July 25, 2025 • 48 mins
The first sitting week of Australia’s new federal Parliament has begun with a show of strength from the Albanese Labor government, now holding a record-breaking majority. In this episode, we explore what Prime Minister Albanese’s “year of delivery” means for health, housing, education and infrastructure – and whether Labor can meet expectations or fall into complacency. We examine the Coalition’s ongoing crisis under Sussan Ley, with internal chaos, ideological confusion and media sabotage dragging the party further into irrelevance.
We also cover the powerful pro-Palestine protests outside Parliament and question why the government, led by Penny Wong, has focused more on silencing dissent than holding Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. Plus, we look at the campaign to lower the voting age to 16 in Australia, and what it means for democracy and youth political engagement. And finally, we unpack the result of the Tasmania election and what it reveals about modern power-sharing politics – and Labor’s persistent reluctance to work with the Greens. #AUSPOL
Support New Politics. just $5 per month:
Song listing:
We also cover the powerful pro-Palestine protests outside Parliament and question why the government, led by Penny Wong, has focused more on silencing dissent than holding Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. Plus, we look at the campaign to lower the voting age to 16 in Australia, and what it means for democracy and youth political engagement. And finally, we unpack the result of the Tasmania election and what it reveals about modern power-sharing politics – and Labor’s persistent reluctance to work with the Greens. #AUSPOL
Support New Politics. just $5 per month:
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/newpolitics
- Substack: https://newpolitics.substack.com
Song listing:
- ‘Even Better Than The Real Thing’, A 440 VS U2 instrumental remix.
- ‘Sign O’ The Times’, Prince, remix by Michael Saxom.
- ‘Talking To A Stranger’, Birds of Tokyo (cover).
- ‘Under The Sea’, Digby Jones.
- ‘Get Back’, The Beatles (remix).
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This episode of New Politics was released on the twenty
sixth of July twenty twenty five and produced on the
lands of the Wongle and Gadigal people.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to our audience, and welcome to you, David Hope.
You've had a very good week.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Thank you Eddie. I have done in Canberra at the
National Gallery at the Tazzanti Gercommittee exhibition. If you're in Canberra,
I thoroughly recommend it, and.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
A lot of people have said West, well, it seems
like every week for you guys is a good week,
and it can't be good every single week. But maybe
it's not every single week, but we do have to
keep up these appearances. And David, we've got another big
episode coming up. We've got a rap of the first
week of this new parliamentary term, week one, only one
hundred and fifty five weeks to go. We've talked about
(00:52):
who gets censured in Parliament and why should we blower
the voting age to sixteen, and we'll look at the
continuing in Tasmania and all of that's coming up in
this great big episode of New Politics as usual.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
I can't wait, and just.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So reminded that New Politics is produced by independent media.
You can listen, in share, subscribe and support New Politics
at Patreon and substack. It's just five dollars per month,
or you can donate directly at our website at Newpolitics
dot com dot au. And of course all of this
is a good way to support independent journalism. The new
(01:50):
parliamentary term has commenced and it began with the Welcome
to Country ceremony and followed up by the Prime Minister
Anthony Iberneasy addressing all the parliamentarians in the Great Hall
in Parliament House.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
The Welcome to Country is such a powerful way to
begin a new parliament. Like a lot of the most
positive things about our nation, we shouldn't take it for granted.
This ceremony did not take place until two thousand and
seven and was controversial in two thousand and seven. It
(02:25):
is not controversial today, nor should it be. It is
a respectful way of us beginning our deliberations here in Canberra,
which of course means meeting place. What a welcome to
Country does is holds out like a hand, warmly and
(02:48):
graciously extended an opportunity for us to embrace and to
show a profound love of home and country. It is
a reminder as well of why we all belong here together,
that we are stronger together and we belong if I
(03:10):
may return to Anti Violet's wonderful words in a spirit
of understanding, respect and shared purpose.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And there's quite a bit of difference to this new parliament.
David and the Labor Party has got the most seats
that it's ever had in federal history, and it's got
so many that some of its MPs have had to
sit on the opposition side of the chamber. There's a
lot more women in Parliament, not so much on the
Coalition side. Their numbers have actually gone down quite dramatically,
(03:42):
and I think for the Coalition just being outnumbered by
so many MPs. There's ninety four MPs for the Labor
Party in just forty three for the Coalition, I think
that just keeps reminding the Liberal Party about how badly
they performed at the twenty twenty five federal election and
the mountain of work that they will need to do
if they want to become politically competitive again. Now, the
(04:05):
Prime Minister did announce in Parliament that he wants this
year to be the year of delivery, and there's so
many areas that will need to be delivered on in education, health, housing,
early education, infrastructure. But there's virtually no excuses, David. The
Labor government has got a massive majority, it's got a
favorable Senate to work with, it's facing a Liberal party
(04:27):
that's pretty much in nowhere land and trying to work
out how to become relevant again. And I suggest that
this is probably the most powerful position that a prime
minister has ever been in in Federation. And this is
not a landslide after a change election like it was
when Howard came into office in nineteen ninety six or
Tony Abbott in twenty thirteen. This is after the completion
(04:49):
of their first term and the Labor government has already
got the experience of being in government for one term,
so they're not trying to become used to the new
environment or trying to work out what to do. And
usually new governments take about fifteen sixteen months to try
and work out what's going on. They've got this kind
of majority in the second term of governments, so if
(05:10):
they don't achieve that year of delivery, as alban Easy
has said, they will have no one to blame except
for themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, I think Larissa Waters in the Greens is probably
a more amenable character for the Prime Minister to deal
with and say Adam Bant was. This is not to
criticize Adam Band, but there was something personal between Band
and Albanesi that I think isn't reflected with Larissa Waters,
(05:36):
or at least not yet. So getting legislation passed through
the Senate should be a little bit easier. They'll still
have to deal with them and the Greens will still
have things to say and things to adjust, and that's
as it should be. I've said before we shouldn't expect
the Greens to just waive everything the Government says through.
They have to examine it. They have to to examine it.
(05:59):
They have to they have to make sure it fits
in with their core values. But I think that they'll
have a slightly easier time with Larissa Waters. And of
course the coalition is irrelevant. It's it's rebuilding. The National
Party seems to be splitting. Now you've got Michael McCormack
and Barnaby Joyce to ex leaders to who you'd argue
(06:21):
maybe shouldn't be in Parliament anymore, trying to undermine David
Little Proud and again I'm not here to defend David
little Proud by any standard National Party at least looking
towards something that's a bit more sensible for the environment
and for their constituents that aren't just the mining lobby.
Isn't the worst thing they can do. I think that's
(06:42):
fair to say. And again that's not to say I'm
now going to rush out and vote National next election.
