May 18, 2025 • 17 mins
Larissa Waters is the new leader of the Australian Greens.
She steps in as the party reels from its election wipe-out, losing three of its four seats in the House of Representatives – including that of Adam Bandt.
Senator Waters’ task is to repair the Greens’ image: Labor has painted the party as obstructive and militant, and that perception has cost the Greens votes.
Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper, Mike Seccombe, on Larissa Waters – why she won, and whether she can rebuild the Greens.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: National correspondent for The Saturday Paper, Mike Seccombe
Photo: AAP / Joel Carrett
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Oh look. Thank you so much everyone and appreciate you
waiting out here in the cold. I am just so
thrilled to have had the support of my colleagues to
be the leader of the Australian Greens.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
The risk of Waters is the new leader of the
Australian Greens. She takes over as the party reels from
a wipeout at the last election, losing three of their
four seats in the House of Representatives, including their leader.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
And I want to send all of my love, as
does our whole team to our former leader, Adam Bant.
We miss him desperately and he was a wonderful leader
for this party.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Senator Waters's job now is to mend the image of
the Australian Greens, as the perception cultivated by Labor that
the party is obstructionist and militant arguably cost them votes.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
People elected us to get shit done and that's what
we intend to do in the service of people on
the plant.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
From Schwartz Media, I'm Michael Williams filling in for Daniel
and Ruby. This is seven am Today, National correspondent for
the Saturday Paper. Mike's second on Larissa Waters, why she
won and whether she can rebuild the Greens. It's Monday,
May nineteenth, Mike. The Greens have a new leader, Larissa Waters.
(01:29):
So tell us who was she up against and how
did they pick her?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Well, let's start with how they picked her. They picked
her in a very Green's sort of very secretive way.
In fact, the Greens leadership selection process bears some resemblance
to a papal conclave. In fact, it's even more inscrutable
because at least in a papal conclave there are votes. Often,
in the case of Green's leadership ballots, there is no
formal vote taken. The party just talks about it until
(01:56):
it reaches a consensus on who should be the leader
or the deputy leader or whatever. And that's what happened
with the leadership on Thursday. You know, the party room
reached consensus that Larissa Wards was the one to lead.
The two other assumed mooted candidates, Sarah Hanson Young and
Marine Ferruki, pulled out and subsequently Ferruki was reconfirmed as
deputy so to Larissa the ultimate winner. She is the
(02:19):
most low profile of the three. I think you would
say she's interesting. She's got an environmental background, she spent
ten years before she went into the Senate working as
a lawyer for the Queensland Environmental Defender's Office. I'm told
by party sources that she is absolutely loved by the members.
She really presents well. I guess the question is whether
she's tough enough. You know, she's nice, but one source
(02:42):
described her to me as kind of the vanilla option
among the three. The former party leader, though and icon,
Bob Brown, told me he suspect that she's underestimated and
that we might be surprised at just how strong she
can be once in the job.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Do you think Bob's right, Mike, I mean, you've reported
on the Greens for a long time. What do you
make of Larisa Waters?
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, let me start by saying she's nice. She's certainly
well credentialed. She's got degrees in both science and the law.
The latter the lawd agree with honors. She's dedicated to
the Green's original cause. She's diligent, she has a strong
track record of work in Senate committees. There's a list
as long as your arm on the Parliamentary website. And
she's enduring. You know, she has shared the deputy position
(03:28):
with three different co deputies under two leaders over seven years,
so she's experienced. She's performed in a number of different portfolios,
notably the portfolio of Women's Affairs, and has had some
good runs on the board there. But I come back
to the fact that she seems nice, and I don't
say that glibly, but because she has something about her
(03:50):
of the sort of Tanya plebasec. She connects with people,
and given the party's current circumstance, it may well be
that that's as important as anything, is that she seems
nice and reasonable and not overly aggressive.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Well, that makes a lot of sense. I mean you've
reported widely, Mike about that perception that seems to have
taken hold in the community, that the Greens have become obstructionists,
that they're angry, and that that's this turn off for voters.
