May 6, 2025 • 50 mins
Signs voters are starting to see through the Teals as Zoe Daniel loses her seat, what does Labor’s victory mean for the future of the nation’s energy system? Plus, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on the calls for quotas within the Liberal Party.
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):
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, Great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up on the show tonight. Well, she might have claimed
victory on Saturday night, but Zoe Daniel has become the
first Till MP this afternoon to lose her seat. Now
is this a sign that voters are starting to see
through these gucci Greens? John Roskin joins me shortly, growing
calls too for quotas within the Liberal Party and he
(00:28):
claims the Coalition's got a problem with female voters. I'll
get you my take on this in a moment, so too,
we'll just end it dam for jimper Price.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I'll also ask.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Her too about her future ambitions nuclear power, the Coalition's
plan the future proof Australia's energy needs.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Now? Is that all over? What happens now too?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
With Labour's pushed for eighty two percent renewables in just
five years time Energy expert Aid Morrison joins me and
later ways in on the coalition's campaign blame game as
it all ramps up. The Liberal Party does not represent
middle Australia. We see that in the seat results in
the suburbs and cities of this country. But first, as
(01:10):
the election wash up continues, the jostling for positions took
center stage today. For the Liberals, it was again this
nonsense being pedled that if we had more women candidates,
we would have won, and if we had more female
leaders we would have done better. Outgoing WA Liberals Senator
Linda Reynolds is arguing that Susan Lee should be the
next leader to overcome the party's so called female problem.
(01:34):
Others argue that the entire leadership team, both the leader
and the deputy, must be women, regardless really of who
those women are and their ability to lead. Now, the
whole female push might be sold as doing better with women.
I'll explain in a moment where that falls flat. But
right now, in the midst of a leadership battle, the
(01:54):
whole debate about gender is just a smoke screen for
what really is a factional fight between the right on
one hand, who are supporting Anchus Taylor, and the party's
left flank, who wants Susan Lee to get the job.
The left think that if you make it all about
Lee's gender, then somehow you will force the hand.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Of the party room.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, here's some facts that might jolt some reality into
this debate. Fact the Liberals had a female in their
leadership team. That was Susan Lee, the Liberal deputy leader. Labor,
on the other hand, well they had a male leader
and a male deputy.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Guess what.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
The Libs were smashed. Having a woman in the second
most powerful position in the Liberal Party. Well, that didn't
save them on the weekend, and Susan Lee's influence didn't
make the policies on offer any more appealing to female voters. Now,
don't get me wrong, I want the Libs to have
more women in Parliament. I want them to do better
with female voters and I'd love us one day to
(02:57):
have a female leader who wins government from oppers position,
not someone just installed in the job, as Labour's done
with so many of its female leaders just sit to
Alan be just one example in Victoria.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I want a woman who gets there from opposition.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
As a woman on the right are long for the
day when we see a Margaret Thatcher sort of woman
get to the top a sheet in in nineteen seventy nine.
That's forty six years ago and not a quota in sight.
As Liberals, talent and hard work is what should matter
it's the great leveler. It's what decides positions in the party,
(03:32):
because that means then that every job is open to all,
if it's about merit, if it's about hard work.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
That's the liberal way, or it used to be and
should be now. In terms of.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Candidates on the weekend, it's been a long time since
the Libs have had such an impressive list of female candidates,
and yet many of them, indeed most of them, they
did not win, even when running against a male incumbent.
Just being a female candidate was not enough because, as
I have said here repeatedly, women just don't vote for
(04:06):
a woman because of her chromosomes. Like male voters, We've
got brains in our head too. We base our decisions
and all the same factors that they do. What's the
background of the candidate, what's the party offering me, what
does it stand for? What sort of policies do they
have on offer? This idea that a female face on
a core flute and perhaps a policy about contraception on
(04:28):
the PBS is enough to win over female voters, that
is insulting. We care about the economy as much as education,
We care about national security as well as many care Now,
these things are not mutually exclusive. It's not an either
or proposition. Where the Libs went wrong is that was
a failure of policy across the board and where gender
(04:52):
was relevant. It was more about how they shaped and
sold policies to women, rather than say, dressing up health
and anouncements into a women's package and thinking that alone
would do their job. As I've said before, if you
think slapping a pick cover on the front of a
policy is enough to win women over, you are kidding yourself.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Now I'll give you an example. Housing. Now, I know
a lot of.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Pro women advocates would not nominate housing as a key
women's policy area, but I would. In a majority of cases,
it's women who choose the home. Men might help stump
up for the mortgage, but it's women who have a
big say in house A over house B or the
suburbs where a family might put down roots. It's still
largely women who turn a house into a home who
(05:39):
worry when the mortgage or the rent goes up, how
the money left is going to stretch across all the
things that have to be paid for grocery bills, power bill,
school uniforms.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
It's women who worry.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
At least as much as men about how their kids
are going to get a foot on the property ladder
and how their girls in particular are going to be
financially independent. And key in all of this, of course,
is housing. It's women who, as they age, are often
the most housing insecure, as they don't have the same
superbalances as men. It's women too who worry about their
(06:11):
elderly parents because it's mostly women who have to juggle
the caring role that we all assume as our parents' age.
So there's a very significant emotional involvement of women in
the housing policy area. And yet the liberals policy response
here it was poor.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It was disjointed.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
It had some good elements like access to super for
a home deposit, but there wasn't enough in the package overall,
and what was there was badly sold. Childcare well, that's
another example the Labour talk about childcare being a really
big benefit for women. We as taxpayer spend some sixteen
billion a year paying for childcare, but that's really about
(06:53):
labor using it to grow their union base, because it's
only unionized childcare centers that get that money. If it
was me, if I was back writing Liberal Party policy,
I would argue we paid the money direct to parents,
not unionized childcare centers. Give parents the choice about whether
they want to put their kid into a childcare center
(07:14):
or use the money to help pay for help in
the home, or let mum or dad stay home longer
to look after the child, because choice is always the
Liberal way. My point is that good policy always wins.
Bad policy always hurts you, and every portfolio can be
developed to appeal to women as well as men, if
(07:36):
you craft it right, if you understand the demands on voters,
if you build it in concert with your values.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
This is where the Liberal Party failed.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Liberals have always believed in self reliance and people being
able to work hard and get ahead, and getting people
into their own home is key to growing a.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Whole new generation of Liberal supporters.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
I mean, housing should have been foundation policies on the weekend,
and it was it. Now, to those who think that
just winning over women with a policy that funds women's
health better, that's simplistic. It's embarrassingly simplistic, and you completely
misunderstand the dynamics of life in electorates across the country.
(08:19):
Back to one point about the leadership the Liberals had
a female deputy leader, and yet they clearly didn't help
them get these policies right.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Did it right? Now?
Speaker 2 (08:28):
The Liberals need the best team they can put together.
It won't be perfect. It will be from whom ever's
managed to hold onto their seat to the Parliament. But
it must be based on merit, and on that score,
there are plenty of women to choose from with merit.
To send an Amber jiper Price, She's just but one example.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
She makes the grade on talent alone.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
If the Liberals were to go down the path of
denying anyone a job because they weren't of the right gender,
that the spot was somehow owed to a woman, then
we would debase the whole foundation of the Liberal party
movement that's always stood for the power of the individual
over the state. What next we have quotas based on race. Well,
(09:13):
that was the whole fight about the voice. That was
an anathema. Just look at Labor this week they will
be forced to dump a male from the cabinet to
make room for newly elected Tasmanian MP Rebecca White as
part of a gender factional deal. This first term Federal
Labor MP will go straight into cabinet, she'll be given
(09:35):
a portfolio by the Prime Minister, and she will then
be responsible for spending billions and billions of your money.
White is forty two years of age. She's been a
staffer and a professional state politician her.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Whole working life. She's never had another job.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
She's never been a minister, never run a small business,
she's never run a portfolio, never had any government experience.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Yet because she is a war men, and she'll go now.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I'm of the school that says cabinet should be earned
by good performance on the backbench than any out of
ministry that served us well for generations, but not if
your gender becomes the biggest determinant of your advancement, not
your experience or your achievements. Today, former Liberal Senator Simon
Birmingham has demanded the party bring in quotas. Others too,
(10:24):
like former National Party staff are former Skynese reporter Charlotte Mortlocke.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
It is absolutely paramount that we have quotas. I don't
even think it's negotiable at this point. And if we
say we do targets again, what for a third time,
We're going to fail at that.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I mean, she's well meaning but she doesn't get it.
The more the Liberal parties that comes to pressure for
things like quotas, the more it resembles a labor party,
and politics should be an intellectual contest between two different teams,
not a beauty contest between two teams that increasingly agree.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
With each other.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A leader's job is not to give people what they want,
but give them what they need, and good political leaders
don't just follow focus groups. They bring the public with
them through the ability to create an argument and win
a contest. Now, obviously, the next leader of the Liberal
Party is up to the new party room to pick,
(11:21):
but it should be the person who's most capable of
carrying the arguments of rebuilding a party broken after last weekend,
a party though, that stays close to its values, not
the person who best ticks the identity boxes. If you
think we've got problems now liberals, let me tell you
making the party labor light will not fix them all
(11:48):
right headlines now with Reuben Spargo, the search.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
For a new Liberal leader is intensifying, but the front
runners in the contest are keeping quiet. Sky News understands
Angus Taylor and Susan Lee are canvassing numbers to clinch
the position. Dantee and has previously been floated as a contender.
The field for Peter Dutton's replacement narrowed after Andrew Hasty.
Speaker 6 (12:10):
Ruled himself out.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
Vote counting is still under way, meaning the final makeup
of the party room remains unknown. Liberal figures are calling
for gender quotas in the party to demonstrate change. Simon Birmingham,
a former leading moderate, claims the concept may be a liberal,
but he's struggling to think of any alternatives to reflect
modern society. Not everyone agrees.
Speaker 7 (12:34):
I am uncomfortable with quotas because fundamentally I believe that
the best person.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
For the job should get the job.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
The party currently has gender targets in place. Internal tension
within the Liberals is escalating as members seek to understand
what went wrong. Tasmanian Senator Jonathan Dunham claims there was
failures within campaign HQ.
Speaker 6 (12:57):
We were let down by posters and strategy.
Speaker 8 (13:00):
Just switch frankly gave us a bum steer of the
worst order.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
The party's federal vice president is pointing to the coalition's
work from home policy.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
One candidate in what was considered a tight seat, within
a couple of days of it being announced said there
was a cold shiver that just went through the electrotic
just turned off.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
It possibly could have been pivoted earlier.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
As the Liberal Party soul searchers, Labor and Peas will
meet on Friday in Parliament.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
All right to night too.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
There are a number of steats still in play, so
let's get a count and where we are at with
our chief election analyst, Tom Connell.
