October 10, 2025 • 16 mins
Labor is trying to land one of its toughest reforms – an overhaul of Australia’s environmental laws.
Environment Minister Murray Watt says he wants to speed up housing and energy project developments, make it clear where construction can and can’t go ahead, and create a federal environment watchdog.
After a failed deal with the Greens in the last parliament, Labor is now dealing with the Coalition.
So what will that mean for the environment?
Today, contributing editor at The New Daily, Amy Remeikis – on Labor’s wheeling and dealing – and the Coalition’s continued identity crisis.
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: Contributing editor at The New Daily, Amy Remeikis
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):
I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. Labor
is trying to land one of its toughest reforms, an
overhaul of Australia's environmental laws. The Minister Murray Watt says
he wants to speed up housing and energy project developments,
make it clear where construction can and can't go ahead,
(00:23):
and create a federal environment watchdog. After a failed deal
with the Greens in the last Parliament, Labour is now
dealing with the coalition. So what will that mean for
the environment Today Contributing editor at The New Daily, Amy
Remikus on Labour's wheeling and dealing and the coalition's continued
identity crisis. It's Saturday, October eleven, Amy, thanks for being here.
(00:55):
The Environment Minister Murray wa has been trying to rewrite
Australia's environment laws. So how's he going with that?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Yeah, that's a really interesting one because the Labor government
came to power back in twenty twenty two saying that
it would protect the environment, that it would get this done,
that we would have an EPA that would be able
to make decisions for the government. They haven't managed to
get these laws through, mostly because industry does not like them,
and so what we have now is a government that
(01:25):
had almost come to an agreement with the Greens, had
almost managed in the last parliament to get this signed
off on. Industry really didn't like this, particularly in Western Australia.
WA Premier Roger Cook said that he spoke to alban
Ezi on Tuesday and received an assurance that these laws
would be on ice. Anthony Albanesi swooped in and said, Nope,
(01:48):
We're not doing a deal with the Greens. This is
not what we want. We cannot get this bill through
the parliament, even though they could.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
We were concerned in relation to some of the elements
of the nature positive laws and that position very clear.
Are very pleased to have received assurances from the highest
levels of government that those laws will not be going
ahead in their current form this week.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
And so we're back in the new parliament with Labor
negotiating with the coalition who this time have come to
the table, something that they didn't do in twenty twenty
two's parliament under Peter Dutton. Because the mining industry has
just basically said to them, what are you doing If
you don't negotiate, Labor will have to negotiate with the
(02:32):
Greens to get this through, and we would much rather
have you negotiate with Labor than the Greens, which essentially
means that Labor is going to be on board with
the coalition, with the Matt Canavans and the Barnaby Joyces
when it comes to environmental laws, rather than come up
with a package that will actually do something and go
(02:53):
through the Greens.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Okay, so what did the coalition want from the bill
and what was it about what the Greens wanted them
made walk away?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
The coalition pretty much wants to ensure that the mining
industry is protected, so they're essentially making sure that this
bill does not go any further than it absolutely has
to to give the sheen that we're doing something to
protect the environment, but they don't want it to actually
have anything in there that would stop development that the
mining industry might want. And one of the key things
(03:25):
in there is the climate trigger, which is what the
Greens have wanted for some time. And what the climate
trigger is is essentially if a project's emissions would have
damage to Australia's emissions target or would be seen to
be adding to Australia's emissions then that would automatically mean
that the project could not go ahead. So the Greens
(03:46):
wanted to set a climate target that would be incorporated
into all of these laws that every mine and every
fossil fuel project would be subject to. The industry doesn't
want anything that will touch this rather kind of cushy
arrangement that it has with sort of i would say,
greenwashing of how they're actually getting rid of these omissions,
(04:07):
and the Liberals do not want the industry to have
to face a climate trigger, and so essentially they're coming
up with the bare minimum. The only issue that seems
to still be a bit contentious is whether the Minister
will have the final say on a project or whether
a statutory body like the EPA would have the final say.