What sense do you have of whether the Greens are
hearing that message and whether the pick of Senator Waters
(04:26):
might suggest they're trying to write the ship.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Well, they know it's a problem. You know, whether it's
a fair characterization or not is another matter, but they
certainly know it's a problem, and they know also that
it's a perception that Labor has assiduously cultivated over the
past few years, and it landed pretty successfully in the media,
particularly the right wing media. Greens Party members, including some
in the party room, tell me they were picking it
(04:50):
up at polling places as they handed out their Heart
of Vote cards.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
My next question comes from Amazon.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And you.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
So my question to Senator Schubridge.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
And you've really got a sense of this. I think
on Monday night where Q and A had David Chubridge
if the Greens on the panel, and one of the
members of the audience stood up and asked a question.
Speaker 5 (05:12):
The Greens have seeing their support decrease during the previous term,
particularly in electates where members held seats. Given the reduced
support from members who are directly associated with moves to
block legislation in the Senate, is now the time for
the Greens to truly uphold their promise to work constructively
with the government or will you continue to obstruct in
the Senate and attack the government in the press.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Chubridge, in response, talked about the need to work constructively.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
And there is now no excuse for us not having
the kind of relationship with labor where we can just
sit down and talk through the issues and hopefully put
forward some of that incredibly important legislation and policy that
we're going to need.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Because you certainly didn't mention any names about, you know,
pointing the finger at anyone for being obstructive. But Labour's
Ed Husick, who was also in the panel, piped up
at that point and he did name some names, and
there was a slight mutual admiration thing going on, I
think between Husick and Schuebridge, because Husick praised Chubridge for
being consultative in their dealings and then said, but there's
(06:14):
a big difference between a David Schubridge and a Max Chandler.
Speaker 6 (06:17):
Masa, David and I did have to work together and
work together, I thought constructively on particularly issues around tech,
where you don't agree with everything, but you reach common ground.
That wasn't always the case though, and the most frustrating
thing for us was around housing.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Of course. Matha was the rather hardline housing spokesman for
the Greens in the last parliament and he lost his
seat and after the election, of course, Anthony Alberanezi made
a big point of calling him out for his quote
unquote offensive behavior in the parliament. And it's not only
Labor of course that is pointing this out, and it's
not only people at the polling boost. You know Drew
(06:55):
Hutton who helped found the party with Bob Brown all
those years ago. He's no longer actively involved, but he
was quoted in the nine media this week complaining of
a quote hyper militant approach by the party over the
past three years and also accusing them of having a
terrible way. He put it, of expressing their moral superiority,
(07:15):
and he said they needed to get out and talk
meaningfully with ordinary Australians.
Speaker 6 (07:19):
How are the Greens going to be different under your
leadership compared with what it was like under Adam Band?
Is there going to be a bit of a change
in direction, even a subtle one.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, look, Mike. Both in her press conference and in
her first interviews as leader, Larissa Waters went out of
her way to praise Adam Band, but also to stress
the sheers and a quote a different person.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
But I am a different person and I bring a
different style. I really want to get outcomes. I really
want to work with the current government to try to improve.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Why do you think she felt it was so important
to separate herself from Band and to distinguish her own
leadership style from his.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, there's a few factors. I spoke to a number
of people in the party room in the lead up
to the leadership change. You know, they spoke obviously on
the condition of anonymity, But under bands leadership, I was
told by a couple the Greens sort of long standing
process of collective decision making became more of a top
(08:17):
down model. One person actually called it command and control
was the way they put it. And to some extent
they told me this was a matter of circumstance because
at the last election the Greens inherited four new and
inexperienced senators and three new House members, so that's almost
half the party room. So obviously, you know, they were
learning their way, and maybe that gives some excuse for
the leadership group to have a bit more influence. But
(08:40):
the way it was put to me, and I'm quoting
someone here, there was a definite A team and a
B team, and you know, the A team made the cause.