Speaker 8 (13:39):
The seat of Goldstein in the southeast of Melbourne here
is going from Teal back to blue. We were able
to confirm that today with the amount of vote coming
in now. Yes, it's a very small margin at the
moment for Tim Wills and the order of three hundred
or so votes, but the postal games he's getting at
the moment will put him ahead by more than.
Speaker 6 (13:56):
Two thousand conservatively.
Speaker 8 (13:57):
That's not the sort of margin that Zoe Daniel can
win back from absent votes that are going to come in,
so he will win that seat. What about some of
the other contests as well, in terms of Teal versus
the Liberal Party. Let's go in and have a look
at the seat of Couyong, hotly contested here and you
can see this stage it is still a lead form
Anique Ryan. Again, the problem for her is going to
(14:20):
be postal votes. So she's in the lead by just
under a thousand votes. When we go to these postals though,
and how they're flowing right now, you can see it's
a very strong rate at the moment for Amelia Hamer.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
So on these eleven thousand.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Or nearly twelve thousand that have been counted so far,
she's actually got the lead within postal votes on too,
by two thy five hundred votes. What's the flow and
Hammony left, we're predicting she'll get about five hundred ahead
if it keeps going this way. What happens from there
absent votes could bring back things back from Anique Ryan.
So that's going to be really close, too hard to
call right now until we see some of those absent votes.
(14:55):
It's a similar situation in Bradfield, even closer when we
look at the potential lead. So if we go straight
to the two party preferred here, you can see the
Liberal Party just in the lead by forty four votes.
And again postal votes are going very well, but there
are not very many in Bradfield compared to the other seats.
We're predicting current projections get the Liberal Party ahead by
in the order of two or three hundred.
Speaker 6 (15:15):
That's going to be difficult to defend.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
It's possible once we see the absent votes likely to
trend towards Neglect Buller, but no guarantee, so just too
tight to call until we see some of those more
votes come in. The other focus, of course, in Victoria
and Melbourne is the seat of Melbourne itself. Will Adam
Bant hold on to it? So at the moment it's
a four percent two party preferred lead. But have a
look here, only fifteen percent's being counted. Most of that
(15:39):
is postal, so this was always going to favor the
Labor Party on the current preference split, this is going
to be very close. Let's go back to the primary
and look at the key figure here, sixty seven percent's
being counted, so we want more of that two candidate
preferred to know what happens. But the key element is
Adam Bant. Will he go above forty one percent? If
he does, he likely wins a seat below He's in trouble.
(16:00):
He does have vote that will help him. He'll get
absent vote. There'll be twelve eleven thousand also counted that
will likely boost his tally. There will be some more
postals that help Labor So this is very close to
this seat. There's clearly going to be a big swing
against Adam Bant. His margin is five point six percent,
so that one is going to go right down to
the wire. When we look at the overall state of
the House right now, remembering when we came from Labour
(16:23):
seventy eight the Coalition fifty six.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
So what are the losses looking like right now for
the Coalition?
Speaker 8 (16:28):
They're down by sixteen at the moment, but there are
more seats to count. Are there some opportunities for them
to win some more? There are There are ahead in
fact in Bullwinkle, Bradfield and Longman as well. We spoke
about their chances in Couyong. We can see there are
genuine chants in Flinders because that will have a three
candidate preferred, they probably get the head in and then
final page as well.
Speaker 6 (16:49):
There are very good chance in Monash depending on how
that vote splits out. It's just a bit too complicated
right now.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
What it means in terms of the losses of the
Coalition is right now, with some seats to go and
various projections to make what are their losses going to
end up well in the order of at least thirteen
right now? Yes, they've made up one, but where are
they coming from?
Speaker 6 (17:09):
The Liberal Party?
Speaker 8 (17:10):
You can see one National here the LNP logo of
course is the merged party. But all the l andps
you see on here are in fact Liberal Party members.
So for one, they're all five here from the Liberal Party,
including these three l ANDP members. They're all in the
southeast of Queensland or Leichhart is in cans so the
city center and the final.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Page as well more Liberal members. What does that all mean?
Speaker 8 (17:31):
The Liberal Party is going to lose about thirty percent
of its seats.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
If it ends up on the projected tally.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
We get them too on about thirty The Nationals are
lucky to stay about the same, losing Calaire and gaining
possibly Bendigo.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
So the losses really have been on the Liberal side.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
The Nationals there are interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
I'll talk to former Deputy Prime Minister National leader John
Anderson on why they have survived indeed thrived.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Where Liberals have not.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I also want to make a point to their Goldstein
and Couyong those postals are falling heavily. The Liberal Party's
weigh sixty five to seventy percent because a lot of
the Orthodox Jews will not vote on Saturday, will have
postal voted.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
So just fact that that in.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
That's why, of course Goldstein has gone a liberal way,
and I think Cuyong is certainly looking like it might.
We're not there yet. We'll come back to that in
a moment. Let's bring in now our political letter to
Andrew Clanell. I will get to a whole lot of things. Andrew,
there's a grab bag of things you've got your teeth
to get into. But let's start with what we know
in terms of the government. We understand that we are
(18:34):
meeting on Friday, caucus meeting. Will that be to finalize
the ministry? Do we know we we'll get those sorts
of announcements.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Yeah, so my information is the caucus will be on Friday,
that will finalize the personnel for the ministry or perhaps
the spots, and then the Prime Minister goes away and
divis our portfolios and rings. People. I imagine Saturday night
and you can see the announcement and the Monday swearing in,
couldn't you so that's perhaps what we're looking at.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Talk to me about this claim today that the New
South Wales Right will have to dump a male to
make way for Rebecca White.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Is that right? Will the Right agree to this.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Even well, that'd be in yes, Minister parlance, very courageous
of the Prime Minister, even with his majority, Peter, you know,
he's relied on some New South Wales Right support people
like Tony Sheldon, and I don't think they'll do that,
to be frank My information is that they are able
(19:39):
to say the government whip is a Victorian position, it
should be New South Wales. The speakers from Queensland will
keep our ministries, thank you very much. So I'm told
things will land essentially the same. But look, I can't
confirm this Rebecca White speculation. If it is true, as you,
(20:04):
I think you would agree, it's probably part of a
deal for it to run. And I think they have
to find it. So I think they have to find
it somewhere else in the niche of I's right, frankly, yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
And I made the point last night, of course, and
you know this well. The ministry is capped by an
Act of Parliament under legislation it's capped at thirty MPs.
That's why it gets so contested in terms of who
gets what. Talk to me about the lips. Talk to
me about the lips. We've got Angus Taylor and Susan Lee.
They haven't confirmed they're running, but of course haven't denied
it either. Andrew Haste do we know, has said don't
(20:39):
consider me. I don't want to run for leader at
this stage. They're both canvas in numbers. Is there any
other names here? What can you tell us?
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, it's only a question of whether Angus was to
decide not to run, then Dante and I think would
and sort of be the rights candidate, And you talk
about right versus left. It's very much like that. And
then it comes down to some of these seats, does
Gsell capteriory.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
And get up?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
We know Tim Wilson's got up, really, I mean the
last hour or two we've established that. So those votes
are pretty critical to it all them being moderates. There's
more moderates in there now because conservatives have lost their seats.
I think it's touch and go. I think it's pretty tight,
and they're both definitely making calls, but neither as you've
identified have publicly said they're running, but they're acting as
(21:25):
if they're running, and their advocates are texting me enough
to suggest that they're running. When I run stories on it,
I think it's going to be a really tight contest.
What is interesting to me, Peter is a lot of
liberals kind of outside that party room who's contacted me
about it, really like the idea of Andrew Hasty. So
(21:49):
whether that's something down the track, and what we have
here is a leader for a year or two and
see how they go, and maybe that's a possibility down
the track. I wouldn't discount that, And maybe you get
Hasty Zoe's deputy, something like that. It's a more sort
of telegenic team, not that it should be all about that,
but it has some aspect than Angus Taylor and Susan Lee,
(22:12):
who frankly own a bit of this defeat, especially Angus.
Unfortunately for him, I don't think I think I heard
your editorial. I think what's against him more than the
women man thing is is the fact he was near
some of these total gaps in the campaign, like allowing
labor to run, saying you're increasing you're running with a
(22:35):
tax increases because they didn't support the tax cuts. Now
I reported that people saying Wang Angus was in the
lock up decided that we Dutton. It was quickly pointed
out to me by Taylor supporter Susan Lee was also
in the lockup, which was interesting. Then there's the work
from home debacle and Angus Taylor supporters telling me very
(22:55):
clearly this was Jane Hume in consultation with the leader's
office and the first he heard of about it was
when he was about to drop it to the fin review.
So he's distancing himself from that. But then you know,
a Lee supporter said to me, well, he had twelve
interest rate rises. He didn't even come up with a
real economic plan that cut through. So that's what's hurting
(23:15):
Angus a bit. That will hurt him in question time.
We know that if he gets the job otherwise, I
think he'd be a firm favorite, to be honest, because
he's got more experience in those economic portfolios. He's been
Energy minister. But as Susan Lee, he's had a couple
of interviews where she's stuffed up to be frank. So
(23:36):
those are the sort of considerations that are emerging at
the moment, it is actually the first, if it happens,
the first leadership vote for an opposition letter since twenty
thirteen Alberanzi and shortened, which was that kind of three
month process. I just figured that out today because you know,
last time Dutton didn't have a Fredenburg to go against
short And stepped aside, so Alberanizi got it. So that's
(23:59):
very interesting, after we had to spill every five minutes
that we haven't had one of these for an opposition
later for twelve years.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
We will watch it all closely, and of course that
you're a right to point out, it depends on who
wins the seats coming forward now that a number of
them are moderates who are fighting for their lives. But
if they make it they get into the party room,
that changes the complexion very much.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Thank you, Andrew. Great tep here analysis.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
As I highlighted last night, Labor pedaled a whole lot
of lies during the campaign, but I think the key
lie was the coalition's nuclear lie, the lie that the
plan from Peter Dutton would cost some six hundred billion dollars.
Now that wasn't really out there until I put it
up in Lights in the Australian and on this show.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Then the libool started to push back.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
It was a figure drepped up of course by the
Smart Energy Council, the so called charity, but in fact
the renewables lobby group linked to Simon Holmes. The Court
and full of a whole lot of ex Labor staffers
joined me out to discuss the impact of these lies
and where to now for nuclear policy in a director
of Energy research at the Center for Independent Studies, Aiden Morrison, Well,
(25:05):
laden you say that there were six key energy lives
from labor, so take us through them. How damaging were
they and how do you think the coalition should have
tackled them?
Speaker 10 (25:17):
Indeed, Yeah, the first one is that the experts back
our plan, and Chris Bowen relied on this heavily during
the campaign, in fact, right to the very last day
in front of a polling booth, he said the experts
back our plan. In actual fact, this is a total lie.
