max Chandler-mather. He, as we all know, grew up in 0:08:54.500 --> 0:08:57.929 public housing. He was, you know, personally offended that the 0:08:57.929 --> 0:09:01.929 Greens decided to delay legislation that would have facilitated the 0:09:01.929 --> 0:09:04.250 building of more public housing. You know, the sort of 0:09:04.250 --> 0:09:06.370 housing he grew up in. So he made it his 0:09:06.370 --> 0:09:09.250 mission to to sort of not compromise with the Greens 0:09:09.250 --> 0:09:12.490 to get that legislation through which they eventually did, and 0:09:12.490 --> 0:09:15.490 to go after the people led by Max, who'd blocked 0:09:15.490 --> 0:09:18.090 him from implementing his agenda. And it worked, right? 0:09:18.130 --> 0:09:21.209 It did. And let's get on to, I guess, you know, 0:09:21.250 --> 0:09:24.530 another signature policy or platform, I guess for the Greens, 0:09:24.530 --> 0:09:27.770 of course, was their hardline stance on Gaza. They went 0:09:27.809 --> 0:09:30.930 hard backing Palestinians and the war with Israel. Did this 0:09:30.929 --> 0:09:32.489 hurt the party in this election? 0:09:32.530 --> 0:09:34.810 I think this definitely hurt the party. And I think 0:09:34.809 --> 0:09:38.530 that the optics of their close alignment with the construction, forestry, 0:09:38.570 --> 0:09:42.689 Mining and Energy Union when there were allegations, serious allegations 0:09:43.050 --> 0:09:45.250 being made in these, you know, published in the Sydney 0:09:45.250 --> 0:09:47.810 Morning Herald and The Age about the conduct of some 0:09:47.809 --> 0:09:51.210 union officials that led to the union being placed in administration. 0:09:51.530 --> 0:09:53.929 I think their decision to stand so closely with the 0:09:53.929 --> 0:09:57.450 CFMEU probably put a few voters off as well. You know, 0:09:57.730 --> 0:09:59.890 in in seats like Griffith where they may have gone, 0:09:59.929 --> 0:10:04.329 or Ryan or Brisbane straight from the Liberal Party to, 0:10:04.370 --> 0:10:05.970 you know, people might have gone straight from the Liberal 0:10:05.970 --> 0:10:08.170 Party to voting for the Greens. And then, you know, 0:10:08.210 --> 0:10:09.850 through the course of that three years, I think some 0:10:09.850 --> 0:10:12.010 people saw that and said, you know what, I don't 0:10:12.050 --> 0:10:14.770 that doesn't represent my views at all on Gaza or 0:10:14.809 --> 0:10:18.330 on the CFMEU, and they've been punished for that. 0:10:18.330 --> 0:10:22.250 And perhaps no surprise there. It was Max Chandler-mather who 0:10:22.410 --> 0:10:26.090 very prominently stood up, I believe, at a CFMEU rally. 0:10:26.090 --> 0:10:27.530 And I think a lot of people were quite shocked. 0:10:27.530 --> 0:10:28.250 Is that right? 0:10:28.290 --> 0:10:31.370 Yeah. I mean, labor couldn't believe their luck that that 0:10:31.370 --> 0:10:33.930 had happened and that that moment, that rally, that appearance 0:10:33.929 --> 0:10:37.330 by Max Chandler-mather, um, they made use of that to 0:10:37.370 --> 0:10:42.410 remind or rather to paint, uh, that particular MP, former MP, 0:10:42.610 --> 0:10:46.490 as extreme and as sort of out of touch with the, uh, 0:10:46.490 --> 0:10:49.250 the views of the people of Griffith. 0:10:49.290 --> 0:10:51.210 Okay, so what now? I've got to ask for the 0:10:51.210 --> 0:10:54.010 party's leadership, you know, is, is the party still going 0:10:54.050 --> 0:10:57.089 to support Adam Bandt in this new Parliament because I, 0:10:57.210 --> 0:10:59.130 I noted when you spoke on the pod, I think 0:10:59.130 --> 0:11:02.290 it was November last year. At that time, Adam Bandt 0:11:02.490 --> 0:11:05.610 was polling, I think, in a Resolve political Monitor poll. 0:11:05.650 --> 0:11:11.130 He was judged as the third least popular politician in Australia. 0:11:11.170 --> 0:11:13.450 I think he was trailing only behind Lidia Thorpe at 0:11:13.450 --> 0:11:16.730 number one and then Pauline Hanson, and then he was 0:11:16.730 --> 0:11:20.250 equal third least liked politician along with Bob Katter. So 0:11:20.809 --> 0:11:22.690 is the Greens going to stick with that band? 0:11:22.730 --> 0:11:26.290 I think that's very much an open question, Sam. Um, 0:11:26.330 --> 0:11:29.450 the Greens party room process is how they pick leaders, 0:11:29.450 --> 0:11:33.449 how all that goes down. It's not particularly opaque. I 0:11:33.450 --> 0:11:37.569 remember a few months after the 2010 federal election, Bob Brown, 0:11:37.570 --> 0:11:39.329 who was then still the leader of the party, was 0:11:39.330 --> 0:11:41.890 holding a press conference about something or other, and he 0:11:41.890 --> 0:11:45.449 just casually let slip that, uh, the then quite young 0:11:45.929 --> 0:11:49.530 senator Sarah Hanson-Young, had challenged Christine Milne for the deputy's 0:11:49.530 --> 0:11:52.210 job and lost. No one had any idea for four months. 