For one thing, I don't have any National candidates in
my electorate. But for another thing, there's still a lot
I will disagree with them over. But I think while
Labor has a lot of challenges, the risk of nondisciplined members,
the risk of splits, the risk of little egos now
having a big spot because they can split from the
(07:04):
party without the risk of losing their seat. Now smaller
parties like the Liberal Party, like the National Party actually
have the chance to reform in a way that's less
painful than having to deal with the massive factions. Not
to say that those vested interests won't be problematic. Barnaby
Joyce I thinks he's the only way back for him,
(07:26):
and he's been trying to get back for ten years
and hasn't got anywhere. He gets a bit of press
coverage and then fades away again.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, good things take good time, David.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Things do take good time. It's a chance for the parties,
including the Greens, to really hone what they want and
hone their spot in the electorate. Labor has their spot
in the electorate, they have to keep it. The others
now have a real, once in a lifetime opportunity to
become closer to what the voting the voting population wants.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
We also talked a lot about that slow progress during
Anthony Albanesi's first term of government, and some of the
frustration that we had at the time was that it
was slow. It was that careful process that Albanese kept
on talking about and emphasizing quite a lot about. But
the political conditions are now quite different, and with the
massive majority in Parliament, we could be looking at one
(08:21):
of the most effective federal governments in recent history. And
I'm not suggesting that they will automatically happen just because
they've got this big majority, but the potential is definitely there,
and the legislative process has already started as a bill
for the twenty percent reduction in Hext's stats. There's the
well there and there was an election promise and that's great,
(08:43):
but a bolder move would have been to wipe out
the slate completely and move on to free tertiary education.
That's one thing that I'd really like to see. They've
also introduced a bill for stronger legislation around child care safety,
and that is in response to the child's sexual abuse
that was revealed recently in a number of early education
services in Melbourne. We've discussed that a couple of weeks ago,
(09:05):
so this is all the start, but it's only the
first couple of days of the first week of a
three year term. And why haven't they done everything yet?
Come on, goes, Well, that's that's what I'm wondering. But
there have been some questions about what will happen when
a government dominates Parliament so much, and that, of course
is a valid question, but it depends on what type
(09:26):
of government we've got. The Howard government had a similar
majority in nineteen ninety six. I think they had ninety
four seats. It's the same as the alb and Easy
government at the moment, and we're still actually suffering a
lot from that legacy of the Howard government when they
had that huge majority. The Abbott government in twenty thirteen,
similar sort of majority. I think they had ninety one seats,
(09:48):
similar sort of damage, but they were just too incompetent
to inflict any sort of further damage or similar to
what the Howard government implemented. But it's the first time
that we've had a labor government that's had such a
massive majority, and I think for examples about what might happen,
we can only look at state labor governments for similarities.
(10:09):
And if we look at the Western Australian Labor government
from twenty seventeen onwards, that's for the past eight years
they've hardly had any opposition at all. But I think
that they've used that power quite wisely and there've been
a good stable government and they've used that stability to
build record levels of public infrastructure and also deliver strong
(10:33):
public services. So I think having this huge majority, it
depends on what sort of government it is, and when
you're comparing what was going on within WA Labor compared
to what the coalition usually does, and usually they offer
obstructionist tactics in opposition, then they go all right wing
when they get into government. It's quite radically different and
for once, we might end up getting a break from
(10:55):
the chaos, well, especially from the chaos that we saw
from Peter Dutton for the part us three years, and
I think that's something to look forward to, at least
for the next three years.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Anyway, the disruptive opposition tactic didn't work. It didn't work
under Abbot Okay became Prime Minister, but he crashes out
in less than two years. They then applied it to
the Turnbull government, ironically because it was their government, and
it caused chaos and stopped Turnbull having a bigger legacy
(11:26):
than he did. Now this of course might have worked
in Australia's favor, but it didn't help anyone, least of
all their own side and their own selves approach was
really to be just an immature opposition party. Didn't help
of course Dutton. All he was capable of was wrecking
and not building. And the electorate finally wakes up to it.
(11:47):
The electorate finally realizes that they have no other plan,
they have no other ideas. They're not wrecking the Labor
Party so they or the government so they can put
better ideas in. They're wrecking it because they don't know
what else to do so, Labor wins a stomping majority.
We can't ignore the good campaign that Labor ran as well,
(12:09):
and then they win it again because again Dutton shows
that there's nothing, nothing that he has that appeals to
the Australian electorate as a whole. Suzanne Lay, I think
realizes this at some level and has tried to be
a bit more empathetic, a bit more practical, and a
bit more positive in terms of her approach to things.
(12:31):
Her tears at Ali Francis speech were I think genuine
by acknowledging that I'm not saying so Susannley for Prime Minister,
but I am noticing the change from that very hard man.
Must win everything, must own the Labor Party to must
try and represent not just the interests the narrow interests
(12:52):
of the Liberal Party, but the interests of all Australia,
and show empathy and show compassion. Again, this is not
to say I think she'll be a good prime minister.
You have to acknowledge when there's a change, and we'll
have to see how genuine that change is.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And if the Labor Party is in its strongest position
in its federal history, well then the coalition is definitely
at its weakest point well, especially for the Liberal Party.
Their primary vote was at a record low at the
last election and it's gone down even further in opinion
polls in the latest opinion polls. Not that that means
anything at this stage, but they have gone down. And
(13:29):
for me, what started with John Howard in the nineteen
nineties seems to have finally collapse with the demise of
Peter Dutton, and that seems to be a generational change,
not just in the personalities but also in their ideological
thinking and they do have to change that if they
want to be relevant in the future. But just based
on the first week back of Parliament, just when you
(13:53):
think that they couldn't fall any further, some Liberal and
National Party MPs, well they're trying to drag things even further.
David Angus Taylor, Andrew Bragg, Michaulia Cash. They're still obsessing
about Anthony Alberanezi, not meeting with Donald Trump and supposedly
spending too much time in China recently, and now they're
(14:15):
fixated on Labour's modest superannuation tax changes for balances over
three million dollars and I think they've got Tim Willison
on the case there, and this is while the Nationals
and Barnaby Joyce they just continue to backtrack on net
zero by twenty fifty targets and playing their stupid political
games with all of this, and it just seems they've
(14:37):
got some sort of political amnesia going on as well,
and they just seem to have forgotten all about what
actually happened at the twenty twenty five election. If you
want to go the step further, it seems like they've
forgotten what happened in the twenty twenty two election as well.
And as you suggested before, David, I think that the
new Liberal leader, Susan Lee, she's slowly trying to be
(14:59):
a more constructor opposition leader, and not that I think
that should be that good. As the Prime minister, I
tend to agree with you, but leadership is not really
the issue. I think that it's the entire party that
is the problem. Susan Lee has already been whitehanded by
her own party. She gets slagged off every day by
the usual suspects that Sky News. The Liberal Party is
(15:19):
still this sort of blokey blokes club. It's that muscular
outfit that's got this old style conservative idea about what
politics is all about. Even the women in the Liberal
parties still want to behave like blokes to get ahead
in the Liberal Party. In that I don't think leed's
very much room for genuine reform. And if the coalition
really wants to get serious about reforming itself, well maybe
(15:41):
they could just study what Anthony Albeneasy did between twenty
nineteen and twenty twenty two. I think we've talked about
this before, David that when he was the leader of
the opposition, and Susan Lee has said that she wants
to be a constructive leader and support the government in
those areas of common intes and these are exactly the
(16:01):
same words that Anthony aben easy first years when he
became the leader of the Labor Party. But I think
they just have to say focused, they have to stay
disciplined and on top of that, stop behaving like assholes.