I should note here, incidentally, that the A team included
all three of the mooted candidates for the leadership, you know,
Hans and Young Feruki and Waters. So to some extent
that was a criticism of them, I think as well
as ban but I get the impression and that the
(09:00):
party roumors made this known to Larisa Wards, that they
want it to be a bit more consultative, and I
think she's going to be. The people I spoke to
also felt that under band the party focused too much
on trying to expand its numbers in the House of
Representatives and as part of that, on attacking Peter Dutton
rather than articulating a positive agenda. It probably looked like
(09:20):
a good idea a few months back when it looked
like it might be a tight run race in the House,
but obviously it didn't work out.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
That way.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
After the break. Why Labour needs the Greens, whether or
not they'd like to admit it, Mike, I've been fascinated
to read in your reporting the ways in which other
factors may have contributed to the greens poor showing, and
one of them in particular that you've singled out was
the idea that less emphasis on climate and the environment
(09:52):
was causing damage to their brand. How well placed will
Larissa Wards be to refocus the party's attention on this area.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well, First, you're absolutely right that has been a criticism,
and I understand that that was raised not in the
party room meeting that elected the new leader, but there
was one a couple of days beforehand to sort of
look at the direction of the party, and that was
definitely one of the themes of it. And it's certainly
also true that compared with Band and particularly Chandler Matha,
(10:20):
she comes more out of that stream in the party,
you know, from an environmental background, as obvious from her history.
I guess so I suspect that we're going to see
Larissa Waters chart a slightly new course in the Parliament.
That doesn't mean that the party will drop issues like
housing and gaza. You know, social justice has always been
one of the Green's pillars, but I suspect we'll see
(10:42):
a change in emphasis, and to some extent that will
be due to the new leader. And to some extent
also it's kind of dictated by the election outcome. Right,
while the Greens failed in the House of Reps, they're
actually much more powerful in the Senate than they were.
And you know, these two factors say to me that
the Greens will you know, be focusing very heavily on
what they can do in the Senate and first and
(11:04):
foremost in the Senate, I would suggest, you know, we'll
be getting better environmental laws, you know, working with Labor
who were going to reintroduce what they call their Nature
Positive suite of legislation that they failed to get through
in the last parliament.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
I'm glad you mentioned the Nature Positive laws because you
know famously that negotiation was going well and was kibosh
by the PM at the last minute. But we have
a new environment minister as well, in Murray Watt. How
do you think the nature Positive laws negotiations are likely
to go between what and waters?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You're right, in the previous parliament, Sarah Hanson Young and
Tanya Plebisek, the then Labor Environment Minister, formed a pretty
good working relationship. They did actually make progress and reach
agreement on aspects of the Nature Positive laws, and then
they went to the Prime Minister's office and he kiboshed them,
you know, largely at the behest or at the claimed
behest of the w a premier. He literally claimed responsibility
(11:58):
for it. So going to the new parliament, Murray what
the new minister is seen by the Greens as much
more pro development and potentially pro mining an a fixer
for the government. I mean, he's a deal maker. I
spoke to Bob Brown about this and I'll quote him.
He said, the appointment of Murray, what is a torpedo
into the hopes of environmentalists right around Australia. It's confrontational
(12:22):
by alban easy. So that's his view and I suspect
if he's reading it that way, so's the Greens party room.
Bottom line here is Waters is going to have a
tough job.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
All right. So the big question Mike ultimately has to
be can the Greens do this rebrand? Can they change
tone without backing down from what they believe in? Is
the inevitable product of a brand change a softer, less
effective presence in the Parliament.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Well, there's certainly not painting it that way right. What
they're saying is that they're here to deal with the
government and they're here to be cooperative, but they're not
walking away from the issues they care about. The broadview
seems to be that they need to change their tone,
not their policies. I spoke with another former leader, Richard
de Natalie, who led the party before Adam Bann, and
(13:09):
the way he put it was that in terms of substance. Actually,
the platform that they took to this election, which wasn't
so successful, was the same as the one that they
took to the previous election, at which they were very successful,
and essentially the same as the one that they took
to the election before that. So, you know, he said
things like reforming capital gains tax and the negative gearing,
you know, things that they've been banging on about for
(13:30):
ten years. About housing, he said, they're still going to
be banging on about. It's really just a question of tone.
And he made what I thought was a very good point.
You know, he said that he keeps reading about how
the Greens today are not the party of Bob Brown anymore.
But he went back and pointed out that when it
was the party of Bob Brown, he said, they fucking
hated us just as much. That's a quote I should add.