The experts repeat back labor policy to them because it
is policy, and they carefully avoid comparing it to any
other policy. So society of the experts are all behind
(25:39):
them is just not the case, and so I think
that really should have been called out very early, especially
since Daniel Westerman, the CEO of the Market Operator, actually
said before Parliament that the Integrated System Plan, which is
the main expert document, is not a tool to evaluate
government policy. So it should have been absolutely front of
the lips of every coalition candidate to say that no,
(25:59):
the experts don't back the plan, they repeat back the plan.
And that's a very very important distinction. The second and
third ones, of course, of the six hundred billion dollar
number that you've quoted again from the Smart Energy Council,
that came from nowhere. It's double the highest costs from
and building in the United Kingdom. It's about five times
what the CSIRO said it might cost, so came from nowhere.
(26:21):
But number three is the four percent of the grid,
that all that money would only buy you four percent
of our energy, and that relies on a transparent nonsense,
the idea that rooftop solar, which only operates at about
fifteen percent of its capacity, provides the same amount of
energy as a nuclear plant which operates it over ninety percent,
and that even storage, which provides no energy at all,
(26:41):
also provides the same amount of energy as a nuclear
power plan which operates at ninety percent of the output.
Speaker 6 (26:46):
So that was transparent nonsense.
Speaker 10 (26:48):
Simon Holmes, a court I think, was a director of
the Smart Energy Council at the time that stistic was produced.
No challenge, no pushback to an energy geeker like him,
who prides himself on being very serious that energy facts
to establish that was absolutely transparently incorrect. And the next ones,
of course from there, number three and four, sorry, number
four and five are firstly rooftop solar. The idea that
(27:11):
nuclear is going to force everyone to have their solar
panels switched off. Now, this was only possible to be
run because basically the market operator quashed a story about
how they need to turn off everyone's solar panels this year,
actually in the third quarter of twenty twenty five, we're
going to have to start switching off solar panels because
of the glut of a new solar that's being built.
(27:32):
It's not actually a nuclear that solar's worst enemy. It's
more solar because it produces it exactly the same time.
And that of course was not engaged with, also came
from the Smart Energy Council, was.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
Repeated again and again.
Speaker 10 (27:44):
Bowen campaigned on it directly after the Frontier report, extremely
heavily likewise aluminium, the absurd idea that reliable base load
power will somehow stop us having an aluminium industry another
heavy industry. Again, this came from not calling out the
market operator who had actually substituted in they've done this
transplant of an earlier scenario, that model called slow change,
(28:08):
which did have a drop industrial output. The transplanted that
to progressive change, which was actually repeated and faithfully replicated
by Frontier. No distinction about that being a emo's call
to include that whatsoever, So no engagement on that, unfortunately.
And the final one, of course is the two billion
ton carbon bomb produced by the Climate Change Authority, and
(28:29):
again unfortunately, we are producing all that carbon at the moment.
It won't be the introduction of nuclear power that releases
more carbon. It is simply the assumption that we can
somehow hit the absolutely crazy eighty two percent target by
twenty thirty that rests that holds up this idea that
we could in our current plans reduce that amount of
(28:50):
carbon out of the atmosphere. And of course nobody serious
who's not basically part of the renewables cheer squad seriously
believe that's target's approachable. So again nothing to stand on there.
The baseline should have been challenged and sadly it just wasn't.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Six lives and you've knocked them all out, Aidan Morrison.
I have to say, you know there's going to be
a debate that goes on inside the Liberal party room,
in particular. I don't think the Nats will have this debate.
The Liberals will, you know, we lost because of the
nuclear policy. They'll want it junk. Certainly some elements will,
So I think it's really important you put that on
the record tonight.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
All right after the break, we're going to get into
what went wrong for the Libs, why the National Party
tend to survive and indeed thrive, we form a deputy
prime minister, form a National Party leader John Anderson last years,
into the average of the price on, the growing push
for quotas within the coalition and her future plans.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Welcome back the brick in the wall at till seat
has fallen. How did they do that?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
We'll get to that a moment with John Roskin, the
one man who knows how to campaign on principle and
value is former Deputy Prime Minister, former Nationals leader John Anderson.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
He joins me.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Now, John, I thought it was really important that I
talked to you, in part because I want your take
on why the Coalition lost as it did on the weekend,
but critically, and we've seen this now for a number
of elections. How does the National Party brand survive indeed
thrive where it's coalition partner does not.
Speaker 11 (30:27):
I think we need to first establish that at Christmas
time there was a clear path to government and in
the pursuit of many of the trivialities that we're seeing
about why we lost and why we did so badly
at the moment, we demean ourselves by focusing on the trivialities,
not the real issues. The real issues in this campaign
(30:47):
failure was that there was no leadership in the critical
areas that now threaten our very futures of prosperous and
free society internally and externally, and the Australian people knew that.
I don't think there was a policy issue or indeed
a day during the campaign when the Coalition plainly won.
(31:09):
Now in the context of the arguments about whether we
should continue with nuclear or whether we should be more
woke or less worke or whatever. Come to the National
Party and remember this. It led, i think courageously and
correctly on rejecting categorization of groupings of the Australian people
in the Constitution, the Voice and it got real about
(31:31):
the need to ensure that we have reliable and affordable power,
that is to say nuclear and that is to their
great credit, and it evidences that, particularly in the productive
regions of Australia so important for the living standards we've
taken for granted, that people actually are connected with reality.
(31:53):
But this was a massive policy failure on several fronts,
on defense, on economics, on cost of living, on immigration,
on education, all areas where if the coalition is to
pull itself together quickly and serve the country properly, they
(32:14):
need to recognize it's focusing on those issues that we
all know are at crisis level in terms of the
need to address them properly.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Trump's a populist, as you know, I'm a conservative, You're
a conservative.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
If some say the coalition was.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Too Trumpian, others are saying they weren't Trumpian enough. You know,
give me your sense of how much he played into
the campaign.
Speaker 11 (32:42):
Look, I think it was a good excuse for some
people who wanted to hate, but I do want to
make this really important point. The only response to an
unstable world, a world where we're seeing the re emergence
now of big power competition eerially reminiscent of the billed
up to the First World War, is to ensure, like
(33:03):
our forefathers did in this country, when we're only five
and a half million people, that we do everything in
our power to stand on our two feet, to run
a strong economy, to engage our citizenry and the debates
of the day, and to run a proper defense strategy,
which now means supply chain security, it means cybersecurity, and
it frankly means a lot more focus on defense. And
(33:26):
you won't have a country to argue about whether we
should be more vocal, more of Trump or less Trump
if we don't get real as a mid sized, prosperous
country with a lot of resources. And I still believe
an outstanding populace about standing on our own two feet
and behaving in a vastly more mature way than we
(33:47):
have been. And that requires not just political leadership to
be frank all of us as Australians need to say
we stand on the shoulders of giants. It's about time
we stepped up so that our children can say the
same about us.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
I'm going to have you back next week to talk
about how we message our values conservative values to young people,
because I know you do a huge amount of work
in that area.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
But I'll leave it there for tonight. Thank you, John Anderson.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
All right, let's return to the issue of quotas in
the future for the coalition.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Joining me in our.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians just into Nampijip Price, Senator,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
What's your view?
Speaker 2 (34:22):
You're a woman, you're in the coalition, what's your view
on this push for quotas.
Speaker 12 (34:29):
Yeah, look, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to
the outcome of the election. Certainly, I think we just
have to make sure that we are reaching women for
their support and putting forth an argument to demonstrate to
them what we're going to do to improve their lives
and a future for their children. But I don't believe
(34:51):
that we need to introduce quotas. You know, I would
hate to think that I ever got to my position
on the fact that I'm a woman, or anything else
for that matter. But what I think we will, what
we do need to do is ensure that we're obviously
pre selecting people with the values that lead with very
strong values that we need to now get out there
(35:15):
and push harder and stronger and make sure we get
those messages out to the Australian people.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Look, I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
I mean, I think the moment you give ground on
this gender based quota, you're legitimizing quotas across the board.
I mean, we're going to have quotas for Indigenous people,
we have quotas for regional members of Parliament.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Where will the quotas end?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
It should always be about merit, because merit is the
one thing we all can compete on equally.
Speaker 12 (35:48):
Yeah, exactly. I mean merit is what is important. Merit
is what provides outcomes. Ultimately, Merit is what you need,
certainly to be able to fight our fight that we
need to fight, as opposed to just putting somebody in
a position, you know, based on their gender. And Look,
(36:10):
I think we have some really strong women in the coalition.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with the strong women within
the coalition. And perhaps it's time we promote them more.
Maybe it's about promoting our strong women more, you know,
those women in shadow cabinet as well, allowing them to
get out there and be fierce and be more front
(36:33):
and center. I don't believe that we need to as well.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
No, And you're a case in the point because the
case in point because I'd argue you're putting the freezing
during the campaign. If we had more of just enterprise,
we don't have to quote her to get her in there.
She's in there anyway. More of just enterprise during the campaign,
I suspect we would have done better. Yet, someone who
you thrashed in the Voice debate, Marsha Langton. She's come
out today and said the Prime Minister needs to seize
(36:58):
the moment. I presume she means here about his majority
win and be courageous and indigenous policy.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
What the heck does that mean?
Speaker 12 (37:08):
Oh, she doesn't mean courageous, She means more radical. That
is what Marcia Langdon seeks to push. And you know
she's been quiet up until this point, and now she
thinks that her seat at the table is going to
be given back to her along with those who have
pushed the separatist agenda for quite some time and attacked
(37:30):
individuals quite nastily, but really not fail to achieve much
in order to close the gap in the first place.
And my concern with Indigenous affairs is it's not going
to go anywhere under labor. They didn't have a plan
in the first instance, except to create another bureaucracy. They
are infatuated with bureaucracies. They listen to the heads of organizations,
(37:54):
they don't listen to the little people on the ground,
and so we're going to see things go backward in
terms of our indigenous policy.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
But all those labor supporting.
Speaker 12 (38:05):
Organizations, no doubt at all, they will get all the
funding measures that they wanted, but it won't equate to
better outcomes, and no will continue. What we wanted to
push was about transparency.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Hey, you got to follow up when my colleague Chris
Kenny went last night with you. Remind me of the
rules in relation to the CLP. You're a CLP member
from the nt AS I understand it. You can sit
with either the Nats or the Libs when you get
to camera now is that your call alone to make.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
And have you made up your mind?
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Will you go and sit with the Nats this time round,
or will you sit with the Libs.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
Sure.
Speaker 12 (38:44):
So the convention that sits in place in the Country
Liberal Party is that the first Senate ticket, according to
the convention, is to sit with the National's party Room,
the second center ticket with the Libs Party Room Lingiari
is to sit with the Nationals, and Solomon with the Libs.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
So that is how through.