That's the most important thing. And these habits might be
very hard to break based on what we saw during
this first week of Parliament. And even if they do change,
(16:22):
he might not be a guarantee of success, but at
least it would make them more relevant again.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
I think there's a lot of vested interests. South Australia
has recently bought through legislation to cap political donations at
twenty thousand dollars. I think I would cap it much
less to five hundred dollars or one thousand dollars. None
of this anonymous, fully transparent, who has donated, and have
fully publicly funded elections in which you've got to qualify
(16:51):
to get the funding. I think having a core of
people who say they're going to vote for you, making
sure you're a genuine party, et cetera, that all of
that is fine. But I think I think we've got
to get away from various extractive or forestry or gambling
interests controlling what the major parties say, or what any
party says. We might be too heading towards. And I've
(17:13):
been saying this for too long now, so I'm probably wrong,
but we might be heading towards are split in both
major parties. Both major parties have survived splits before, but
I think we might be heading for a seismic one
where there's a complete refiguring of what is needed.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Israel controls guards as borders and prevents international agencies from
bringing in food. The Israeli controlled alternatives. The notorious guds
(17:56):
A Humanitarian Foundation or GHF, is continuing to be widely condemned.
Nowhere near enough food is being distributed, and since May,
more than a thousand Palestinians seeking food have been killed
by being shot at GHF sites or crushed in stampedes
as desperate people rush to get food.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
The issue of Palestine isn't going to go away, nor
should it. And for this first day of the new Parliament,
there were thousands of people who converge on Parliament for
a series of pro Palestine protests and demanded that federal
politicians do a lot more about these atrocities and the
genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza, and that includes sanctions,
(18:40):
boycotts against Israel, stop selling weapons past the Israel Defense Force,
recognizing Star of Palestine, and join international action against Israel.
Because unless it's told to stop, it's just going to
keep doing what it's doing in Palestine. And I think
that for a lot of people, while Parliament was going
through the pro of its ceremonial speeches, that just seemed
(19:02):
quite irrelevant while there's a genocide going on. Children in
Gaza are being deliberately starved, entire families being bombed and killed.
Most of Gaza has been turned into rubble, and the
world community, including Australia, is failing to stop this from happening.
During the week, Australia was one of the twenty eight
countries that signed a statement condemning the actions of Israel,
(19:26):
saying clearly that what's happening in Gaza violence international law.
But they've said this many times before, but it's still
far too little and far too late. Foreign Minister Penny
Wong is still delivering all of those carefully worded statements
that are designed to say something without really saying anything
at all, and just being very careful not to offend
the Israel lobby in Australia and the Zionists, and even
(19:49):
went to the extent to lead a censure motion against
the Australian Green Senator Marine Faruki for holding up a
sign which said Gaza is starving. Words won't feed them,
sanction Israel, and Pennywong has taken strong offense to this,
a lot more offense than Israel blowing up children and
entire families in Gaza. Here's Senator Wong in proposing this motion.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
And in this place. Yesterday Senator Feruki went a step further.
She disrespected the rules of the Parliament by holding up
a sign for the duration of the Governor General's address
on the opening of this term of parliament. Now, what
we saw this week is what we have seen before
from Senator Feruki. Senator Feruki demands respect, but she does
(20:35):
not offer it. She denigrates anyone who doesn't agree with
her on everything regularly, including personally. I don't think this
is the leadership Australians expect. I don't believe this is
what Australian democracy is about.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
It's not any old censure. It's an extreme disapproval and
profound disapproval and also includes an extended censure. That is
not appropriate for Senator Ferruki to represent the Senator as
a member of any delegation during this life of this Parliament.
And this is absolutely outrageous. David holding up a sign
(21:16):
calling for the sanction of a foreign government and Senator
Farruki is effectively banned from the Parliament for three years.
Here's Senator Faruki's response.
Speaker 7 (21:27):
Labor and the Coalition in this chamber wants to avoid
the truth. You don't want to see it or hear it,
and now here we are you want me, You want
to force me to apologize for telling the truth. Well,
well done. You can all patch yourselves on the back
and move on, move on, while Palestinians are slaughtered. I
(21:48):
do want to draw attention to the words of Martin
Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham jail, and
it seems especially relevant while you all sit here and
sensure me for breaking what you call the decorum of Parliament,
of my failure to be polite or respectful, while a
genocide unfolds, while kids are being killed. He wrote of
(22:10):
his frustration with the white moderate, who is more devoted
to order than to justice, who seeks only the absence
of tension rather than the presence of justice, who says,
I agree with the goal you seek, but I cannot
agree with your ways of achieving it. Who has a
paternalistic belief they can set the timetable and decorum of
(22:33):
another people's freedom. Well, you can set your standards because
you don't want to see the truth, You don't want
to do anything about the genocide, And one day, you
know what, One day you will all have to explain
to your children and grandchildren where you stood when tens
(22:53):
of thousands of men, women and children were being slaughtered.
And I wouldn't like to be in your shoes then,
because you are all on the wrong side of history, right.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
And David, I think if we wanted to see evidence
of how much influenced the Israel lobby and the Zionist
groups have over the Federal Parliament of Australia, I think
this is a prime example. Within an hour the resolution
was put up by Senator Pennywong, it was voted on
and instead of sanctioning the state of Israel, it's the
government sanctioning and Australian senator for holding up her bloody sign.
(23:24):
It's absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
The sign didn't incite anyone to violence, It didn't call
for the deaths of anyone. It was a peaceful protest
that a senator or anyone should be allowed to do.
I don't look at Senator Faruki and think, oh, what
a terrible, racist, andy Semitic person she is. And obviously
she's well not obviously, but it's not surprising that she's
(23:50):
going to perhaps favor one side over the other. But
it's a conflict in which on one since Australia has
no direct interest in and so to favor one side
of the other shouldn't make any difference to her performance
as a senator or to her performance as a functioning,
engaged human being in Australia. Had someone else held up
(24:11):
a pro Israel sign, I don't think they should be
censured for that.
Speaker 8 (24:14):
Well.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I guess the point is that if I did hold
up an Israel sign, they wouldn't have been censured.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
And that's where the problem is. Senator Wong and Prime
Minister Albanezi have started using stronger language criticizing Israel. But
as you rightly said, recall the ambassador stop trade all
trade with Israel put in a do not travel advisory
to Australians traveling to that part of the world. I'm
not sure what else you could do. Certainly stop sending
(24:42):
arms and money over there, but Israel needs to be
treated as the prior it is till it fixes things again.