(13:50):
That's not my obscenity, you know, he said, when Bob
stood up and took on George Bush in the Parliament,
remember famously, when he was a lone voice protesting against
the way we treated the refugees on Tampa, the same
people were out there trying to smash him. It was
the same criticism, you know, that the Greens were too
hard lined, that they were too inflexible. So Dina Tali
actually sees this election as a bit of a glitch.
(14:12):
The way he interprets it and the way he said
some people had explained it to him was that people
were so scared of a Dutton prime ministership that they
chose to vote Labor, you know, and Bob Brown, he
made the point to me that Labour actually only received
thirty four percent of the first preference vote and that
its huge majority was built very much on the preferences
(14:32):
from Greens and from Teals, all of whom are far
more progressive in particularly on climate and the environment than Laborers.
So the government Labor needs the Greens. As much as
they might hate the fact that they do, they still
need the Greens. And I would also make the point that,
you know, what goes up must come down in politics
(14:54):
as in everything else, and governments inevitably disappoint. So it's
entirely possible that by the time time of the next
election some of the shine will have come off the
Albanesi government and some of those rep seats the Greens
either lost or narrowly missed out On could very well
be back in play. But in the meantime, I just
think that they've probably made a wise choice in Larisa Waters,
(15:16):
because it's going to be very hard for Labor for
Anthony Alberanzi to portray the Greens as angry, you know,
as people are looking at the open, friendly face of
Larisa Waters.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well, it's been a pleasure looking at your open friendly
faces today. Thanks mate, Thanks for joining us anytime.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Cheers.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Also in the news, Anthony Alberanzi has joined other world leaders,
royals and pilgrims at the inaugural mass of Pope Leo
the fourteenth at Saint Peter's Square in Rome. Pope Leo
is the first American pontiff in the history. Born in Chicago,
the sixty nine year old was elected after a conclave
that lasted just over twenty four hours. And the Liberal
(16:11):
Party is divided over climate, according to senior front bencher
Anne Ruston. Speaking on Insiders, Ruston said it's no secret
people in the party don't agree on net zero. Leader
Susan Lee has committed to review the Liberal Party's entire
agenda as right wing members intensify their push to scrap
the target. Senator Jacinta nampenjimper Price has blamed that zero
(16:34):
for causing the cost of living crisis. Meanwhile, Senator Alexantik
said the target should be abandoned in order to appeal
to the electorate. Dumping the target would end bipartisan political support.
Are Michael Williams, This is seven Am. Daniel James will
be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
At one
Oh look. Thank you so much everyone and appreciate you
waiting out here in the cold. I am just so
thrilled to have had the support of my colleagues to
be the leader of the Australian Greens.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
The risk of Waters is the new leader of the
Australian Greens. She takes over as the party reels from
a wipeout at the last election, losing three of their
four seats in the House of Representatives, including their leader.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
And I want to send all of my love, as
does our whole team to our former leader, Adam Bant.
We miss him desperately and he was a wonderful leader
for this party.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Senator Waters's job now is to mend the image of
the Australian Greens, as the perception cultivated by Labor that
the party is obstructionist and militant arguably cost them votes.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
People elected us to get shit done and that's what
we intend to do in the service of people on
the plant.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
From Schwartz Media, I'm Michael Williams filling in for Daniel
and Ruby. This is seven am Today, National correspondent for
the Saturday Paper. Mike's second on Larissa Waters, why she
won and whether she can rebuild the Greens. It's Monday,
May nineteenth, Mike. The Greens have a new leader, Larissa Waters.
(01:29):
So tell us who was she up against and how
did they pick her?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Well, let's start with how they picked her. They picked
her in a very Green's sort of very secretive way.
In fact, the Greens leadership selection process bears some resemblance
to a papal conclave. In fact, it's even more inscrutable
because at least in a papal conclave there are votes. Often,
in the case of Green's leadership ballots, there is no
formal vote taken. The party just talks about it until
(01:56):
it reaches a consensus on who should be the leader
or the deputy leader or whatever. And that's what happened
with the leadership on Thursday. You know, the party room
reached consensus that Larissa Wards was the one to lead.