Speaker 12 (39:05):
The Country Liberal Party, you know that those agreements sit
in place.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
And you're not going to challenge that. I mean, this
is just second time around. I know it's not your
second term, you're still within your term, but I mean
you're not going to challenge that you will sit with
the National Party.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (39:25):
Look, that is what is expected of me from the
Country Liberal Party and obviously from the Nationals as well,
and there is we're still waiting for the dust to
settle with a lot of the issues that we're confronted with.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
We're still reeling from the.
Speaker 12 (39:41):
Outcome obviously that's occurred, and we need to understand much
better how as a coalition we can come back stronger
and learn from those lessons.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
And you know, I want to.
Speaker 12 (39:53):
Make sure, as I said to Chris last night. I'm
a fighter and as part of the comition, I want
to make sure that we can fight back and come
back stronger.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Hey hey, hey, hey, there is a vacancy obviously soon
to be a vacancy in the party room in your party,
in the National Party party room for the deputy leader
Peren Davies won't hold her set and set it seat
for much longer. Will you put your hand up for
leadership in the National Party.
Speaker 12 (40:24):
Again, I'm not speculating on anything. There's a lot of
stuff going on at the moment and a lot of
decisions to be made within the party room, within the
National room, and we will see what happens in where.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
We will leave it there.
Speaker 9 (40:40):
There all right.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
I can hear my audience screaming down on television, just enterprise,
They want you there, all right, We'll leave it there.
After the break the Tials losing a seat, the Liberals
have also fought them off elsewhere. Don't believe the line
the Liberals are dead to the Teals. There's a lot
of work to be done, sure, but those Teals are
not invincible despite all the climate millions. We'll see what
was the turning point there? Plus quotas We'll go back
(41:03):
to that issue a.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
Whole lot more. All right, let's go back to quotas.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
It's a silver bullet, some say to winning seats and
winning government format. NAT's staff a Charlotte Morlock says Libs
would be quote morons if they elect two men into
leadership and anything less than two women. She wants a
female leader and a female deputy, and gender quotas, she says,
would be insulting. Oh, I don't necessarily agree with that, Honora,
(41:32):
to suspect us. My next guest, Senior Fellow at the
Institute of Public Affairs, John Roscomb explained to viewers why
quotas based on gender would be an anathema in the
Liberal Party.
Speaker 7 (41:44):
Well, I think, Peter, that most Australians would be absolutely
shocked by those comments. No Australian should have a position
denied to them because of their gender, because of their religion, because.
Speaker 9 (41:57):
Of their race. Are toxic and divisive.
Speaker 7 (42:02):
They're based on basically a Marxist philosophical position, which is
that we aren't to be judged by our character or
our abilities, but simply by our gender, race, or background.
They are completely illiberal and one of the things that
I find really interesting, Peter about this discussion is that
so many of these women pushing quotas for women don't
(42:24):
support women.
Speaker 9 (42:25):
They support left wing women.
Speaker 7 (42:28):
As just Cinder Price, who you are just chatting to,
displayed the strength of character of a conservative woman. These
liberal women were not behind Nicole Flint, a great Liberal.
Speaker 9 (42:41):
Who was ostracized.
Speaker 7 (42:42):
They don't support conservative women like Claire Chandler. They want
a particular sort of women. And I think quotas cut
across everything, not just that the Liberal Party should believe in,
but that any Australian should believe in.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
Talk to me about the tears seats, because what's very
interesting tonight. We've obviously seen Tim Wilson not just win Goldstein,
but he's won and back. Everyone said he wouldn't be
able to win it back. You wouldn't get it back
from a female teal because you'd been so repudiated. He
took the Mini one pro selection obviously, and he's one.
(43:17):
Why has that worked well?
Speaker 7 (43:20):
I think the victory of Tim Wilson, and of course
a Dan tee in holding off the Teals in one
and potential other defeats of teals, reveals a few things.
Maybe Peter Dutton wasn't quite as toxic as we thought
on Saturday Night because Tim Wilson has won Goldstein. But
what Tim Wilson did was around Goldstein. And I know
Tim well and I worked with him at the IPA.
(43:42):
He didn't veer to the left. He wasn't talking about
climate change, he didn't deviate from his values.
Speaker 3 (43:48):
So it didn't become sort of Teal No.
Speaker 7 (43:49):
No, he absolutely repudiated this argument that the Liberal Party
needs to be left wing.
Speaker 9 (43:54):
I'll tell you what he did. He worked hard.
Speaker 7 (43:56):
He demonstrated that uncontrolled immigration is a housing in the area.
He ran a very strong economics agenda, and he did
what not enough Liberals did, which was point out that
the Teals and Zoe Daniel was supporting a terrible, dangerous
government that was destroying Australia economically. And he demonstrated that
(44:17):
if you have the conviction of belief, you don't have
to veer left, you don't have to veer right. You
have to stand by your conviction. And he's overturned all
of those left wing orthodoxies that we've heard from Saturday
night from left wingers who of course say the party,
the Liberal Party, should be more left wing.
Speaker 9 (44:36):
Of course, they would say that.
Speaker 7 (44:38):
So I think Tim Wilson's demonstrated a model for Liberals
going forward.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
Chris Joelman said something last night that really struck me.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
We talked that the Teals were created basically to keep
the Libs out of power, but he made the point
the Teals are to the Liberal Party what the DLP
was to Labor and there was a reckoning there that
took what to day or more. The difference here with
the Teals, of course, is they are getting millions of
millions of dollars from people who want their own private.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
Investments in renewables to get ahead.
Speaker 2 (45:12):
So they are financially motivated to keep renewables in the
system about the best energy mixed for Australia.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
But they have a pecuniary win out of this.
Speaker 7 (45:22):
And isn't that the great irony the tills, the irony
of the Teals talking about transparency, talking about the evils
of lobbyists when they have taken such an advantage of
the system. And one of my criticisms of Peter Dutton
is that on the first day he became leader, he
should have said it's the end of net zero. The
(45:44):
Liberal Party, the coalition will prioritize security, affordability and reliability
of energy, and he would have cut the ground out
from so much of that renewable energy and sustainable.
Speaker 3 (45:56):
And that's where Tony Blair's gone now exactly.
Speaker 7 (45:59):
So I think there's so many lessons that we are
now learning as the results are coming in from from Saturday.
And it also reveals that sometimes things take a little
while to unwind.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
So it's not as good as it seems, if it's
not ever.
Speaker 9 (46:16):
As bad as as you said last night, Peter.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
There we go, John Roskin, thank you.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
All right, upter the rate, we'll get into a whole
lot of issues to Trump, not Trump enough, all of
that with my panel coming up.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
Oh, I've got a nine o'clock let's get straight to it.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
The chief economist and senior fellow at the IPA and
of Crichton joins me out, and the wonderful columnist spectator
Terry Barnes Ginz. Let's start with you at and put
your economist tat on. Petecostala says there was no economic strategy,
that's why they lost.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
What do you think?
Speaker 13 (46:47):
Yeah, look, I think the criticisms are very valid. I mean,
the two core policies that the Liberals had for the
cost of living crisis. Were these temporary measures. There was
the twelve hundred dollars rebate for twelve months, and there
was the cutting fuel excise for twelve months. And I
think voters rightly saw that it's a permanent problem. Woman
needs permanent it needs permanent solutions, and so these were
just gimmicks really, and so I don't think the policies
of the party were anywhere near the values of the
(47:09):
Liberal Party. Is certainly not the IPA, the furthest apart
I've seen in my lifetime, I think, and it's.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Hard to model though, as you know Terry from opposition,
that's the challenge.
Speaker 9 (47:17):
I guess, well, that's right.
Speaker 14 (47:18):
I mean, basically, when you've got a situation like that,
you need to actually have done your homework.
Speaker 6 (47:22):
Three years ago.
Speaker 9 (47:23):
Where have they been Peter, where have they been.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Told to me about the Greens?
Speaker 2 (47:27):
Because you know we could see that Adam bantlews is
you see there's been losses right across the board. What
do you attribute to this great collapse in the Green vote?
And is it permanent?
Speaker 9 (47:37):
I hope, I hope it is.
Speaker 14 (47:38):
I think the Greens are the carbuncle on the bottom
of the Australian body politic. But certainly I think this
Australian's common sense. It's not necessarily anyw campaigns who have
been run against them. I think Australians have seen through
the Greens. They've seen through their economic flim plan, they've
seen through their environmental con game, but they're especially seen
(47:59):
through their enabling anti semitism. I think they have made
Australia ugly. The people who have been are still in
the center, including people who re elected on Saturday Night.
I just think are an absolute disgrace and the Australians
have finally woken up to it.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
A lot of people say, you know, not trumping and
enough or too trumpy. And the media in the US
is saying that Trump played a big role in the
Australian election. I don't think he did, but pleasingly, you know,
Clive Palmer tries to spend one hundred million dollars to
buy an outcome and didn't get anything.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
That alone says were different than the US.
Speaker 9 (48:32):
Yeah, certainly that's true.
Speaker 13 (48:33):
I mean the US politics is all about money, as
we know, but we've just seen that money here doesn't
buy vote. Seemingly, what did you spend one hundred million
dollars and got a tiny little primary vote. So that
is a good sign about a party. Just just broadly
on the narrative of the election is that we've moved
to the left, but actually the far left of the
Greens they completely collapsed, So that's a good thing. And
also Labour's primary vote, Labor's primary vote was actually lower
(48:55):
than what Julie Gillard got in twenty ten when he
just scraped in. So it really wasn't a huge endorsement
of the Labor Party. It was certainly a rejection of
the coalition, there's no doubt about that. It was very emphatic,
but it really wasn't a move to the left. And
I think it's all about preferences now they matter more
than ever. And the one thing that annoys me so
much about the election is all this chatter in the
Lower House, at least as it relates to Lower House voting,
is who's giving their preferences to whom? But you do
(49:17):
your own preferences. Would people just do their own preferences,
don't take their het of it. Card do your own preferences.
Speaker 9 (49:22):
That's what I do. You know, people, don't you know
they don't direct them around.
Speaker 3 (49:25):
You designed your preferences.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Yeah, this is such a good point because I made
the remark last night that the primary vote in sixteen
when short and loss, was about the same as a
primary vote on Saturday night for labor, and obviously one
was a win outcome, one was a landslide, one was
a lost.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
One was a landslide win.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
The preference flows help Labor because they run all of
these entities to drag the preferences across.
Speaker 14 (49:47):
I think that's right, but I think there's also a
fairly sizeable green sorry, a left wing.
Speaker 9 (49:53):
Majority in the Electric down.
Speaker 14 (49:54):
I think the axis has tilted left, but as we've
seen with the low primary votes, they can shift back
the other way.
Speaker 9 (49:59):
So we'll see what has Thanks.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Don't leave it there, Thank you, gentlemen. That's it for me.