I think a return to the nineteen forty eight borders,
and I know some people are saying that's not enough,
we should dismantle the whole thing altogether. I think these
have to be done in state anyway. So a return
(25:02):
to the forty eight borders or at least the sixty
seven borders would be the first thing, with the United
Nations enforcing that through a task force. I think as
net Nyahu gets more desperate to avoid a trial and
almost inevitably prison, his actions are becoming more desperate. But
it's becoming hard for the I'll call it the non
(25:22):
aligned West, even though they're deeply aligned. But for places
like Britain and America and Australia to support that government,
it's a difficult thing. I understand that you shouldn't interfere
in internal politics over foreign government, but where we've hit
a humanitarian thing, let's be frank, it's not going to
hurt our economy that much. Whereas you might argue that
(25:46):
hitting China too hard will ruin the country, or hitting
America too hard will ruin the country, hitting Israel hard
will show Australia to be a much more principal place
than it's been showing itself to be over the last
few years, not hurt us that much. So from a
philosophical standpoint, it's right because we can't have innocent people
(26:06):
being bombed. I think they've got two hamas leaders in
the eighteen months, but sixty fifty sixty thousand people have
been killed and there's a hunger crisis there. Fifteen children
a day are starving to death and it's just appalling,
and it would be appalling I forwards the other way.
(26:26):
I think it's time the world stood up properly. Words
aren't enough in this case. We need actions.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
This is New Politics with Eddie Jokovic and David lewis
the best podcast on Australian politics and news commentary. You
can support us through Patreon and substack and also find
us at newpolitics dot com dot a u.
Speaker 9 (26:49):
Sh Edules Life two Strange as Jesus tell Me, where
a black eyes.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Was talking to a strange.
Speaker 7 (27:07):
Says talking to.
Speaker 8 (27:22):
A boost for democracy or a ploy to capitalize on
the youth vote. The Labor government announced it would deliver
on a manifesto pledge to give the vote to sixteen
and seventeen year olds, and for some it was a
welcome move.
Speaker 10 (27:36):
I'm really happy about it because I've always been kind
of frustrated just watching politics and not being able to
do anything. Sixteen to eighteen is quite like a maturity jump.
But like I think a lot of people, even from
a very young age have very strong opinions and they
think their opinion should be heard.
Speaker 8 (27:55):
For the Prime minister. It is a logical step designed
to boost voter turn out.
Speaker 9 (28:00):
They're old enough to go out to work, they're old
enough to pay taxes, so to pay in and I
think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity
to say what you want your money spent on which
way the government should go.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Britain is reducing the voting age to sixteen in time
for the next election, which is due at some point
before twenty twenty nine, and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer
suggested that if people are working in paying taxes, doesn't
matter how old they are, they should be entitled to
vote and this shouldn't be the only reason for getting
sixteen year olds to vote in elections. You're functioning and
(28:38):
thinking citizens, so you should be in total to vote,
whether you pay taxes or not. And there is a
similar push to lower the voting age to sixteen in Australia.
The Independent Member for Ku Yong, Monique Ryan, is planning
to introduce a bill in the Lower House to reduce
the voting age to sixteen, and if this is adopted
(28:59):
by the guar it will add around six hundred thousand
people to the electoral roles, or around four percent to
the overall electoral number, and I think that this would
be a positive development. We should be encouraging more people
to participate in the democratic process. There's already seven countries
that have got a voting age of sixteen, including Brazil, Argentina,
(29:22):
Austria and Malta. And there's four other countries that have
got a voting age of seventeen. So it's not really
such a big deal and it should be done as
soon as possible.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I saw arguments in Britain saying that our sixteen year
old brain isn't developed enough. Well, if we're going down
that route, the male brain doesn't develop till it's about
twenty five. So maybe females should be allowed to vote
at eighteen, a male should be allowed to vote at
twenty five. Can't wait to see the reactions from the
anti lowering the vote.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Well, m'd actually be more concerned about the people who
are fifty years old who vote.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Yeah, and I'm wondering if we should make voting non
compulsory after the age of eighty five, not to take
people off the rolls, but instead of GPS being tied
up for a couple of days going through their patients
and explaining to the commission that they can't vote, just
you have the right to opt out and you have
the right to stay in. There are plenty of eighty
(30:17):
five year olds who are sharper considered, who are an above.
But for those people who just don't have it in
them anymore, instead of making them jump through all the
bureaucratic hoops, they're on the role. But if they don't
turn up, that's fine.
Speaker 9 (30:31):
Well.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
There's also a lot of noise every time this idea
of lowering the voting age comes up. It doesn't happen
that often, but when it comes up, there's always this
white noise that sort of follows the argument. And sure enough,
it's always the conservatives that rush in to dismiss it.
And it's always that suggestion that sixteen year olds don't
know enough about the world. You mentioned this idea about
(30:53):
their brains not being fully developed. There's other ideas that
they haven't been educated enough about civics and don't understand
the voting system them at all, and they're all two.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And who's fault is that?
Speaker 2 (31:03):
And that they're also very gullible, and that sounds like
a lot of people that I know who are over
the age of eighteen and vote in federal elections. But
the main reason why the Conservatives are opposed to this idea, David,
is that younger people lean heavily to the left, not
necessarily to the Labor Party, but under the two party system,
their vote would likely end up favoring the Labor Party
(31:26):
if they did have the right to vote. And for
that age group between eighteen to twenty five, it's around
sixty five to seventy percent that favors the Labor Party
in two party preferred voting. That's what the figures were
at the last election. So I'm assuming that sixteen or
seventeen year olds would probably have the same amount of number.
But when you take these factors into account and that
(31:48):
this age group would add around four percent to the
electoral role, well that's probably enough to give the Labor
Party an extra one or two percent in the two
party preferred vote across Australia, and that would be enough
to shape the outcome well, not just close election, probably
all elections. And if I was a Labor government, I'd
act on this as quickly as possible, not just because
it's good public policy and that we should be encouraging
(32:09):
democratic participation for younger people, but because it would give
a huge advantage to the Labor Party just at a
time when the demographic trends are starting to drift away
from the Coalition and at the moment, policies the governments
produced that relate to education, health, mental health, and the environment,
(32:30):
and these are policies that interest and affect sixteen and
seventeen year olds. These policies are developed and directed towards
the parents of these children and not the children themselves,
because it's the parents that vote, not the children. But
if young adults could vote, I'd say that we'd see
a major policy shift in some of these areas, if
not all of them. And this wouldn't be a process
(32:52):
of destroying democracy, which is what some of the conservative
distractors have been saying. It would enhance democracy because I
think they're getting more people to participate in politics and
in democracy. Well, that can only be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
It is, and we need an informed and engaged electorate. Now,
not every sixteen year old is going to be informed
and engaged, but not every forty year old is informed
and engaged. Every time there's a suggestion of changing the
electoral system, the right in particular jump up and down
about how unfair it is and how again, there are
(33:31):
sixteen year olds who vote to the right, who are
members of the National Party, who are or Young Nationals,
members of the Young Liberals, those who might not be
members of the party but think that the Labor Party
is dangerous. Maybe they've been conditioned to think that, Maybe
they've come to that through their own thinking and recognissance.