0:11:52.250 --> 0:11:57.040 And we all our jaws all hit the floor What? Sorry. Um, look, 0:11:57.080 --> 0:12:00.520 Adam Bandt is seen generally as, uh, having been a 0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:05.400 pretty good Greens leader. He, uh, improved their seat count 0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:08.800 in 2022 in the lower house. It's gone backwards this 0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:11.960 time round, but the national vote has grown. Bandt, if 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.760 he wants, it, will be arguing that the overall Greens, 0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:19.400 you know, number of votes collected harvested has increased. There's 0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:22.200 been stability for the last 4 or 5 years. Uh 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.680 and that they should stick with him. Right. Um, but 0:12:24.679 --> 0:12:26.600 there will be and I mean, I know there are 0:12:26.600 --> 0:12:28.920 other ambitious people in that party room, and I am 0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:32.960 sure that they are making phone calls at the moment. Um, and, uh, 0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:36.600 you know, testing the waters, uh, sizing up whether to 0:12:36.640 --> 0:12:39.280 challenge Adam Bandt when the greens, you know, the ones 0:12:39.280 --> 0:12:42.400 who have been elected return to their party room in Canberra. 0:12:42.520 --> 0:12:44.120 It's a wait and see at this stage. 0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:46.400 Okay, so give us the names though, James. Which which 0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:48.600 names should we be looking out for? Who? Who might 0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:51.120 just be challenging for the leadership in the future? 0:12:51.320 --> 0:12:55.559 Sure. Look, we're not suggesting that these not suggesting that I'm, 0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:58.240 that I know for sure that these people you know 0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:01.400 are going to contest. But there are talented MPs in 0:13:01.440 --> 0:13:04.320 that party room who could run. Um, Larissa Waters, the 0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:07.600 deputy leader, um, from Queensland, Sarah Hanson-Young, who I mentioned 0:13:07.600 --> 0:13:10.439 a moment ago, who's still, I think, you know, young 0:13:10.440 --> 0:13:12.760 but has been in Parliament now for 18 or 19 0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:16.120 years and has a stack of experience. Um, Mehreen Faruqi, 0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:19.679 the the sort of overall deputy rather than the Senate leader, 0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:22.040 which is waters she could challenge for the position and 0:13:22.040 --> 0:13:25.079 even someone from left field like a David Shoebridge. Um, 0:13:25.080 --> 0:13:28.200 maybe he'll put his hand up. I'm not saying that 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:30.400 I know that any of those people will, but they're 0:13:30.400 --> 0:13:32.920 all in my mind. People with the potential to lead 0:13:32.920 --> 0:13:33.640 the party. 0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:35.920 Okay, now just to wrap up, James, I've got to 0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:38.120 ask what role the Greens will be able to play 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:41.360 going forward because despite losing seats, the party says it 0:13:41.360 --> 0:13:44.240 has a record vote in the Senate. So what's going 0:13:44.280 --> 0:13:47.319 to go on there? Will the Greens help or hinder labor? 0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:49.760 Uh, that's I mean, that for me is perhaps the 0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:54.000 most interesting question because and I say that because of this, Sam, 0:13:54.040 --> 0:13:59.439 all through the last parliament, Albanese, you know, who spent decades, 0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:01.120 you know, fighting the Greens off in his own seat 0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:03.480 of Grayndler, spoke about how he didn't want to do deals. 