The two other assumed mooted candidates, Sarah Hanson Young and
Marine Ferruki, pulled out and subsequently Ferruki was reconfirmed as
deputy so to Larissa the ultimate winner. She is the
(02:19):
most low profile of the three. I think you would
say she's interesting. She's got an environmental background, she spent
ten years before she went into the Senate working as
a lawyer for the Queensland Environmental Defender's Office. I'm told
by party sources that she is absolutely loved by the members.
She really presents well. I guess the question is whether
she's tough enough. You know, she's nice, but one source
(02:42):
described her to me as kind of the vanilla option
among the three. The former party leader, though and icon,
Bob Brown, told me he suspect that she's underestimated and
that we might be surprised at just how strong she
can be once in the job.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Do you think Bob's right, Mike, I mean, you've reported
on the Greens for a long time. What do you
make of Larisa Waters?
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, let me start by saying she's nice. She's certainly
well credentialed. She's got degrees in both science and the law.
The latter the lawd agree with honors. She's dedicated to
the Green's original cause. She's diligent, she has a strong
track record of work in Senate committees. There's a list
as long as your arm on the Parliamentary website. And
she's enduring. You know, she has shared the deputy position
(03:28):
with three different co deputies under two leaders over seven years,
so she's experienced. She's performed in a number of different portfolios,
notably the portfolio of Women's Affairs, and has had some
good runs on the board there. But I come back
to the fact that she seems nice, and I don't
say that glibly, but because she has something about her
(03:50):
of the sort of Tanya plebasec. She connects with people,
and given the party's current circumstance, it may well be
that that's as important as anything, is that she seems
nice and reasonable and not overly aggressive.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Well, that makes a lot of sense. I mean you've
reported widely, Mike about that perception that seems to have
taken hold in the community, that the Greens have become obstructionists,
that they're angry, and that that's this turn off for voters.
What sense do you have of whether the Greens are
hearing that message and whether the pick of Senator Waters
(04:26):
might suggest they're trying to write the ship.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Well, they know it's a problem. You know, whether it's
a fair characterization or not is another matter, but they
certainly know it's a problem, and they know also that
it's a perception that Labor has assiduously cultivated over the
past few years, and it landed pretty successfully in the media,
particularly the right wing media. Greens Party members, including some
in the party room, tell me they were picking it
(04:50):
up at polling places as they handed out their Heart
of Vote cards.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
My next question comes from Amazon.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And you.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
So my question to Senator Schubridge.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
And you've really got a sense of this. I think
on Monday night where Q and A had David Chubridge
if the Greens on the panel, and one of the
members of the audience stood up and asked a question.
Speaker 5 (05:12):
The Greens have seeing their support decrease during the previous term,
particularly in electates where members held seats. Given the reduced
support from members who are directly associated with moves to
block legislation in the Senate, is now the time for
the Greens to truly uphold their promise to work constructively
with the government or will you continue to obstruct in
the Senate and attack the government in the press.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Chubridge, in response, talked about the need to work constructively.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
And there is now no excuse for us not having
the kind of relationship with labor where we can just
sit down and talk through the issues and hopefully put
forward some of that incredibly important legislation and policy that
we're going to need.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Because you certainly didn't mention any names about, you know,
pointing the finger at anyone for being obstructive. But Labour's
Ed Husick, who was also in the panel, piped up
at that point and he did name some names, and
there was a slight mutual admiration thing going on, I
think between Husick and Schuebridge, because Husick praised Chubridge for
being consultative in their dealings and then said, but there's
(06:14):
a big difference between a David Schubridge and a Max Chandler.
Speaker 6 (06:17):
Masa, David and I did have to work together and
work together, I thought constructively on particularly issues around tech,
where you don't agree with everything, but you reach common ground.
That wasn't always the case though, and the most frustrating
thing for us was around housing.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Of course. Matha was the rather hardline housing spokesman for
the Greens in the last parliament and he lost his
seat and after the election, of course, Anthony Alberanezi made
a big point of calling him out for his quote
unquote offensive behavior in the parliament. And it's not only
Labor of course that is pointing this out, and it's
not only people at the polling boost. You know Drew
(06:55):
Hutton who helped found the party with Bob Brown all
those years ago. He's no longer actively involved, but he
was quoted in the nine media this week complaining of
a quote hyper militant approach by the party over the
past three years and also accusing them of having a
terrible way. He put it, of expressing their moral superiority,
(07:15):
and he said they needed to get out and talk
meaningfully with ordinary Australians.