For all the complaints the right have about compulsory voting,
(33:53):
far more right wing governments have been elected than left
wing governments at a federal level, and I think even
at a state.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
All that at a star level it's more even. But
certainly in federal politics, the non Labour side of politics
has held office for seventy percent.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
It hasn't advantaged anybody at all. It has advantaged the electorate,
and I guess that's what they're most scared of, a thinking,
engaged electorate. I was one of those nerds who pre
enrolled to vote when I was think you were seventeen.
The Electoral Commission came round and to the school and
spoke about the importance of voting, and five of us
signed up out of a class of eighty or something
(34:31):
or a year of eighty. And I suppose too, we
were some of the middle class kids who had that
privilege to be able to think a little bit more
about it. So again, it might give labor a short
term boost. And of course where Labor's winning elections is
in the preferences. They're winning on second and third preferences,
which if you're a young person who votes Green at
(34:53):
number one and then maybe an independent at number two,
you're not putting Liberal at number three, You're not putting
them nationals at number three, You're not putting one nation
at number three, You're putting Labor at number three. And
those preferences might flow through that way, but that's been
what happening anyway. I suspect that one or two percent
advantage they might get if the polls are right and
(35:15):
if voting intentions stay, I don't think it's as big
an advantage as the fear mongering right will tell you.
And of course this goes back to our earlier point
of is the Liberal party moderating a bit? And if
it is, you may find that quite a few of
these sixteen year olds. I think, actually, this isn't a
(35:38):
bad party now, and this starts to reflect my values
and my.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
View of the world.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Bringing in more people to vote is never a bad thing,
even if it advantages the other side, because then you've
got to rely on your own arguments, your own policies,
your own candidates to win them back over. And that's
really as it should be.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
It's deja vu for Tasmanians after another election.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
We were actually it was groundhog it was groundhog Day.
We thought it was probably going to happen.
Speaker 8 (36:29):
It was silly election. We didn't need to have election,
We didn't need to have.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
It feels pretty much exactly the same as it did
last week and like we'll probably get us pretty similar.
Speaker 7 (36:39):
Yeah, it's going to look like exactly the same.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
Nothing really changed, which is disappointing.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
But yeah, we had the Tasmania election last weekend and
it's provided the same result as the election last year
and the Liberals ended up with fourteen seats. Labor won
ten seats. Is a possible that they might get one
more seat, but that's what they've got at the moment,
(37:04):
and the Labor Party ended up getting its worst result
on record on the primary vote. But the ridiculous thing
is that it's still got a chance of being able
to form government with the Greens and Independents who hold
the other fifteen seats. I think there was a disaster
for the Labor Party in quite a few other ways.
After the last Tasmania election in twenty twenty four, sixteen
(37:26):
months ago, they ruled out a negotiation with the Tasmania
Greens and the Independence even before the counting had been finalized,
and they also push forward a vote of no confidence
a couple of months ago. At that stage they also
refused to negotiate with the Tasmania Greens and Independence, and
they could have avoided this election fully. And I just
(37:51):
think David, that in politics, you take the opportunities that
are provided to you when you try and form government
at every opportunity, whether there's an elect or not. And
there's been quite a few changes of government within Australia
without actually going to an election where the government changes
on the floor of Parliament, so that is always a possibility.
But I think that a part of this is that
(38:13):
visceral hatred of the Greens that the Labor Party has
gone and We see that very much with Anthony Albanezi
in Federal Parliament. You talked about that earlier on David.
Not so much in the Act because the Labor Party
and the Act Greens were in a formal coalition for
fifteen years. But a lot of this stuff is illogical.
(38:34):
Tasmanian electorate has voted in a particular way and now
it's up to the elected members to make it all work.
The Premier, Jeremy Rockcliffe, he's the incumbent and the winner
of the most seats, so he's got the right to
go to try and convince the Governor of Tasmania that
he has got the confidence of the parliament. And if
he can't do that, we'll all be up to the
(38:55):
Labor leader, Dean Winter to do the same. But it's
unclear what will happen in this situation because nine of
the ten independents that have won at the Tasmanian election
they are progressive and left of center. Then there's the
grains and it's hard to know what will happen here
and who will be supported.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
There's an old axiom or joke I suppose that says
be careful that toes you step on today they may
be part of the legs that are hanging off the bottom.
You've got a kiss tomorrow, and Labor with its relationship
with the Greens in particular, seems to ignore this. And
politics is brutal. People will remember what you did. It's
not May Angelou in politics where May Angelou said people
(39:35):
won't remember what you say or what you did, but
they will remember how you make you feel. In politics,
they remember everything and they hold onto it forever. So
the hollow victory you get today may come back to
bite you in five or ten years. Bruce government lost
a vote in Parliament that Billy Hughes essentially helped engineer.
Because Bruce rolled Hughes back in nineteen twenty one and
(39:57):
in nineteen twenty nine, Who's got his revenge. There are
more recent examples too. Politics is strands of shifting allegiances,
and sometimes your political friend today can be your political
enemy tomorrow. And that's why you'll see often a lot
of politicians on opposite sides actually socialize and get on
well because they understand that over parliament we're calling each
(40:18):
other the most horrible names and accusing each of the
most horrible things, but we don't really mean it, because
that's how the strands of advantages. Next week we'll be
voting together on the same topic we were ripping together,
and that's how negotiations work. Probably shouldn't be as simplistic
as Scott Morrison's response to one of the independents. Nexanaphon says,
(40:40):
let's go and grab a coffee, thinking it'd be just
a nice way of keeping in, and Morrison says, I'm
purely transactional. Of course that costs Morris badly. You need
some transactional relationships in politics, of course, tit for tati
for eye, one hand backscratching, and it depends. And the
wiser karma heads understand the Which isn't to say they
(41:01):
weren't great hatreds of course from time to time, but
Paul has Luck threw a glass of water over a
golf whitlam. But they remain good friends, even though they
were totally opposite politically.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Well Goth might have been thirsty at the time.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
Might have been frustrated has Luck and has like a
man of composure, lost it, but they ended up reconciling.
They had very similar tastes in literature and music and
things like that, and were able to bond over that.
But there's a maturity in knowing that my friend today
might be my enemy tomorrow, but if I can extend
the friendship for a couple of days, we're all happy.
(41:36):
And Labour's approach to the Greens hasn't been like that recently,
and they've got to really rethink about it that you
don't have to be best friends. No one's sending each
other Christmas cards. There's no need to be disruptive and obstructionist.
And it goes both ways, of course.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Oh for sure. But it's also a case where I
realized that every jurisdiction is going to be different across Australia.
But you've got a formal coalition between the Act Greens
and the Labor Party in Canberra, yet nowhere else is
the same sort of recognition of the like minded outcomes
that could be achieved through that. So in Tasmania there's
(42:13):
this visceral hatred of the Labor Party towards the Greens.