See tomorrow night's Andrew
Peter Krandland live on Sky News Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Good evening, Great to have your company. Here's what's coming
up on the show tonight. Well, she might have claimed
victory on Saturday night, but Zoe Daniel has become the
first Till MP this afternoon to lose her seat. Now
is this a sign that voters are starting to see
through these gucci Greens? John Roskin joins me shortly, growing
calls too for quotas within the Liberal Party and he
(00:28):
claims the Coalition's got a problem with female voters. I'll
get you my take on this in a moment, so too,
we'll just end it dam for jimper Price.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I'll also ask.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Her too about her future ambitions nuclear power, the Coalition's
plan the future proof Australia's energy needs.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Now? Is that all over? What happens now too?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
With Labour's pushed for eighty two percent renewables in just
five years time Energy expert Aid Morrison joins me and
later ways in on the coalition's campaign blame game as
it all ramps up. The Liberal Party does not represent
middle Australia. We see that in the seat results in
the suburbs and cities of this country. But first, as
(01:10):
the election wash up continues, the jostling for positions took
center stage today. For the Liberals, it was again this
nonsense being pedled that if we had more women candidates,
we would have won, and if we had more female
leaders we would have done better. Outgoing WA Liberals Senator
Linda Reynolds is arguing that Susan Lee should be the
next leader to overcome the party's so called female problem.
(01:34):
Others argue that the entire leadership team, both the leader
and the deputy, must be women, regardless really of who
those women are and their ability to lead. Now, the
whole female push might be sold as doing better with women.
I'll explain in a moment where that falls flat. But
right now, in the midst of a leadership battle, the
(01:54):
whole debate about gender is just a smoke screen for
what really is a factional fight between the right on
one hand, who are supporting Anchus Taylor, and the party's
left flank, who wants Susan Lee to get the job.
The left think that if you make it all about
Lee's gender, then somehow you will force the hand.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Of the party room.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, here's some facts that might jolt some reality into
this debate. Fact the Liberals had a female in their
leadership team. That was Susan Lee, the Liberal deputy leader. Labor,
on the other hand, well they had a male leader
and a male deputy.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Guess what.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
The Libs were smashed. Having a woman in the second
most powerful position in the Liberal Party. Well, that didn't
save them on the weekend, and Susan Lee's influence didn't
make the policies on offer any more appealing to female voters. Now,
don't get me wrong, I want the Libs to have
more women in Parliament. I want them to do better
with female voters and I'd love us one day to
(02:57):
have a female leader who wins government from oppers position,
not someone just installed in the job, as Labour's done
with so many of its female leaders just sit to
Alan be just one example in Victoria.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I want a woman who gets there from opposition.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
As a woman on the right are long for the
day when we see a Margaret Thatcher sort of woman
get to the top a sheet in in nineteen seventy nine.
That's forty six years ago and not a quota in sight.
As Liberals, talent and hard work is what should matter
it's the great leveler. It's what decides positions in the party,
(03:32):
because that means then that every job is open to all,
if it's about merit, if it's about hard work.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
That's the liberal way, or it used to be and
should be now. In terms of.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Candidates on the weekend, it's been a long time since
the Libs have had such an impressive list of female candidates,
and yet many of them, indeed most of them, they
did not win, even when running against a male incumbent.
Just being a female candidate was not enough because, as
I have said here repeatedly, women just don't vote for
(04:06):
a woman because of her chromosomes. Like male voters, We've
got brains in our head too. We base our decisions
and all the same factors that they do. What's the
background of the candidate, what's the party offering me, what
does it stand for? What sort of policies do they
have on offer? This idea that a female face on
a core flute and perhaps a policy about contraception on
(04:28):
the PBS is enough to win over female voters, that
is insulting. We care about the economy as much as education,
We care about national security as well as many care Now,
these things are not mutually exclusive. It's not an either
or proposition. Where the Libs went wrong is that was
a failure of policy across the board and where gender
(04:52):
was relevant. It was more about how they shaped and
sold policies to women, rather than say, dressing up health
and anouncements into a women's package and thinking that alone
would do their job. As I've said before, if you
think slapping a pick cover on the front of a
policy is enough to win women over, you are kidding yourself.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Now I'll give you an example. Housing. Now, I know
a lot of.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Pro women advocates would not nominate housing as a key
women's policy area, but I would. In a majority of cases,
it's women who choose the home. Men might help stump
up for the mortgage, but it's women who have a
big say in house A over house B or the
suburbs where a family might put down roots. It's still
largely women who turn a house into a home who
(05:39):
worry when the mortgage or the rent goes up, how
the money left is going to stretch across all the
things that have to be paid for grocery bills, power bill,
school uniforms.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
It's women who worry.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
At least as much as men about how their kids
are going to get a foot on the property ladder
and how their girls in particular are going to be
financially independent. And key in all of this, of course,
is housing. It's women who, as they age, are often
the most housing insecure, as they don't have the same
superbalances as men. It's women too who worry about their
(06:11):
elderly parents because it's mostly women who have to juggle
the caring role that we all assume as our parents' age.
So there's a very significant emotional involvement of women in
the housing policy area. And yet the liberals policy response
here it was poor.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It was disjointed.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
It had some good elements like access to super for
a home deposit, but there wasn't enough in the package overall,
and what was there was badly sold. Childcare well, that's
another example the Labour talk about childcare being a really
big benefit for women. We as taxpayer spend some sixteen
billion a year paying for childcare, but that's really about
(06:53):
labor using it to grow their union base, because it's
only unionized childcare centers that get that money. If it
was me, if I was back writing Liberal Party policy,
I would argue we paid the money direct to parents,
not unionized childcare centers. Give parents the choice about whether
they want to put their kid into a childcare center
(07:14):
or use the money to help pay for help in
the home, or let mum or dad stay home longer
to look after the child, because choice is always the
Liberal way. My point is that good policy always wins.
Bad policy always hurts you, and every portfolio can be
developed to appeal to women as well as men, if
(07:36):
you craft it right, if you understand the demands on voters,
if you build it in concert with your values.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
This is where the Liberal Party failed.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Liberals have always believed in self reliance and people being
able to work hard and get ahead, and getting people
into their own home is key to growing a.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Whole new generation of Liberal supporters.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
I mean, housing should have been foundation policies on the weekend,
and it was it. Now, to those who think that
just winning over women with a policy that funds women's
health better, that's simplistic. It's embarrassingly simplistic, and you completely
misunderstand the dynamics of life in electorates across the country.
(08:19):
Back to one point about the leadership the Liberals had
a female deputy leader, and yet they clearly didn't help
them get these policies right.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Did it right? Now?
Speaker 2 (08:28):
The Liberals need the best team they can put together.
It won't be perfect. It will be from whom ever's
managed to hold onto their seat to the Parliament. But
it must be based on merit, and on that score,
there are plenty of women to choose from with merit.
To send an Amber jiper Price, She's just but one example.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
She makes the grade on talent alone.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
If the Liberals were to go down the path of
denying anyone a job because they weren't of the right gender,
that the spot was somehow owed to a woman, then
we would debase the whole foundation of the Liberal party
movement that's always stood for the power of the individual
over the state. What next we have quotas based on race. Well,
(09:13):
that was the whole fight about the voice. That was
an anathema. Just look at Labor this week they will
be forced to dump a male from the cabinet to
make room for newly elected Tasmanian MP Rebecca White as
part of a gender factional deal. This first term Federal
Labor MP will go straight into cabinet, she'll be given
(09:35):
a portfolio by the Prime Minister, and she will then
be responsible for spending billions and billions of your money.
White is forty two years of age. She's been a
staffer and a professional state politician her.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Whole working life. She's never had another job.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
She's never been a minister, never run a small business,
she's never run a portfolio, never had any government experience.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Yet because she is a war men, and she'll go now.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I'm of the school that says cabinet should be earned
by good performance on the backbench than any out of
ministry that served us well for generations, but not if
your gender becomes the biggest determinant of your advancement, not
your experience or your achievements. Today, former Liberal Senator Simon
Birmingham has demanded the party bring in quotas. Others too,
(10:24):
like former National Party staff are former Skynese reporter Charlotte Mortlocke.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
It is absolutely paramount that we have quotas. I don't
even think it's negotiable at this point. And if we
say we do targets again, what for a third time,
We're going to fail at that.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I mean, she's well meaning but she doesn't get it.
The more the Liberal parties that comes to pressure for
things like quotas, the more it resembles a labor party,
and politics should be an intellectual contest between two different teams,
not a beauty contest between two teams that increasingly agree.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
With each other.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
A leader's job is not to give people what they want,
but give them what they need, and good political leaders
don't just follow focus groups. They bring the public with
them through the ability to create an argument and win
a contest. Now, obviously, the next leader of the Liberal
Party is up to the new party room to pick,
(11:21):
but it should be the person who's most capable of
carrying the arguments of rebuilding a party broken after last weekend,
a party though, that stays close to its values, not
the person who best ticks the identity boxes. If you
think we've got problems now liberals, let me tell you
making the party labor light will not fix them all
(11:48):
right headlines now with Reuben Spargo, the search.
Speaker 5 (11:51):
For a new Liberal leader is intensifying, but the front
runners in the contest are keeping quiet. Sky News understands
Angus Taylor and Susan Lee are canvassing numbers to clinch
the position. Dantee and has previously been floated as a contender.
The field for Peter Dutton's replacement narrowed after Andrew Hasty.
Speaker 6 (12:10):
Ruled himself out.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
Vote counting is still under way, meaning the final makeup
of the party room remains unknown. Liberal figures are calling
for gender quotas in the party to demonstrate change. Simon Birmingham,
a former leading moderate, claims the concept may be a liberal,
but he's struggling to think of any alternatives to reflect
modern society. Not everyone agrees.
Speaker 7 (12:34):
I am uncomfortable with quotas because fundamentally I believe that
the best person.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
For the job should get the job.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
The party currently has gender targets in place. Internal tension
within the Liberals is escalating as members seek to understand
what went wrong. Tasmanian Senator Jonathan Dunham claims there was
failures within campaign HQ.
Speaker 6 (12:57):
We were let down by posters and strategy.
Speaker 8 (13:00):
Just switch frankly gave us a bum steer of the
worst order.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
The party's federal vice president is pointing to the coalition's
work from home policy.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
One candidate in what was considered a tight seat, within
a couple of days of it being announced said there
was a cold shiver that just went through the electrotic
just turned off.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
It possibly could have been pivoted earlier.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
As the Liberal Party soul searchers, Labor and Peas will
meet on Friday in Parliament.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
All right to night too.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
There are a number of steats still in play, so
let's get a count and where we are at with
our chief election analyst, Tom Connell.
Speaker 8 (13:39):
The seat of Goldstein in the southeast of Melbourne here
is going from Teal back to blue. We were able
to confirm that today with the amount of vote coming
in now. Yes, it's a very small margin at the
moment for Tim Wills and the order of three hundred
or so votes, but the postal games he's getting at
the moment will put him ahead by more than.