(04:32):
That is still up for debate, and even the environmental
movement is split on that as well. A lot of
strong environmentalists want the Minister to maintain the power to
be able to stop a project because they think that
community expectations and public opinion does matter, which is something
that an environmental protection agency that is just looking at
(04:54):
the data may not take into account. And we're yet
to see which way the negotiations on that will go.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
When it comes to stopping projects or all these pausing
projects senate estimates This week exposed a pretty big coal
in Australia's current laws when it was revealed that the
Environment Department couldn't legally hit pause and suspected illegal land clearing.
Can he gets explain what happened?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Yeah, So this is an exact example of why we
do need stronger laws and what we're not necessarily looking
at when it comes to these laws. This is an
area in central Queensland, a coal mine, the Gemini coal Mine,
that has been suspected of doing illegal land clearing, where
conservationalists have said that there is urgent need for protections
(05:39):
for the environment and for native species.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
If they've been clearing koala habitat without approval already, like how.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Much is left? So it's an allegation.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well no, no, no.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
No true.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Either the trees still exist that the koalas are living
in or they don't. They've either been knocked down or
they still are.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
It's currently an allegation, mister mcquin.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
There are examples of it from the air where the
Council has been able to take photographs and basically say
that an area has been cleared that there doesn't look
like there has been permissioned for but nobody can tell
them to stop because there's nothing in the legislation that
says that they can legally tell them to stop. And Queensland,
which has land clearing laws, has a whole bunch of
(06:21):
loopholes in those laws. It's still considered by conservationalists to
be the deforestation capital of Australia. And one of the
reasons why is that there is no sort of federal
oversight to say, bang, you have to stop this project.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
So as it stands, is the reform that the coalition
and the government are now negotiating, is that going to
create those kind of stop work powers and is that
something that the Coalition would support in particular.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Not at the moment, it is something that the Greens want,
and the Greens are pushing very hard to try and
ensure that all of these loopholes become public and so
that people can see what is not in the legislation
that needs to be So if they can't get the
climate trigger, if they can't have the government negotiate with them,
the hope is that by exposing these cases more widely
(07:12):
that people will actually put pressure on labor to include it.
But if the Coalition want to make industry happy, then
the Coalition have to vote for these laws if labor
include it. So there is some power for movement there,
which is only going to force a bit more of
a split in the Nationals and the Liberal Party because
(07:34):
the Nationals really do not want this stop work trigger
going on. So it's one of those really weird four
D chess dances that go on with legislation at time,
and I think that it's one that's going to be
very interesting to keep an eye on.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
So despite all of that, there is broad consensus amongst
the parties that Australia's environmental protection laws need to be
over the way that it's going at the moment. Are
you confident the government is going to deliver new laws
that will work for the environment.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
No, no, I'm not confident that these laws will work
for the environment. And Murray what said in Senate estimates
that Labour's job was to balance the needs of business
with the environment, which pretty much says everything you need
to know about the direction that these laws are going in.
We know from history that if you're trying to balance
(08:30):
business and industry with protecting the environment. The environment tends
to lose every.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Time coming up. Andrew Hasty has gone from the front bench,
but his supporters are still shaping the coalition's tactics. I mean,
this was the first week that the Liberals haven't had
(08:57):
Andrew Hasty on the front bench changed things for the party.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Susan Lee has been working very hard to try and
stop people talking about Andrew Hasty and the leadership woes,
and she's tried to switch focus to what Labor is doing.
So she wanted to focus on the TRIPLEO optus failure
in parliament this week and that was her main focus
for most of the parliament.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
Thank you, missus speaking. My question is to the Minister
for Communications. One hundred and forty seven days ago the
minister was sworn into her portfolio and yet she still
self identifies as a new minister being you is no
excuse Australian's dialing triple zero in an emergency cannot wait
for you to learn the minister isn't a crossover.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
However, on the other side of that equation you had
Andrew Hasty, who was largely silent this week, but he
had his own pratorian guard out there basically advancing his cause.
So you had senators like Jacinta Price, who was going
out there talking about these terrible leaks that have come
out about Andrew Hasty and how that needs stop.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
Look, I have a lot of respect for Andrew. I
think that he has certainly shown his man of principle
and of conviction.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
You had other people coming out and talking about how
he was a man of integrity and how these issues
that were being raised in the party room came from,
you know, a place of him supporting the base and
him wanting to broaden what the coalition was actually standing for.