The Liberal Party actually formed a coalition with the Tasmania Greens.
I think that might have been about thirty years ago.
That didn't go well at all, But the point is
that it did happen between the Labor Party and the Greens.
They just don't want to go there. But that's a
different issue. But I think the Hair Clark electoral system
(42:34):
overall in Tasmania, well it's been around since nineteen o seven,
or there are bouts, but I think in this case
it's delivered a very representative outcome. And critics argue that
it doesn't produce definitive outcomes. Well, I'd argue that it does.
This is the outcome. This is an outcome that parliamentarians
have to work with. It produces an electoral outcome that
(42:56):
is more reflective of the community. And sure the Liberal Party,
he was the one that got the most votes in
the most seats except for everyone else, except for everyone else.
And it's got around fifteen to sixteen seats that are
center right out of the total of thirty five seats,
but you need eighteen seats to form government, and the
other nineteen seats are center or center left, and not
(43:17):
that i'd call the Labor Party in Tasmania center left,
but they are slightly to the left of the Liberal Party.
Gengers can't and we actually did suggest last week, or
I suggested that there would be a few surprises, but
the surprise was that there were no surprises at all,
and it wasn't like the recent federal election where the
(43:37):
Liberal Party was wiped out. In Tasmania. There was a
lot of emphasis on the debacle of the AFL stadium
at Macquarie Point and the AFL team that they planning
to set up down there as well, but I think
there were a wide range of other issues as well.
Salmon farming was a big issue, as was environmental degradation,
(43:58):
public health, the quality of education and the management of
the budget. That was a big issue as well. So
the results are in. It's not really chaos. This is
what the electorate has voted for and they do not
want another election. I think in Tasmania they've had five
elections in the past seven years of state and federal elections,
so they're probably sick of this process. But they want
(44:21):
the elected representatives to sort it all out and if
Labor and the Greens need to form a coalition with
some light minded independence, well then that's what they'll have
to do. And that's the big message from this election
in Tasmania, and that probably applies to all elections from
now on, not just in Tasmania, but all across the
country MPs are elected to do a job. Go ahead
(44:44):
and do your job and make it work. That's what
you're elected for.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
It was an early election.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
Well that's right. The previous election was sixteen months ago,
in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Yeah, and that's how Westminster parliamentary democracies, which essentially Tasmania is,
as is the rest of Australia work. If it's not working,
you hold another election and let the public decide how
it's best work. This isn't a disaster. That there's a
lot of independence is probably reflecting a lot of public
dissatisfaction at the major parties. The stadium is a terrible
(45:18):
error of things, and of course New South Wales struggled
for years to put in anything that wasn't either a
car track or a stadium. Okay, the Olympics was a
part of that, but there are other things to build.
I'm sure Tasmania would love better hospitals, expansion to Utahs,
the University of Tasmania, public housing, public housing, more funding
the public schools, more better coordinated court and justice system.
(45:43):
Now let's have a football stadium that they're never going
to fill because they're not going to be able to
put enough big games on to attract the mainland, and
that was the whole argument that oh well the Mainlanders
will come down maybe, and tourism is important to Tasmania
and it's a great it is really a great place
to visit, but there are other ways to get people
down there. Once you're Melbourne AFL fans have been, and
(46:07):
maybe your Sydney ones and possibly a Brismoban ones. That's
that for the year, they're not really going to go
down They might hold the Grand Final down there, but
that's only one game a year. Even here in Sydney,
the Home Bush Kudos Arena in the football have something
on nearly every week, and it's not just sport. It's
big concerts and stand up comics and rock bands and
(46:28):
hip hop artists and so it keeps it busy. Will
TASMANI be able to attract someone of the performance caliber
of Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran or Kevin Hart. I'm
not sure. They cost a lot of money to go
down there, and it might not be worth their while
to hire the stadium, out sell the tickets and then
continue on. It's hard enough to get to get those
(46:48):
big x to Australia because it's expensive and it's logistically hard.
Even Ed Sheeran, who's got a fairly simple rig, still
has to accommodate his crew, accommodation for other and so
for a football team. Are the Melbourne team's really going
to want to hop on the plane every three weeks
to play the home game, let alone Sydney, let alone Brisbane.
(47:09):
I don't know. Maybe they are, maybe they can see
the advantage of it, but it seems to me that
that stadium wrecked the Liberal Party and it's not going
to help the Labor Party at all.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
That's it for this episode of New Politics. Thanks for
listening in, and if you'd like to support our style
of journalism and commentary, please make a donation at our
website at newpolitics dot com dot au. We don't beg plead,
beseech or gaslight you about journalism coming to an end.
We just keep it very simple. If you like what
we do, please send some support our way. It keeps
(47:43):
our commitment to independent journalism kicking along. I'm Eddie Jokovic.
Thanks for listening in, and it's goodbye to our listeners.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
I'm David Lewis, we'll see you next time.
Speaker 7 (48:00):
Good Bye.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Do he wants below? Doing he wants below?
Speaker 8 (48:12):
Get by Joe Joe,
This episode of New Politics was released on the twenty
sixth of July twenty twenty five and produced on the
lands of the Wongle and Gadigal people.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to our audience, and welcome to you, David Hope.
You've had a very good week.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Thank you Eddie. I have done in Canberra at the
National Gallery at the Tazzanti Gercommittee exhibition. If you're in Canberra,
I thoroughly recommend it, and.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
A lot of people have said West, well, it seems
like every week for you guys is a good week,
and it can't be good every single week. But maybe
it's not every single week, but we do have to
keep up these appearances. And David, we've got another big
episode coming up. We've got a rap of the first
week of this new parliamentary term, week one, only one
hundred and fifty five weeks to go. We've talked about
(00:52):
who gets censured in Parliament and why should we blower
the voting age to sixteen, and we'll look at the
continuing in Tasmania and all of that's coming up in
this great big episode of New Politics as usual.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
I can't wait, and just.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
So reminded that New Politics is produced by independent media.
You can listen, in share, subscribe and support New Politics
at Patreon and substack. It's just five dollars per month,
or you can donate directly at our website at Newpolitics
dot com dot au. And of course all of this
is a good way to support independent journalism. The new
(01:50):
parliamentary term has commenced and it began with the Welcome
to Country ceremony and followed up by the Prime Minister
Anthony Iberneasy addressing all the parliamentarians in the Great Hall
in Parliament House.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
The Welcome to Country is such a powerful way to
begin a new parliament. Like a lot of the most
positive things about our nation, we shouldn't take it for granted.
This ceremony did not take place until two thousand and
seven and was controversial in two thousand and seven. It
(02:25):
is not controversial today, nor should it be. It is
a respectful way of us beginning our deliberations here in Canberra,
which of course means meeting place. What a welcome to
Country does is holds out like a hand, warmly and
(02:48):
graciously extended an opportunity for us to embrace and to
show a profound love of home and country. It is
a reminder as well of why we all belong here together,
that we are stronger together and we belong if I
(03:10):
may return to Anti Violet's wonderful words in a spirit
of understanding, respect and shared purpose.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And there's quite a bit of difference to this new parliament.