Speaker 6 (13:56):
Two thousand conservatively.
Speaker 8 (13:57):
That's not the sort of margin that Zoe Daniel can
win back from absent votes that are going to come in,
so he will win that seat. What about some of
the other contests as well, in terms of Teal versus
the Liberal Party. Let's go in and have a look
at the seat of Couyong, hotly contested here and you
can see this stage it is still a lead form
Anique Ryan. Again, the problem for her is going to
(14:20):
be postal votes. So she's in the lead by just
under a thousand votes. When we go to these postals though,
and how they're flowing right now, you can see it's
a very strong rate at the moment for Amelia Hamer.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
So on these eleven thousand.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Or nearly twelve thousand that have been counted so far,
she's actually got the lead within postal votes on too,
by two thy five hundred votes. What's the flow and
Hammony left, we're predicting she'll get about five hundred ahead
if it keeps going this way. What happens from there
absent votes could bring back things back from Anique Ryan.
So that's going to be really close, too hard to
call right now until we see some of those absent votes.
(14:55):
It's a similar situation in Bradfield, even closer when we
look at the potential lead. So if we go straight
to the two party preferred here, you can see the
Liberal Party just in the lead by forty four votes.
And again postal votes are going very well, but there
are not very many in Bradfield compared to the other seats.
We're predicting current projections get the Liberal Party ahead by
in the order of two or three hundred.
Speaker 6 (15:15):
That's going to be difficult to defend.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
It's possible once we see the absent votes likely to
trend towards Neglect Buller, but no guarantee, so just too
tight to call until we see some of those more
votes come in. The other focus, of course, in Victoria
and Melbourne is the seat of Melbourne itself. Will Adam
Bant hold on to it? So at the moment it's
a four percent two party preferred lead. But have a
look here, only fifteen percent's being counted. Most of that
(15:39):
is postal, so this was always going to favor the
Labor Party on the current preference split, this is going
to be very close. Let's go back to the primary
and look at the key figure here, sixty seven percent's
being counted, so we want more of that two candidate
preferred to know what happens. But the key element is
Adam Bant. Will he go above forty one percent? If
he does, he likely wins a seat below He's in trouble.
(16:00):
He does have vote that will help him. He'll get
absent vote. There'll be twelve eleven thousand also counted that
will likely boost his tally. There will be some more
postals that help Labor So this is very close to
this seat. There's clearly going to be a big swing
against Adam Bant. His margin is five point six percent,
so that one is going to go right down to
the wire. When we look at the overall state of
the House right now, remembering when we came from Labour
(16:23):
seventy eight the Coalition fifty six.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
So what are the losses looking like right now for
the Coalition?
Speaker 8 (16:28):
They're down by sixteen at the moment, but there are
more seats to count. Are there some opportunities for them
to win some more? There are There are ahead in
fact in Bullwinkle, Bradfield and Longman as well. We spoke
about their chances in Couyong. We can see there are
genuine chants in Flinders because that will have a three
candidate preferred, they probably get the head in and then
final page as well.
Speaker 6 (16:49):
There are very good chance in Monash depending on how
that vote splits out. It's just a bit too complicated
right now.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
What it means in terms of the losses of the
Coalition is right now, with some seats to go and
various projections to make what are their losses going to
end up well in the order of at least thirteen
right now? Yes, they've made up one, but where are
they coming from?
Speaker 6 (17:09):
The Liberal Party?
Speaker 8 (17:10):
You can see one National here the LNP logo of
course is the merged party. But all the l andps
you see on here are in fact Liberal Party members.
So for one, they're all five here from the Liberal Party,
including these three l ANDP members. They're all in the
southeast of Queensland or Leichhart is in cans so the
city center and the final.
Speaker 6 (17:28):
Page as well more Liberal members. What does that all mean?
Speaker 8 (17:31):
The Liberal Party is going to lose about thirty percent
of its seats.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
If it ends up on the projected tally.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
We get them too on about thirty The Nationals are
lucky to stay about the same, losing Calaire and gaining
possibly Bendigo.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
So the losses really have been on the Liberal side.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
The Nationals there are interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
I'll talk to former Deputy Prime Minister National leader John
Anderson on why they have survived indeed thrived.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Where Liberals have not.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
I also want to make a point to their Goldstein
and Couyong those postals are falling heavily. The Liberal Party's
weigh sixty five to seventy percent because a lot of
the Orthodox Jews will not vote on Saturday, will have
postal voted.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
So just fact that that in.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
That's why, of course Goldstein has gone a liberal way,
and I think Cuyong is certainly looking like it might.
We're not there yet. We'll come back to that in
a moment. Let's bring in now our political letter to
Andrew Clanell. I will get to a whole lot of things. Andrew,
there's a grab bag of things you've got your teeth
to get into. But let's start with what we know
in terms of the government. We understand that we are
(18:34):
meeting on Friday, caucus meeting. Will that be to finalize
the ministry? Do we know we we'll get those sorts
of announcements.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Yeah, so my information is the caucus will be on Friday,
that will finalize the personnel for the ministry or perhaps
the spots, and then the Prime Minister goes away and
divis our portfolios and rings. People. I imagine Saturday night
and you can see the announcement and the Monday swearing in,
couldn't you so that's perhaps what we're looking at.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Talk to me about this claim today that the New
South Wales Right will have to dump a male to
make way for Rebecca White.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
Is that right? Will the Right agree to this.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Even well, that'd be in yes, Minister parlance, very courageous
of the Prime Minister, even with his majority, Peter, you know,
he's relied on some New South Wales Right support people
like Tony Sheldon, and I don't think they'll do that,
to be frank My information is that they are able
(19:39):
to say the government whip is a Victorian position, it
should be New South Wales. The speakers from Queensland will
keep our ministries, thank you very much. So I'm told
things will land essentially the same. But look, I can't
confirm this Rebecca White speculation. If it is true, as you,
(20:04):
I think you would agree, it's probably part of a
deal for it to run. And I think they have
to find it. So I think they have to find
it somewhere else in the niche of I's right, frankly, yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
And I made the point last night, of course, and
you know this well. The ministry is capped by an
Act of Parliament under legislation it's capped at thirty MPs.
That's why it gets so contested in terms of who
gets what. Talk to me about the lips. Talk to
me about the lips. We've got Angus Taylor and Susan Lee.
They haven't confirmed they're running, but of course haven't denied
it either. Andrew Haste do we know, has said don't
(20:39):
consider me. I don't want to run for leader at
this stage. They're both canvas in numbers. Is there any
other names here? What can you tell us?
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, it's only a question of whether Angus was to
decide not to run, then Dante and I think would
and sort of be the rights candidate, And you talk
about right versus left. It's very much like that. And
then it comes down to some of these seats, does
Gsell capteriory.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
And get up?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
We know Tim Wilson's got up, really, I mean the
last hour or two we've established that. So those votes
are pretty critical to it all them being moderates. There's
more moderates in there now because conservatives have lost their seats.
I think it's touch and go. I think it's pretty tight,
and they're both definitely making calls, but neither as you've
identified have publicly said they're running, but they're acting as
(21:25):
if they're running, and their advocates are texting me enough
to suggest that they're running. When I run stories on it,
I think it's going to be a really tight contest.
What is interesting to me, Peter is a lot of
liberals kind of outside that party room who's contacted me
about it, really like the idea of Andrew Hasty. So
(21:49):
whether that's something down the track, and what we have
here is a leader for a year or two and
see how they go, and maybe that's a possibility down
the track. I wouldn't discount that, And maybe you get
Hasty Zoe's deputy, something like that. It's a more sort
of telegenic team, not that it should be all about that,
but it has some aspect than Angus Taylor and Susan Lee,
(22:12):
who frankly own a bit of this defeat, especially Angus.
Unfortunately for him, I don't think I think I heard
your editorial. I think what's against him more than the
women man thing is is the fact he was near
some of these total gaps in the campaign, like allowing
labor to run, saying you're increasing you're running with a
(22:35):
tax increases because they didn't support the tax cuts. Now
I reported that people saying Wang Angus was in the
lock up decided that we Dutton. It was quickly pointed
out to me by Taylor supporter Susan Lee was also
in the lockup, which was interesting. Then there's the work
from home debacle and Angus Taylor supporters telling me very
(22:55):
clearly this was Jane Hume in consultation with the leader's
office and the first he heard of about it was
when he was about to drop it to the fin review.
So he's distancing himself from that. But then you know,
a Lee supporter said to me, well, he had twelve
interest rate rises. He didn't even come up with a
real economic plan that cut through. So that's what's hurting
(23:15):
Angus a bit. That will hurt him in question time.
We know that if he gets the job otherwise, I
think he'd be a firm favorite, to be honest, because
he's got more experience in those economic portfolios. He's been
Energy minister. But as Susan Lee, he's had a couple
of interviews where she's stuffed up to be frank. So
(23:36):
those are the sort of considerations that are emerging at
the moment, it is actually the first, if it happens,
the first leadership vote for an opposition letter since twenty
thirteen Alberanzi and shortened, which was that kind of three
month process. I just figured that out today because you know,
last time Dutton didn't have a Fredenburg to go against
short And stepped aside, so Alberanizi got it. So that's
(23:59):
very interesting, after we had to spill every five minutes
that we haven't had one of these for an opposition
later for twelve years.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
We will watch it all closely, and of course that
you're a right to point out, it depends on who
wins the seats coming forward now that a number of
them are moderates who are fighting for their lives. But
if they make it they get into the party room,
that changes the complexion very much.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Thank you, Andrew. Great tep here analysis.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
As I highlighted last night, Labor pedaled a whole lot
of lies during the campaign, but I think the key
lie was the coalition's nuclear lie, the lie that the
plan from Peter Dutton would cost some six hundred billion dollars.
Now that wasn't really out there until I put it
up in Lights in the Australian and on this show.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Then the libool started to push back.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
It was a figure drepped up of course by the
Smart Energy Council, the so called charity, but in fact
the renewables lobby group linked to Simon Holmes. The Court
and full of a whole lot of ex Labor staffers
joined me out to discuss the impact of these lies
and where to now for nuclear policy in a director
of Energy research at the Center for Independent Studies, Aiden Morrison, Well,
(25:05):
laden you say that there were six key energy lives
from labor, so take us through them. How damaging were
they and how do you think the coalition should have
tackled them?
Speaker 10 (25:17):
Indeed, Yeah, the first one is that the experts back
our plan, and Chris Bowen relied on this heavily during
the campaign, in fact, right to the very last day
in front of a polling booth, he said the experts
back our plan. In actual fact, this is a total lie.