Speaker 6 (07:19):
How are the Greens going to be different under your
leadership compared with what it was like under Adam Band?
Is there going to be a bit of a change
in direction, even a subtle one.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, look, Mike. Both in her press conference and in
her first interviews as leader, Larissa Waters went out of
her way to praise Adam Band, but also to stress
the sheers and a quote a different person.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
But I am a different person and I bring a
different style. I really want to get outcomes. I really
want to work with the current government to try to improve.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Why do you think she felt it was so important
to separate herself from Band and to distinguish her own
leadership style from his.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, there's a few factors. I spoke to a number
of people in the party room in the lead up
to the leadership change. You know, they spoke obviously on
the condition of anonymity, But under bands leadership, I was
told by a couple the Greens sort of long standing
process of collective decision making became more of a top
(08:17):
down model. One person actually called it command and control
was the way they put it. And to some extent
they told me this was a matter of circumstance because
at the last election the Greens inherited four new and
inexperienced senators and three new House members, so that's almost
half the party room. So obviously, you know, they were
learning their way, and maybe that gives some excuse for
the leadership group to have a bit more influence. But
(08:40):
the way it was put to me, and I'm quoting
someone here, there was a definite A team and a
B team, and you know, the A team made the cause.
I should note here, incidentally, that the A team included
all three of the mooted candidates for the leadership, you know,
Hans and Young Feruki and Waters. So to some extent
that was a criticism of them, I think as well
as ban but I get the impression and that the
(09:00):
party roumors made this known to Larisa Wards, that they
want it to be a bit more consultative, and I
think she's going to be. The people I spoke to
also felt that under band the party focused too much
on trying to expand its numbers in the House of
Representatives and as part of that, on attacking Peter Dutton
rather than articulating a positive agenda. It probably looked like
(09:20):
a good idea a few months back when it looked
like it might be a tight run race in the House,
but obviously it didn't work out.
Speaker 5 (09:26):
That way.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
After the break. Why Labour needs the Greens, whether or
not they'd like to admit it, Mike, I've been fascinated
to read in your reporting the ways in which other
factors may have contributed to the greens poor showing, and
one of them in particular that you've singled out was
the idea that less emphasis on climate and the environment
(09:52):
was causing damage to their brand. How well placed will
Larissa Wards be to refocus the party's attention on this area.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Well, First, you're absolutely right that has been a criticism,
and I understand that that was raised not in the
party room meeting that elected the new leader, but there
was one a couple of days beforehand to sort of
look at the direction of the party, and that was
definitely one of the themes of it. And it's certainly
also true that compared with Band and particularly Chandler Matha,
(10:20):
she comes more out of that stream in the party,
you know, from an environmental background, as obvious from her history.
I guess so I suspect that we're going to see
Larissa Waters chart a slightly new course in the Parliament.
That doesn't mean that the party will drop issues like
housing and gaza. You know, social justice has always been
one of the Green's pillars, but I suspect we'll see
(10:42):
a change in emphasis, and to some extent that will
be due to the new leader. And to some extent
also it's kind of dictated by the election outcome. Right,
while the Greens failed in the House of Reps, they're
actually much more powerful in the Senate than they were.
And you know, these two factors say to me that
the Greens will you know, be focusing very heavily on
what they can do in the Senate and first and
(11:04):
foremost in the Senate, I would suggest, you know, we'll
be getting better environmental laws, you know, working with Labor
who were going to reintroduce what they call their Nature
Positive suite of legislation that they failed to get through
in the last parliament.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
I'm glad you mentioned the Nature Positive laws because you
know famously that negotiation was going well and was kibosh
by the PM at the last minute. But we have
a new environment minister as well, in Murray Watt. How
do you think the nature Positive laws negotiations are likely
to go between what and waters?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You're right, in the previous parliament, Sarah Hanson Young and
Tanya Plebisek, the then Labor Environment Minister, formed a pretty
good working relationship. They did actually make progress and reach
agreement on aspects of the Nature Positive laws, and then
they went to the Prime Minister's office and he kiboshed them,
you know, largely at the behest or at the claimed
behest of the w a premier. He literally claimed responsibility
(11:58):
for it. So going to the new parliament, Murray what
the new minister is seen by the Greens as much
more pro development and potentially pro mining an a fixer
for the government. I mean, he's a deal maker. I
spoke to Bob Brown about this and I'll quote him.