David and the Labor Party has got the most seats
that it's ever had in federal history, and it's got
so many that some of its MPs have had to
sit on the opposition side of the chamber. There's a
lot more women in Parliament, not so much on the
Coalition side. Their numbers have actually gone down quite dramatically,
(03:42):
and I think for the Coalition just being outnumbered by
so many MPs. There's ninety four MPs for the Labor
Party in just forty three for the Coalition, I think
that just keeps reminding the Liberal Party about how badly
they performed at the twenty twenty five federal election and
the mountain of work that they will need to do
if they want to become politically competitive again. Now, the
(04:05):
Prime Minister did announce in Parliament that he wants this
year to be the year of delivery, and there's so
many areas that will need to be delivered on in education, health, housing,
early education, infrastructure. But there's virtually no excuses, David. The
Labor government has got a massive majority, it's got a
favorable Senate to work with, it's facing a Liberal party
(04:27):
that's pretty much in nowhere land and trying to work
out how to become relevant again. And I suggest that
this is probably the most powerful position that a prime
minister has ever been in in Federation. And this is
not a landslide after a change election like it was
when Howard came into office in nineteen ninety six or
Tony Abbott in twenty thirteen. This is after the completion
(04:49):
of their first term and the Labor government has already
got the experience of being in government for one term,
so they're not trying to become used to the new
environment or trying to work out what to do. And
usually new governments take about fifteen sixteen months to try
and work out what's going on. They've got this kind
of majority in the second term of governments, so if
(05:10):
they don't achieve that year of delivery, as alban Easy
has said, they will have no one to blame except
for themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yeah, I think Larissa Waters in the Greens is probably
a more amenable character for the Prime Minister to deal
with and say Adam Bant was. This is not to
criticize Adam Band, but there was something personal between Band
and Albanesi that I think isn't reflected with Larissa Waters,
(05:36):
or at least not yet. So getting legislation passed through
the Senate should be a little bit easier. They'll still
have to deal with them and the Greens will still
have things to say and things to adjust, and that's
as it should be. I've said before we shouldn't expect
the Greens to just waive everything the Government says through.
They have to examine it. They have to to examine it.
(05:59):
They have to they have to make sure it fits
in with their core values. But I think that they'll
have a slightly easier time with Larissa Waters. And of
course the coalition is irrelevant. It's it's rebuilding. The National
Party seems to be splitting. Now you've got Michael McCormack
and Barnaby Joyce to ex leaders to who you'd argue
(06:21):
maybe shouldn't be in Parliament anymore, trying to undermine David
Little Proud and again I'm not here to defend David
little Proud by any standard National Party at least looking
towards something that's a bit more sensible for the environment
and for their constituents that aren't just the mining lobby.
Isn't the worst thing they can do. I think that's
(06:42):
fair to say. And again that's not to say I'm
now going to rush out and vote National next election.
For one thing, I don't have any National candidates in
my electorate. But for another thing, there's still a lot
I will disagree with them over. But I think while
Labor has a lot of challenges, the risk of nondisciplined members,
the risk of splits, the risk of little egos now
having a big spot because they can split from the
(07:04):
party without the risk of losing their seat. Now smaller
parties like the Liberal Party, like the National Party actually
have the chance to reform in a way that's less
painful than having to deal with the massive factions. Not
to say that those vested interests won't be problematic. Barnaby
Joyce I thinks he's the only way back for him,
(07:26):
and he's been trying to get back for ten years
and hasn't got anywhere. He gets a bit of press
coverage and then fades away again.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, good things take good time, David.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Things do take good time. It's a chance for the parties,
including the Greens, to really hone what they want and
hone their spot in the electorate. Labor has their spot
in the electorate, they have to keep it. The others
now have a real, once in a lifetime opportunity to
become closer to what the voting the voting population wants.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
We also talked a lot about that slow progress during
Anthony Albanesi's first term of government, and some of the
frustration that we had at the time was that it
was slow. It was that careful process that Albanese kept
on talking about and emphasizing quite a lot about. But
the political conditions are now quite different, and with the
massive majority in Parliament, we could be looking at one
(08:21):
of the most effective federal governments in recent history. And
I'm not suggesting that they will automatically happen just because
they've got this big majority, but the potential is definitely there,
and the legislative process has already started as a bill
for the twenty percent reduction in Hext's stats. There's the
well there and there was an election promise and that's great,
(08:43):
but a bolder move would have been to wipe out
the slate completely and move on to free tertiary education.
That's one thing that I'd really like to see. They've
also introduced a bill for stronger legislation around child care safety,
and that is in response to the child's sexual abuse
that was revealed recently in a number of early education
services in Melbourne. We've discussed that a couple of weeks ago,
(09:05):
so this is all the start, but it's only the
first couple of days of the first week of a
three year term. And why haven't they done everything yet?
Come on, goes, Well, that's that's what I'm wondering. But
there have been some questions about what will happen when
a government dominates Parliament so much, and that, of course
is a valid question, but it depends on what type
(09:26):
of government we've got. The Howard government had a similar
majority in nineteen ninety six. I think they had ninety
four seats. It's the same as the alb and Easy
government at the moment, and we're still actually suffering a
lot from that legacy of the Howard government when they
had that huge majority. The Abbott government in twenty thirteen,
similar sort of majority. I think they had ninety one seats,
(09:48):
similar sort of damage, but they were just too incompetent
to inflict any sort of further damage or similar to
what the Howard government implemented. But it's the first time
that we've had a labor government that's had such a
massive majority, and I think for examples about what might happen,
we can only look at state labor governments for similarities.
(10:09):
And if we look at the Western Australian Labor government
from twenty seventeen onwards, that's for the past eight years
they've hardly had any opposition at all. But I think
that they've used that power quite wisely and there've been
a good stable government and they've used that stability to
build record levels of public infrastructure and also deliver strong
(10:33):
public services. So I think having this huge majority, it
depends on what sort of government it is, and when
you're comparing what was going on within WA Labor compared
to what the coalition usually does, and usually they offer
obstructionist tactics in opposition, then they go all right wing
when they get into government. It's quite radically different and
for once, we might end up getting a break from
(10:55):
the chaos, well, especially from the chaos that we saw
from Peter Dutton for the part us three years, and
I think that's something to look forward to, at least
for the next three years.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Anyway, the disruptive opposition tactic didn't work. It didn't work
under Abbot Okay became Prime Minister, but he crashes out
in less than two years. They then applied it to
the Turnbull government, ironically because it was their government, and
it caused chaos and stopped Turnbull having a bigger legacy
(11:26):
than he did. Now this of course might have worked
in Australia's favor, but it didn't help anyone, least of
all their own side and their own selves approach was
really to be just an immature opposition party. Didn't help
of course Dutton. All he was capable of was wrecking
and not building. And the electorate finally wakes up to it.