The experts repeat back labor policy to them because it
is policy, and they carefully avoid comparing it to any
other policy. So society of the experts are all behind
(25:39):
them is just not the case, and so I think
that really should have been called out very early, especially
since Daniel Westerman, the CEO of the Market Operator, actually
said before Parliament that the Integrated System Plan, which is
the main expert document, is not a tool to evaluate
government policy. So it should have been absolutely front of
the lips of every coalition candidate to say that no,
(25:59):
the experts don't back the plan, they repeat back the plan.
And that's a very very important distinction. The second and
third ones, of course, of the six hundred billion dollar
number that you've quoted again from the Smart Energy Council,
that came from nowhere. It's double the highest costs from
and building in the United Kingdom. It's about five times
what the CSIRO said it might cost, so came from nowhere.
(26:21):
But number three is the four percent of the grid,
that all that money would only buy you four percent
of our energy, and that relies on a transparent nonsense,
the idea that rooftop solar, which only operates at about
fifteen percent of its capacity, provides the same amount of
energy as a nuclear plant which operates it over ninety percent,
and that even storage, which provides no energy at all,
(26:41):
also provides the same amount of energy as a nuclear
power plan which operates at ninety percent of the output.
Speaker 6 (26:46):
So that was transparent nonsense.
Speaker 10 (26:48):
Simon Holmes, a court I think, was a director of
the Smart Energy Council at the time that stistic was produced.
No challenge, no pushback to an energy geeker like him,
who prides himself on being very serious that energy facts
to establish that was absolutely transparently incorrect. And the next ones,
of course from there, number three and four, sorry, number
four and five are firstly rooftop solar. The idea that
(27:11):
nuclear is going to force everyone to have their solar
panels switched off. Now, this was only possible to be
run because basically the market operator quashed a story about
how they need to turn off everyone's solar panels this year,
actually in the third quarter of twenty twenty five, we're
going to have to start switching off solar panels because
of the glut of a new solar that's being built.
(27:32):
It's not actually a nuclear that solar's worst enemy. It's
more solar because it produces it exactly the same time.
And that of course was not engaged with, also came
from the Smart Energy Council, was.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
Repeated again and again.
Speaker 10 (27:44):
Bowen campaigned on it directly after the Frontier report, extremely
heavily likewise aluminium, the absurd idea that reliable base load
power will somehow stop us having an aluminium industry another
heavy industry. Again, this came from not calling out the
market operator who had actually substituted in they've done this
transplant of an earlier scenario, that model called slow change,
(28:08):
which did have a drop industrial output. The transplanted that
to progressive change, which was actually repeated and faithfully replicated
by Frontier. No distinction about that being a emo's call
to include that whatsoever, So no engagement on that, unfortunately.
And the final one, of course is the two billion
ton carbon bomb produced by the Climate Change Authority, and
(28:29):
again unfortunately, we are producing all that carbon at the moment.
It won't be the introduction of nuclear power that releases
more carbon. It is simply the assumption that we can
somehow hit the absolutely crazy eighty two percent target by
twenty thirty that rests that holds up this idea that
we could in our current plans reduce that amount of
(28:50):
carbon out of the atmosphere. And of course nobody serious
who's not basically part of the renewables cheer squad seriously
believe that's target's approachable. So again nothing to stand on there.
The baseline should have been challenged and sadly it just wasn't.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Six lives and you've knocked them all out, Aidan Morrison.
I have to say, you know there's going to be
a debate that goes on inside the Liberal party room,
in particular. I don't think the Nats will have this debate.
The Liberals will, you know, we lost because of the
nuclear policy. They'll want it junk. Certainly some elements will,
So I think it's really important you put that on
the record tonight.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
All right after the break, we're going to get into
what went wrong for the Libs, why the National Party
tend to survive and indeed thrive, we form a deputy
prime minister, form a National Party leader John Anderson last years,
into the average of the price on, the growing push
for quotas within the coalition and her future plans.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Welcome back the brick in the wall at till seat
has fallen. How did they do that?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
We'll get to that a moment with John Roskin, the
one man who knows how to campaign on principle and
value is former Deputy Prime Minister, former Nationals leader John Anderson.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
He joins me.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Now, John, I thought it was really important that I
talked to you, in part because I want your take
on why the Coalition lost as it did on the weekend,
but critically, and we've seen this now for a number
of elections. How does the National Party brand survive indeed
thrive where it's coalition partner does not.
Speaker 11 (30:27):
I think we need to first establish that at Christmas
time there was a clear path to government and in
the pursuit of many of the trivialities that we're seeing
about why we lost and why we did so badly
at the moment, we demean ourselves by focusing on the trivialities,
not the real issues. The real issues in this campaign
(30:47):
failure was that there was no leadership in the critical
areas that now threaten our very futures of prosperous and
free society internally and externally, and the Australian people knew that.
I don't think there was a policy issue or indeed
a day during the campaign when the Coalition plainly won.
(31:09):
Now in the context of the arguments about whether we
should continue with nuclear or whether we should be more
woke or less worke or whatever. Come to the National
Party and remember this. It led, i think courageously and
correctly on rejecting categorization of groupings of the Australian people
in the Constitution, the Voice and it got real about
(31:31):
the need to ensure that we have reliable and affordable power,
that is to say nuclear and that is to their
great credit, and it evidences that, particularly in the productive
regions of Australia so important for the living standards we've
taken for granted, that people actually are connected with reality.
(31:53):
But this was a massive policy failure on several fronts,
on defense, on economics, on cost of living, on immigration,
on education, all areas where if the coalition is to
pull itself together quickly and serve the country properly, they
(32:14):
need to recognize it's focusing on those issues that we
all know are at crisis level in terms of the
need to address them properly.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Trump's a populist, as you know, I'm a conservative, You're
a conservative.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
If some say the coalition was.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Too Trumpian, others are saying they weren't Trumpian enough. You know,
give me your sense of how much he played into
the campaign.
Speaker 11 (32:42):
Look, I think it was a good excuse for some
people who wanted to hate, but I do want to
make this really important point. The only response to an
unstable world, a world where we're seeing the re emergence
now of big power competition eerially reminiscent of the billed
up to the First World War, is to ensure, like
(33:03):
our forefathers did in this country, when we're only five
and a half million people, that we do everything in
our power to stand on our two feet, to run
a strong economy, to engage our citizenry and the debates
of the day, and to run a proper defense strategy,
which now means supply chain security, it means cybersecurity, and
it frankly means a lot more focus on defense. And
(33:26):
you won't have a country to argue about whether we
should be more vocal, more of Trump or less Trump
if we don't get real as a mid sized, prosperous
country with a lot of resources. And I still believe
an outstanding populace about standing on our own two feet
and behaving in a vastly more mature way than we
(33:47):
have been. And that requires not just political leadership to
be frank all of us as Australians need to say
we stand on the shoulders of giants. It's about time
we stepped up so that our children can say the
same about us.
Speaker 2 (34:02):
I'm going to have you back next week to talk
about how we message our values conservative values to young people,
because I know you do a huge amount of work
in that area.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
But I'll leave it there for tonight. Thank you, John Anderson.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
All right, let's return to the issue of quotas in
the future for the coalition.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Joining me in our.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians just into Nampijip Price, Senator,
welcome to the program.
Speaker 3 (34:21):
What's your view?
Speaker 2 (34:22):
You're a woman, you're in the coalition, what's your view
on this push for quotas.
Speaker 12 (34:29):
Yeah, look, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to
the outcome of the election. Certainly, I think we just
have to make sure that we are reaching women for
their support and putting forth an argument to demonstrate to
them what we're going to do to improve their lives
and a future for their children. But I don't believe
(34:51):
that we need to introduce quotas. You know, I would
hate to think that I ever got to my position
on the fact that I'm a woman, or anything else
for that matter. But what I think we will, what
we do need to do is ensure that we're obviously
pre selecting people with the values that lead with very
strong values that we need to now get out there
(35:15):
and push harder and stronger and make sure we get
those messages out to the Australian people.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
Look, I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
I mean, I think the moment you give ground on
this gender based quota, you're legitimizing quotas across the board.
I mean, we're going to have quotas for Indigenous people,
we have quotas for regional members of Parliament.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Where will the quotas end?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
It should always be about merit, because merit is the
one thing we all can compete on equally.
Speaker 12 (35:48):
Yeah, exactly. I mean merit is what is important. Merit
is what provides outcomes. Ultimately, Merit is what you need,
certainly to be able to fight our fight that we
need to fight, as opposed to just putting somebody in
a position, you know, based on their gender. And Look,
(36:10):
I think we have some really strong women in the coalition.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with the strong women within
the coalition. And perhaps it's time we promote them more.
Maybe it's about promoting our strong women more, you know,
those women in shadow cabinet as well, allowing them to
get out there and be fierce and be more front
(36:33):
and center. I don't believe that we need to as well.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
No, And you're a case in the point because the
case in point because I'd argue you're putting the freezing
during the campaign. If we had more of just enterprise,
we don't have to quote her to get her in there.
She's in there anyway. More of just enterprise during the campaign,
I suspect we would have done better. Yet, someone who
you thrashed in the Voice debate, Marsha Langton. She's come
out today and said the Prime Minister needs to seize
(36:58):
the moment. I presume she means here about his majority
win and be courageous and indigenous policy.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
What the heck does that mean?
Speaker 12 (37:08):
Oh, she doesn't mean courageous, She means more radical. That
is what Marcia Langdon seeks to push. And you know
she's been quiet up until this point, and now she
thinks that her seat at the table is going to
be given back to her along with those who have
pushed the separatist agenda for quite some time and attacked
(37:30):
individuals quite nastily, but really not fail to achieve much
in order to close the gap in the first place.
And my concern with Indigenous affairs is it's not going
to go anywhere under labor. They didn't have a plan
in the first instance, except to create another bureaucracy. They
are infatuated with bureaucracies. They listen to the heads of organizations,
(37:54):
they don't listen to the little people on the ground,
and so we're going to see things go backward in
terms of our indigenous policy.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
But all those labor supporting.
Speaker 12 (38:05):
Organizations, no doubt at all, they will get all the
funding measures that they wanted, but it won't equate to
better outcomes, and no will continue. What we wanted to
push was about transparency.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Hey, you got to follow up when my colleague Chris
Kenny went last night with you. Remind me of the
rules in relation to the CLP. You're a CLP member
from the nt AS I understand it. You can sit
with either the Nats or the Libs when you get
to camera now is that your call alone to make.
Speaker 3 (38:36):
And have you made up your mind?
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Will you go and sit with the Nats this time round,
or will you sit with the Libs.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
Sure.
Speaker 12 (38:44):
So the convention that sits in place in the Country
Liberal Party is that the first Senate ticket, according to
the convention, is to sit with the National's party Room,
the second center ticket with the Libs Party Room Lingiari
is to sit with the Nationals, and Solomon with the Libs.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
So that is how through.