Speaker 6 (10:25):
Yeah, he's done great work for our party. But you know,
he's made his decision. I don't think, and he's not
indicated that there's any any other intent behind it except
for not being able to voice his opinions on immigration.
I can feel that for him.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
And then you had people who are on I would
say Andrew Hasty's side of the political coin, like Michaulia
Cash pushing this Isis bride scandal.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
The last time I checked, I would have thought the
Prime Minister would actually be all over this issue in
terms of the return of Isis brides and their children
to Australia and would want to be upfront with the
Australian people in relation to the measures that the government
is taking to keep Australian safe. So again I'm asking
(11:13):
you about it.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And it wasn't just Michaulia Cash talking about these women
and children who have returned to Australia from Syria. James Patterson,
who's feeling and your Hasty's Portfolio of Home Affairs for
the time being was talking about it too. So what
is the coalition's line here?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
The actual attack line from James Patterson and Michalia Cash.
And for people who haven't followed James Patterson's career, he's
a new South Wales Liberal senator who is a security
hawk and while he hasn't been actively involved in the
front lines in pushing the coalition's security and border's message,
he's been heavily involved in the background in crafting these
(11:49):
sorts of lines and strategies. His line is that Australia
should have put temporary stops on these women and children's
return to Australia.
Speaker 7 (12:00):
The Parliament has given the Executive Government of Australia the
power to apply for a temporary exclusion order to prevent
an Australian citizen who's travel overseas to associate with the
terrorist organization from returning to our country. Very clearly, the
government did not use these powers in this instance, and
they should explain why.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
He is saying that that is something a trigger the
government could have pulled and didn't pull and therefore Australians
may be at risk. There is no suggestion Australians are
at risk, as we know from what has been said
in Parliament that the authorities were aware that the women
and children managed to make their own way out of
their camp to a third party country where they have
(12:41):
received the documents to return to Australia as citizens, as
is their right. They have returned to Australia. They are
being monitored. We are told they are under investigation as
to whether or not they have broken any Australian laws
while they have been in Syria, and there is no
suggestion that if that's proven, that they will not face
consquences in the Australian judicial system. It's essentially people like
(13:04):
James Pattison and Michaalia Cash and Andrew Hasty trying to
return the Coalition to its natural safe place in Australian
policy of being stronger on borders, stronger on national security,
and they're trying really hard to try to say Labor
is weak on this. But I think that for the
most part this hasn't really taken off, except for in
(13:25):
Conservative media and for what has happened in Parliament, because
I think that most people have sort of moved on
from where we were under the Tony Abbot years, and
in fact even under Scott Morrison. People are a little
bit more aware of what citizens' rights are and I
think they have more trust in the security agencies than
maybe people like James Patterson give them credit for.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
What does it say to you, Amy that Susan Lee
was trying to focus on OPTUS, Well, a lot of
a party wanted to talk about women coming home from
Syria instead.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Well, I think the fact that Susan Lee did not
want to until she absolutely had to speaks volumes about
the split in the coalition party room that is continuing.
She really, really really wants the party to focus on
what she says is making life better for every day Australian.
She wants the party to go back to cost of living,
to small government, to tax reform, to ensuring that small
(14:21):
businesses are protected. She wants them to focus on those
everyday issues. There is a very large portion of the
Coalition party room, and you can include the Nationals in
this who want more of the culture wars rather than
actually talking about individual domestic lives. That is the fight
that is going on in the Coalition at the moment,
(14:43):
and I think that this week, where you saw Susan
Lee really try to hold the line and keep it
on domestic issues, she lost that battle. So you can
tell how much authority Susan Lee actually has over the
coalition by what happened this week. But you can also
tell that those who are agitating for a return to
(15:05):
the right wing led coalition that we saw under Scott Morrison,
that we saw under Peter Dutton, and we saw the
beginnings of under Howard, that they may not have as
much power as they used to, but they certainly know
how to use the media space to get whatever it
is they feel they're missing out on.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Amy, thank you so much for your time. Thank you,
thanks for listening to seven AM this week. Before we go,
I wanted to tell you about our newsletter. Every Saturday,
(15:45):
Ruby or I send an email where we talk about
one of the biggest moments from the week, what happened,
and why it matters. It's a place to keep up
with any show news, and coming up, we'll be running
a survey there to learn more about you and what
you want to hear and see from ours. You can
subscribe at seven am podcast dot com dou slash subscribe,
(16:06):
Have a great weekend,
I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. Labor
is trying to land one of its toughest reforms, an
overhaul of Australia's environmental laws. The Minister Murray Watt says
he wants to speed up housing and energy project developments,
make it clear where construction can and can't go ahead,
(00:23):
and create a federal environment watchdog. After a failed deal
with the Greens in the last Parliament, Labour is now
dealing with the coalition. So what will that mean for
the environment Today Contributing editor at The New Daily, Amy
Remikus on Labour's wheeling and dealing and the coalition's continued
identity crisis. It's Saturday, October eleven, Amy, thanks for being here.