He said, the appointment of Murray, what is a torpedo
into the hopes of environmentalists right around Australia. It's confrontational
(12:22):
by alban easy. So that's his view and I suspect
if he's reading it that way, so's the Greens party room.
Bottom line here is Waters is going to have a
tough job.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
All right. So the big question Mike ultimately has to
be can the Greens do this rebrand? Can they change
tone without backing down from what they believe in? Is
the inevitable product of a brand change a softer, less
effective presence in the Parliament.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Well, there's certainly not painting it that way right. What
they're saying is that they're here to deal with the
government and they're here to be cooperative, but they're not
walking away from the issues they care about. The broadview
seems to be that they need to change their tone,
not their policies. I spoke with another former leader, Richard
de Natalie, who led the party before Adam Bann, and
(13:09):
the way he put it was that in terms of substance. Actually,
the platform that they took to this election, which wasn't
so successful, was the same as the one that they
took to the previous election, at which they were very successful,
and essentially the same as the one that they took
to the election before that. So, you know, he said
things like reforming capital gains tax and the negative gearing,
you know, things that they've been banging on about for
(13:30):
ten years. About housing, he said, they're still going to
be banging on about. It's really just a question of tone.
And he made what I thought was a very good point.
You know, he said that he keeps reading about how
the Greens today are not the party of Bob Brown anymore.
But he went back and pointed out that when it
was the party of Bob Brown, he said, they fucking
hated us just as much. That's a quote I should add.
(13:50):
That's not my obscenity, you know, he said, when Bob
stood up and took on George Bush in the Parliament,
remember famously, when he was a lone voice protesting against
the way we treated the refugees on Tampa, the same
people were out there trying to smash him. It was
the same criticism, you know, that the Greens were too
hard lined, that they were too inflexible. So Dina Tali
actually sees this election as a bit of a glitch.
(14:12):
The way he interprets it and the way he said
some people had explained it to him was that people
were so scared of a Dutton prime ministership that they
chose to vote Labor, you know, and Bob Brown, he
made the point to me that Labour actually only received
thirty four percent of the first preference vote and that
its huge majority was built very much on the preferences
(14:32):
from Greens and from Teals, all of whom are far
more progressive in particularly on climate and the environment than Laborers.
So the government Labor needs the Greens. As much as
they might hate the fact that they do, they still
need the Greens. And I would also make the point that,
you know, what goes up must come down in politics
(14:54):
as in everything else, and governments inevitably disappoint. So it's
entirely possible that by the time time of the next
election some of the shine will have come off the
Albanesi government and some of those rep seats the Greens
either lost or narrowly missed out On could very well
be back in play. But in the meantime, I just
think that they've probably made a wise choice in Larisa Waters,
(15:16):
because it's going to be very hard for Labor for
Anthony Alberanzi to portray the Greens as angry, you know,
as people are looking at the open, friendly face of
Larisa Waters.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Well, it's been a pleasure looking at your open friendly
faces today. Thanks mate, Thanks for joining us anytime.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Cheers.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Also in the news, Anthony Alberanzi has joined other world leaders,
royals and pilgrims at the inaugural mass of Pope Leo
the fourteenth at Saint Peter's Square in Rome. Pope Leo
is the first American pontiff in the history. Born in Chicago,
the sixty nine year old was elected after a conclave
that lasted just over twenty four hours. And the Liberal
(16:11):
Party is divided over climate, according to senior front bencher
Anne Ruston. Speaking on Insiders, Ruston said it's no secret
people in the party don't agree on net zero. Leader
Susan Lee has committed to review the Liberal Party's entire
agenda as right wing members intensify their push to scrap
the target. Senator Jacinta nampenjimper Price has blamed that zero
(16:34):
for causing the cost of living crisis. Meanwhile, Senator Alexantik
said the target should be abandoned in order to appeal
to the electorate. Dumping the target would end bipartisan political support.
Are Michael Williams, This is seven Am. Daniel James will
be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
At one
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.