0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:05.920 He wasn't going to kowtow. You know, he didn't compromise 0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:08.800 on the housing legislation. And eventually he got through exactly 0:14:08.800 --> 0:14:10.800 what he wanted to get through with a couple of 0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:13.319 minor tweaks. I think we're going to see more of 0:14:13.320 --> 0:14:15.559 the same. And we know that Adam Bandt has been 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.280 out in recent days saying now the Greens have sole 0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:21.480 balance of power. Labor must put dental into Medicare and 0:14:21.480 --> 0:14:24.000 they must revise the Aukus plan, and they must do 0:14:24.000 --> 0:14:26.120 this and they must do that. There's no musts that 0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:29.760 Anthony Albanese is going to acquiesce to there. And what 0:14:29.760 --> 0:14:32.680 I think Bandt is at risk of doing already is 0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:36.120 sort of overplaying his hand, because he's forgetting that there 0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:38.080 is actually another party that has the balance of power 0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:40.720 in the Senate, and that's the coalition. Labor can team 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.880 up with the coalition and pass legislation at any time 0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:47.320 all through the 1980s. Once, once, uh, John Howard took 0:14:47.320 --> 0:14:52.080 over from Andrew Peacock, Howard actually supported some of Labor's 0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:56.560 biggest reforms in, you know, in a policy sense. And 0:14:56.560 --> 0:15:02.640 while it arguably extended the coalition's period of time in opposition, 0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:07.280 it also allowed the coalition to rebuild its credibility as 0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:11.040 a serious party that was working towards being ready to 0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:14.560 govern again now. Such was the result on Saturday night. 0:15:14.600 --> 0:15:17.520 It will be tough for the liberals to win in 2028. 0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.280 They might even have to be thinking about 2031. So 0:15:20.280 --> 0:15:22.320 that means there's an opportunity for the next leader of 0:15:22.320 --> 0:15:24.760 the liberals to really think about, well, what do we 0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:26.960 want to do with the next 3 to 6 years? 0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:29.440 Where do we want to position ourselves on policy, and 0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:32.360 do we want to remake ourselves as a slightly less 0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:36.880 hardline oppositionist to everything party? And if they do that, 0:15:36.880 --> 0:15:40.600 then the Greens will be irrelevant. And certainly Anthony Albanese 0:15:40.600 --> 0:15:42.520 will be looking to do deals with the liberals, at 0:15:42.520 --> 0:15:46.880 least on some legislation, say on national security type legislation, 0:15:46.880 --> 0:15:50.840 because he doesn't trust them, you know, their instincts on 0:15:50.840 --> 0:15:54.030 these sorts of matters. So Bant is already talking a 0:15:54.030 --> 0:15:56.070 big game, but I think he needs to be a 0:15:56.070 --> 0:15:58.670 bit more circumspect at this early stage. 0:15:58.710 --> 0:16:01.350 Sam, this is so fascinating. I hope we get to 0:16:01.390 --> 0:16:03.750 speak about this sometime soon. James. 0:16:03.910 --> 0:16:05.030 Thanks, Sam. Pleasure. 0:16:07.790 --> 0:16:11.590 Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Josh towers. 0:16:11.710 --> 0:16:15.310 Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our 0:16:15.310 --> 0:16:18.270 head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon 0:16:18.270 --> 0:16:21.990 as they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, 0:16:21.990 --> 0:16:25.630 or wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered 0:16:25.630 --> 0:16:29.710 by subscriptions, so to support independent journalism, visit The Age 0:16:29.710 --> 0:16:35.310 or smh.com.au. Subscribe and to stay up to date, sign 0:16:35.310 --> 0:16:37.830 up to our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary 0:16:37.830 --> 0:16:41.510 of the day's most important news in your inbox every morning. 0:16:42.070 --> 0:16:45.630 Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger Morris. 0:16:45.830 --> 0:16:46.990 Thanks for listening.