(00:55):
The Environment Minister Murray wa has been trying to rewrite
Australia's environment laws. So how's he going with that?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Yeah, that's a really interesting one because the Labor government
came to power back in twenty twenty two saying that
it would protect the environment, that it would get this done,
that we would have an EPA that would be able
to make decisions for the government. They haven't managed to
get these laws through, mostly because industry does not like them,
and so what we have now is a government that
(01:25):
had almost come to an agreement with the Greens, had
almost managed in the last parliament to get this signed
off on. Industry really didn't like this, particularly in Western Australia.
WA Premier Roger Cook said that he spoke to alban
Ezi on Tuesday and received an assurance that these laws
would be on ice. Anthony Albanesi swooped in and said, Nope,
(01:48):
We're not doing a deal with the Greens. This is
not what we want. We cannot get this bill through
the parliament, even though they could.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
We were concerned in relation to some of the elements
of the nature positive laws and that position very clear.
Are very pleased to have received assurances from the highest
levels of government that those laws will not be going
ahead in their current form this week.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
And so we're back in the new parliament with Labor
negotiating with the coalition who this time have come to
the table, something that they didn't do in twenty twenty
two's parliament under Peter Dutton. Because the mining industry has
just basically said to them, what are you doing If
you don't negotiate, Labor will have to negotiate with the
(02:32):
Greens to get this through, and we would much rather
have you negotiate with Labor than the Greens, which essentially
means that Labor is going to be on board with
the coalition, with the Matt Canavans and the Barnaby Joyces
when it comes to environmental laws, rather than come up
with a package that will actually do something and go
(02:53):
through the Greens.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Okay, so what did the coalition want from the bill
and what was it about what the Greens wanted them
made walk away?
Speaker 2 (03:01):
The coalition pretty much wants to ensure that the mining
industry is protected, so they're essentially making sure that this
bill does not go any further than it absolutely has
to to give the sheen that we're doing something to
protect the environment, but they don't want it to actually
have anything in there that would stop development that the
mining industry might want. And one of the key things
(03:25):
in there is the climate trigger, which is what the
Greens have wanted for some time. And what the climate
trigger is is essentially if a project's emissions would have
damage to Australia's emissions target or would be seen to
be adding to Australia's emissions then that would automatically mean
that the project could not go ahead. So the Greens
(03:46):
wanted to set a climate target that would be incorporated
into all of these laws that every mine and every
fossil fuel project would be subject to. The industry doesn't
want anything that will touch this rather kind of cushy
arrangement that it has with sort of i would say,
greenwashing of how they're actually getting rid of these omissions,
(04:07):
and the Liberals do not want the industry to have
to face a climate trigger, and so essentially they're coming
up with the bare minimum. The only issue that seems
to still be a bit contentious is whether the Minister
will have the final say on a project or whether
a statutory body like the EPA would have the final say.
(04:32):
That is still up for debate, and even the environmental
movement is split on that as well. A lot of
strong environmentalists want the Minister to maintain the power to
be able to stop a project because they think that
community expectations and public opinion does matter, which is something
that an environmental protection agency that is just looking at
(04:54):
the data may not take into account. And we're yet
to see which way the negotiations on that will go.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
When it comes to stopping projects or all these pausing
projects senate estimates This week exposed a pretty big coal
in Australia's current laws when it was revealed that the
Environment Department couldn't legally hit pause and suspected illegal land clearing.