Speaker 12 (39:05):
The Country Liberal Party, you know that those agreements sit
in place.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
And you're not going to challenge that. I mean, this
is just second time around. I know it's not your
second term, you're still within your term, but I mean
you're not going to challenge that you will sit with
the National Party.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (39:25):
Look, that is what is expected of me from the
Country Liberal Party and obviously from the Nationals as well,
and there is we're still waiting for the dust to
settle with a lot of the issues that we're confronted with.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
We're still reeling from the.
Speaker 12 (39:41):
Outcome obviously that's occurred, and we need to understand much
better how as a coalition we can come back stronger
and learn from those lessons.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
And you know, I want to.
Speaker 12 (39:53):
Make sure, as I said to Chris last night. I'm
a fighter and as part of the comition, I want
to make sure that we can fight back and come
back stronger.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Hey hey, hey, hey, there is a vacancy obviously soon
to be a vacancy in the party room in your party,
in the National Party party room for the deputy leader
Peren Davies won't hold her set and set it seat
for much longer. Will you put your hand up for
leadership in the National Party.
Speaker 12 (40:24):
Again, I'm not speculating on anything. There's a lot of
stuff going on at the moment and a lot of
decisions to be made within the party room, within the
National room, and we will see what happens in where.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
We will leave it there.
Speaker 9 (40:40):
There all right.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
I can hear my audience screaming down on television, just enterprise,
They want you there, all right, We'll leave it there.
After the break the Tials losing a seat, the Liberals
have also fought them off elsewhere. Don't believe the line
the Liberals are dead to the Teals. There's a lot
of work to be done, sure, but those Teals are
not invincible despite all the climate millions. We'll see what
was the turning point there? Plus quotas We'll go back
(41:03):
to that issue a.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
Whole lot more. All right, let's go back to quotas.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
It's a silver bullet, some say to winning seats and
winning government format. NAT's staff a Charlotte Morlock says Libs
would be quote morons if they elect two men into
leadership and anything less than two women. She wants a
female leader and a female deputy, and gender quotas, she says,
would be insulting. Oh, I don't necessarily agree with that, Honora,
(41:32):
to suspect us. My next guest, Senior Fellow at the
Institute of Public Affairs, John Roscomb explained to viewers why
quotas based on gender would be an anathema in the
Liberal Party.
Speaker 7 (41:44):
Well, I think, Peter, that most Australians would be absolutely
shocked by those comments. No Australian should have a position
denied to them because of their gender, because of their religion, because.
Speaker 9 (41:57):
Of their race. Are toxic and divisive.
Speaker 7 (42:02):
They're based on basically a Marxist philosophical position, which is
that we aren't to be judged by our character or
our abilities, but simply by our gender, race, or background.
They are completely illiberal and one of the things that
I find really interesting, Peter about this discussion is that
so many of these women pushing quotas for women don't
(42:24):
support women.
Speaker 9 (42:25):
They support left wing women.
Speaker 7 (42:28):
As just Cinder Price, who you are just chatting to,
displayed the strength of character of a conservative woman. These
liberal women were not behind Nicole Flint, a great Liberal.
Speaker 9 (42:41):
Who was ostracized.
Speaker 7 (42:42):
They don't support conservative women like Claire Chandler. They want
a particular sort of women. And I think quotas cut
across everything, not just that the Liberal Party should believe in,
but that any Australian should believe in.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
Talk to me about the tears seats, because what's very
interesting tonight. We've obviously seen Tim Wilson not just win Goldstein,
but he's won and back. Everyone said he wouldn't be
able to win it back. You wouldn't get it back
from a female teal because you'd been so repudiated. He
took the Mini one pro selection obviously, and he's one.
(43:17):
Why has that worked well?
Speaker 7 (43:20):
I think the victory of Tim Wilson, and of course
a Dan tee in holding off the Teals in one
and potential other defeats of teals, reveals a few things.
Maybe Peter Dutton wasn't quite as toxic as we thought
on Saturday Night because Tim Wilson has won Goldstein. But
what Tim Wilson did was around Goldstein. And I know
Tim well and I worked with him at the IPA.
(43:42):
He didn't veer to the left. He wasn't talking about
climate change, he didn't deviate from his values.
Speaker 3 (43:48):
So it didn't become sort of Teal No.
Speaker 7 (43:49):
No, he absolutely repudiated this argument that the Liberal Party
needs to be left wing.
Speaker 9 (43:54):
I'll tell you what he did. He worked hard.
Speaker 7 (43:56):
He demonstrated that uncontrolled immigration is a housing in the area.
He ran a very strong economics agenda, and he did
what not enough Liberals did, which was point out that
the Teals and Zoe Daniel was supporting a terrible, dangerous
government that was destroying Australia economically. And he demonstrated that
(44:17):
if you have the conviction of belief, you don't have
to veer left, you don't have to veer right. You
have to stand by your conviction. And he's overturned all
of those left wing orthodoxies that we've heard from Saturday
night from left wingers who of course say the party,
the Liberal Party, should be more left wing.
Speaker 9 (44:36):
Of course, they would say that.
Speaker 7 (44:38):
So I think Tim Wilson's demonstrated a model for Liberals
going forward.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
Chris Joelman said something last night that really struck me.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
We talked that the Teals were created basically to keep
the Libs out of power, but he made the point
the Teals are to the Liberal Party what the DLP
was to Labor and there was a reckoning there that
took what to day or more. The difference here with
the Teals, of course, is they are getting millions of
millions of dollars from people who want their own private.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
Investments in renewables to get ahead.
Speaker 2 (45:12):
So they are financially motivated to keep renewables in the
system about the best energy mixed for Australia.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
But they have a pecuniary win out of this.
Speaker 7 (45:22):
And isn't that the great irony the tills, the irony
of the Teals talking about transparency, talking about the evils
of lobbyists when they have taken such an advantage of
the system. And one of my criticisms of Peter Dutton
is that on the first day he became leader, he
should have said it's the end of net zero. The
(45:44):
Liberal Party, the coalition will prioritize security, affordability and reliability
of energy, and he would have cut the ground out
from so much of that renewable energy and sustainable.
Speaker 3 (45:56):
And that's where Tony Blair's gone now exactly.
Speaker 7 (45:59):
So I think there's so many lessons that we are
now learning as the results are coming in from from Saturday.
And it also reveals that sometimes things take a little
while to unwind.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
So it's not as good as it seems, if it's
not ever.
Speaker 9 (46:16):
As bad as as you said last night, Peter.
Speaker 3 (46:19):
There we go, John Roskin, thank you.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
All right, upter the rate, we'll get into a whole
lot of issues to Trump, not Trump enough, all of
that with my panel coming up.
Speaker 3 (46:32):
Oh, I've got a nine o'clock let's get straight to it.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
The chief economist and senior fellow at the IPA and
of Crichton joins me out, and the wonderful columnist spectator
Terry Barnes Ginz. Let's start with you at and put
your economist tat on. Petecostala says there was no economic strategy,
that's why they lost.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
What do you think?
Speaker 13 (46:47):
Yeah, look, I think the criticisms are very valid. I mean,
the two core policies that the Liberals had for the
cost of living crisis. Were these temporary measures. There was
the twelve hundred dollars rebate for twelve months, and there
was the cutting fuel excise for twelve months. And I
think voters rightly saw that it's a permanent problem. Woman
needs permanent it needs permanent solutions, and so these were
just gimmicks really, and so I don't think the policies
of the party were anywhere near the values of the
(47:09):
Liberal Party. Is certainly not the IPA, the furthest apart
I've seen in my lifetime, I think, and it's.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Hard to model though, as you know Terry from opposition,
that's the challenge.
Speaker 9 (47:17):
I guess, well, that's right.
Speaker 14 (47:18):
I mean, basically, when you've got a situation like that,
you need to actually have done your homework.
Speaker 6 (47:22):
Three years ago.
Speaker 9 (47:23):
Where have they been Peter, where have they been.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Told to me about the Greens?
Speaker 2 (47:27):
Because you know we could see that Adam bantlews is
you see there's been losses right across the board. What
do you attribute to this great collapse in the Green vote?
And is it permanent?
Speaker 9 (47:37):
I hope, I hope it is.
Speaker 14 (47:38):
I think the Greens are the carbuncle on the bottom
of the Australian body politic. But certainly I think this
Australian's common sense. It's not necessarily anyw campaigns who have
been run against them. I think Australians have seen through
the Greens. They've seen through their economic flim plan, they've
seen through their environmental con game, but they're especially seen
(47:59):
through their enabling anti semitism. I think they have made
Australia ugly. The people who have been are still in
the center, including people who re elected on Saturday Night.
I just think are an absolute disgrace and the Australians
have finally woken up to it.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
A lot of people say, you know, not trumping and
enough or too trumpy. And the media in the US
is saying that Trump played a big role in the
Australian election. I don't think he did, but pleasingly, you know,
Clive Palmer tries to spend one hundred million dollars to
buy an outcome and didn't get anything.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
That alone says were different than the US.
Speaker 9 (48:32):
Yeah, certainly that's true.
Speaker 13 (48:33):
I mean the US politics is all about money, as
we know, but we've just seen that money here doesn't
buy vote. Seemingly, what did you spend one hundred million
dollars and got a tiny little primary vote. So that
is a good sign about a party. Just just broadly
on the narrative of the election is that we've moved
to the left, but actually the far left of the
Greens they completely collapsed, So that's a good thing. And
also Labour's primary vote, Labor's primary vote was actually lower
(48:55):
than what Julie Gillard got in twenty ten when he
just scraped in. So it really wasn't a huge endorsement
of the Labor Party. It was certainly a rejection of
the coalition, there's no doubt about that. It was very emphatic,
but it really wasn't a move to the left. And
I think it's all about preferences now they matter more
than ever. And the one thing that annoys me so
much about the election is all this chatter in the
Lower House, at least as it relates to Lower House voting,
is who's giving their preferences to whom? But you do
(49:17):
your own preferences. Would people just do their own preferences,
don't take their het of it. Card do your own preferences.
Speaker 9 (49:22):
That's what I do. You know, people, don't you know
they don't direct them around.
Speaker 3 (49:25):
You designed your preferences.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Yeah, this is such a good point because I made
the remark last night that the primary vote in sixteen
when short and loss, was about the same as a
primary vote on Saturday night for labor, and obviously one
was a win outcome, one was a landslide, one was
a lost.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
One was a landslide win.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
The preference flows help Labor because they run all of
these entities to drag the preferences across.
Speaker 14 (49:47):
I think that's right, but I think there's also a
fairly sizeable green sorry, a left wing.
Speaker 9 (49:53):
Majority in the Electric down.
Speaker 14 (49:54):
I think the axis has tilted left, but as we've
seen with the low primary votes, they can shift back
the other way.
Speaker 9 (49:59):
So we'll see what has Thanks.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Don't leave it there, Thank you, gentlemen. That's it for me.
See tomorrow night's Andrew
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!