Can he gets explain what happened?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Yeah, So this is an exact example of why we
do need stronger laws and what we're not necessarily looking
at when it comes to these laws. This is an
area in central Queensland, a coal mine, the Gemini coal Mine,
that has been suspected of doing illegal land clearing, where
conservationalists have said that there is urgent need for protections
(05:39):
for the environment and for native species.
Speaker 4 (05:42):
If they've been clearing koala habitat without approval already, like how.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Much is left? So it's an allegation.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well no, no, no.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
No true.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Either the trees still exist that the koalas are living
in or they don't. They've either been knocked down or
they still are.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
It's currently an allegation, mister mcquin.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
There are examples of it from the air where the
Council has been able to take photographs and basically say
that an area has been cleared that there doesn't look
like there has been permissioned for but nobody can tell
them to stop because there's nothing in the legislation that
says that they can legally tell them to stop. And Queensland,
which has land clearing laws, has a whole bunch of
(06:21):
loopholes in those laws. It's still considered by conservationalists to
be the deforestation capital of Australia. And one of the
reasons why is that there is no sort of federal
oversight to say, bang, you have to stop this project.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
So as it stands, is the reform that the coalition
and the government are now negotiating, is that going to
create those kind of stop work powers and is that
something that the Coalition would support in particular.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Not at the moment, it is something that the Greens want,
and the Greens are pushing very hard to try and
ensure that all of these loopholes become public and so
that people can see what is not in the legislation
that needs to be So if they can't get the
climate trigger, if they can't have the government negotiate with them,
the hope is that by exposing these cases more widely
(07:12):
that people will actually put pressure on labor to include it.
But if the Coalition want to make industry happy, then
the Coalition have to vote for these laws if labor
include it. So there is some power for movement there,
which is only going to force a bit more of
a split in the Nationals and the Liberal Party because
(07:34):
the Nationals really do not want this stop work trigger
going on. So it's one of those really weird four
D chess dances that go on with legislation at time,
and I think that it's one that's going to be
very interesting to keep an eye on.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
So despite all of that, there is broad consensus amongst
the parties that Australia's environmental protection laws need to be
over the way that it's going at the moment. Are
you confident the government is going to deliver new laws
that will work for the environment.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
No, no, I'm not confident that these laws will work
for the environment. And Murray what said in Senate estimates
that Labour's job was to balance the needs of business
with the environment, which pretty much says everything you need
to know about the direction that these laws are going in.
We know from history that if you're trying to balance
(08:30):
business and industry with protecting the environment. The environment tends
to lose every.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Time coming up. Andrew Hasty has gone from the front bench,
but his supporters are still shaping the coalition's tactics. I mean,
this was the first week that the Liberals haven't had
(08:57):
Andrew Hasty on the front bench changed things for the party.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Susan Lee has been working very hard to try and
stop people talking about Andrew Hasty and the leadership woes,
and she's tried to switch focus to what Labor is doing.
So she wanted to focus on the TRIPLEO optus failure
in parliament this week and that was her main focus
for most of the parliament.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
Thank you, missus speaking. My question is to the Minister
for Communications. One hundred and forty seven days ago the
minister was sworn into her portfolio and yet she still
self identifies as a new minister being you is no
excuse Australian's dialing triple zero in an emergency cannot wait
for you to learn the minister isn't a crossover.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
However, on the other side of that equation you had
Andrew Hasty, who was largely silent this week, but he
had his own pratorian guard out there basically advancing his cause.
So you had senators like Jacinta Price, who was going
out there talking about these terrible leaks that have come
out about Andrew Hasty and how that needs stop.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
Look, I have a lot of respect for Andrew. I
think that he has certainly shown his man of principle
and of conviction.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
You had other people coming out and talking about how
he was a man of integrity and how these issues
that were being raised in the party room came from,
you know, a place of him supporting the base and
him wanting to broaden what the coalition was actually standing for.
Speaker 6 (10:25):
Yeah, he's done great work for our party. But you know,
he's made his decision. I don't think, and he's not
indicated that there's any any other intent behind it except
for not being able to voice his opinions on immigration.
I can feel that for him.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
And then you had people who are on I would
say Andrew Hasty's side of the political coin, like Michaulia
Cash pushing this Isis bride scandal.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
The last time I checked, I would have thought the
Prime Minister would actually be all over this issue in
terms of the return of Isis brides and their children
to Australia and would want to be upfront with the
Australian people in relation to the measures that the government
is taking to keep Australian safe. So again I'm asking
(11:13):
you about it.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
And it wasn't just Michaulia Cash talking about these women
and children who have returned to Australia from Syria. James Patterson,
who's feeling and your Hasty's Portfolio of Home Affairs for
the time being was talking about it too. So what
is the coalition's line here?
Speaker 2 (11:28):
The actual attack line from James Patterson and Michalia Cash.
And for people who haven't followed James Patterson's career, he's
a new South Wales Liberal senator who is a security
hawk and while he hasn't been actively involved in the
front lines in pushing the coalition's security and border's message,
he's been heavily involved in the background in crafting these
(11:49):
sorts of lines and strategies. His line is that Australia
should have put temporary stops on these women and children's
return to Australia.
Speaker 7 (12:00):
The Parliament has given the Executive Government of Australia the
power to apply for a temporary exclusion order to prevent
an Australian citizen who's travel overseas to associate with the
terrorist organization from returning to our country. Very clearly, the
government did not use these powers in this instance, and
they should explain why.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
He is saying that that is something a trigger the
government could have pulled and didn't pull and therefore Australians
may be at risk. There is no suggestion Australians are
at risk, as we know from what has been said
in Parliament that the authorities were aware that the women
and children managed to make their own way out of
their camp to a third party country where they have
(12:41):
received the documents to return to Australia as citizens, as
is their right. They have returned to Australia. They are
being monitored. We are told they are under investigation as
to whether or not they have broken any Australian laws
while they have been in Syria, and there is no
suggestion that if that's proven, that they will not face
consquences in the Australian judicial system. It's essentially people like
(13:04):
James Pattison and Michaalia Cash and Andrew Hasty trying to
return the Coalition to its natural safe place in Australian
policy of being stronger on borders, stronger on national security,
and they're trying really hard to try to say Labor
is weak on this. But I think that for the
most part this hasn't really taken off, except for in
(13:25):
Conservative media and for what has happened in Parliament, because
I think that most people have sort of moved on
from where we were under the Tony Abbot years, and
in fact even under Scott Morrison. People are a little
bit more aware of what citizens' rights are and I
think they have more trust in the security agencies than
maybe people like James Patterson give them credit for.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
What does it say to you, Amy that Susan Lee
was trying to focus on OPTUS, Well, a lot of
a party wanted to talk about women coming home from
Syria instead.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Well, I think the fact that Susan Lee did not
want to until she absolutely had to speaks volumes about
the split in the coalition party room that is continuing.
She really, really really wants the party to focus on
what she says is making life better for every day Australian.
She wants the party to go back to cost of living,
to small government, to tax reform, to ensuring that small
(14:21):
businesses are protected. She wants them to focus on those
everyday issues. There is a very large portion of the
Coalition party room, and you can include the Nationals in
this who want more of the culture wars rather than
actually talking about individual domestic lives. That is the fight
that is going on in the Coalition at the moment,
(14:43):
and I think that this week, where you saw Susan
Lee really try to hold the line and keep it
on domestic issues, she lost that battle. So you can
tell how much authority Susan Lee actually has over the
coalition by what happened this week. But you can also
tell that those who are agitating for a return to
(15:05):
the right wing led coalition that we saw under Scott Morrison,
that we saw under Peter Dutton, and we saw the
beginnings of under Howard, that they may not have as
much power as they used to, but they certainly know
how to use the media space to get whatever it
is they feel they're missing out on.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Amy, thank you so much for your time. Thank you,
thanks for listening to seven AM this week. Before we go,
I wanted to tell you about our newsletter. Every Saturday,
(15:45):
Ruby or I send an email where we talk about
one of the biggest moments from the week, what happened,
and why it matters. It's a place to keep up
with any show news, and coming up, we'll be running
a survey there to learn more about you and what
you want to hear and see from ours. You can
subscribe at seven am podcast dot com dou slash subscribe,
(16:06):
Have a great weekend,
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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