(11:47):
The electorate finally realizes that they have no other plan,
they have no other ideas. They're not wrecking the Labor
Party so they or the government so they can put
better ideas in. They're wrecking it because they don't know
what else to do so, Labor wins a stomping majority.
We can't ignore the good campaign that Labor ran as well,
(12:09):
and then they win it again because again Dutton shows
that there's nothing, nothing that he has that appeals to
the Australian electorate as a whole. Suzanne Lay, I think
realizes this at some level and has tried to be
a bit more empathetic, a bit more practical, and a
bit more positive in terms of her approach to things.
(12:31):
Her tears at Ali Francis speech were I think genuine
by acknowledging that I'm not saying so Susannley for Prime Minister,
but I am noticing the change from that very hard man.
Must win everything, must own the Labor Party to must
try and represent not just the interests the narrow interests
(12:52):
of the Liberal Party, but the interests of all Australia,
and show empathy and show compassion. Again, this is not
to say I think she'll be a good prime minister.
You have to acknowledge when there's a change, and we'll
have to see how genuine that change is.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And if the Labor Party is in its strongest position
in its federal history, well then the coalition is definitely
at its weakest point well, especially for the Liberal Party.
Their primary vote was at a record low at the
last election and it's gone down even further in opinion
polls in the latest opinion polls. Not that that means
anything at this stage, but they have gone down. And
(13:29):
for me, what started with John Howard in the nineteen
nineties seems to have finally collapse with the demise of
Peter Dutton, and that seems to be a generational change,
not just in the personalities but also in their ideological
thinking and they do have to change that if they
want to be relevant in the future. But just based
on the first week back of Parliament, just when you
(13:53):
think that they couldn't fall any further, some Liberal and
National Party MPs, well they're trying to drag things even further.
David Angus Taylor, Andrew Bragg, Michaulia Cash. They're still obsessing
about Anthony Alberanezi, not meeting with Donald Trump and supposedly
spending too much time in China recently, and now they're
(14:15):
fixated on Labour's modest superannuation tax changes for balances over
three million dollars and I think they've got Tim Willison
on the case there, and this is while the Nationals
and Barnaby Joyce they just continue to backtrack on net
zero by twenty fifty targets and playing their stupid political
games with all of this, and it just seems they've
(14:37):
got some sort of political amnesia going on as well,
and they just seem to have forgotten all about what
actually happened at the twenty twenty five election. If you
want to go the step further, it seems like they've
forgotten what happened in the twenty twenty two election as well.
And as you suggested before, David, I think that the
new Liberal leader, Susan Lee, she's slowly trying to be
(14:59):
a more constructor opposition leader, and not that I think
that should be that good. As the Prime minister, I
tend to agree with you, but leadership is not really
the issue. I think that it's the entire party that
is the problem. Susan Lee has already been whitehanded by
her own party. She gets slagged off every day by
the usual suspects that Sky News. The Liberal Party is
(15:19):
still this sort of blokey blokes club. It's that muscular
outfit that's got this old style conservative idea about what
politics is all about. Even the women in the Liberal
parties still want to behave like blokes to get ahead
in the Liberal Party. In that I don't think leed's
very much room for genuine reform. And if the coalition
really wants to get serious about reforming itself, well maybe
(15:41):
they could just study what Anthony Albeneasy did between twenty
nineteen and twenty twenty two. I think we've talked about
this before, David that when he was the leader of
the opposition, and Susan Lee has said that she wants
to be a constructive leader and support the government in
those areas of common intes and these are exactly the
(16:01):
same words that Anthony aben easy first years when he
became the leader of the Labor Party. But I think
they just have to say focused, they have to stay
disciplined and on top of that, stop behaving like assholes.
That's the most important thing. And these habits might be
very hard to break based on what we saw during
this first week of Parliament. And even if they do change,
(16:22):
he might not be a guarantee of success, but at
least it would make them more relevant again.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
I think there's a lot of vested interests. South Australia
has recently bought through legislation to cap political donations at
twenty thousand dollars. I think I would cap it much
less to five hundred dollars or one thousand dollars. None
of this anonymous, fully transparent, who has donated, and have
fully publicly funded elections in which you've got to qualify
(16:51):
to get the funding. I think having a core of
people who say they're going to vote for you, making
sure you're a genuine party, et cetera, that all of
that is fine. But I think I think we've got
to get away from various extractive or forestry or gambling
interests controlling what the major parties say, or what any
party says. We might be too heading towards. And I've
(17:13):
been saying this for too long now, so I'm probably wrong,
but we might be heading towards are split in both
major parties. Both major parties have survived splits before, but
I think we might be heading for a seismic one
where there's a complete refiguring of what is needed.
Speaker 5 (17:34):
Israel controls guards as borders and prevents international agencies from
bringing in food. The Israeli controlled alternatives. The notorious guds
(17:56):
A Humanitarian Foundation or GHF, is continuing to be widely condemned.
Nowhere near enough food is being distributed, and since May,
more than a thousand Palestinians seeking food have been killed
by being shot at GHF sites or crushed in stampedes
as desperate people rush to get food.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
The issue of Palestine isn't going to go away, nor
should it. And for this first day of the new Parliament,
there were thousands of people who converge on Parliament for
a series of pro Palestine protests and demanded that federal
politicians do a lot more about these atrocities and the
genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza, and that includes sanctions,
(18:40):
boycotts against Israel, stop selling weapons past the Israel Defense Force,
recognizing Star of Palestine, and join international action against Israel.
Because unless it's told to stop, it's just going to
keep doing what it's doing in Palestine. And I think
that for a lot of people, while Parliament was going
through the pro of its ceremonial speeches, that just seemed
(19:02):
quite irrelevant while there's a genocide going on. Children in
Gaza are being deliberately starved, entire families being bombed and killed.
Most of Gaza has been turned into rubble, and the
world community, including Australia, is failing to stop this from happening.
During the week, Australia was one of the twenty eight
countries that signed a statement condemning the actions of Israel,
(19:26):
saying clearly that what's happening in Gaza violence international law.
But they've said this many times before, but it's still
far too little and far too late. Foreign Minister Penny
Wong is still delivering all of those carefully worded statements
that are designed to say something without really saying anything
at all, and just being very careful not to offend
the Israel lobby in Australia and the Zionists, and even
(19:49):
went to the extent to lead a censure motion against
the Australian Green Senator Marine Faruki for holding up a
sign which said Gaza is starving. Words won't feed them,
sanction Israel, and Pennywong has taken strong offense to this,
a lot more offense than Israel blowing up children and
entire families in Gaza. Here's Senator Wong in proposing this motion.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
And in this place. Yesterday Senator Feruki went a step further.
She disrespected the rules of the Parliament by holding up
a sign for the duration of the Governor General's address
on the opening of this term of parliament. Now, what
we saw this week is what we have seen before
from Senator Feruki. Senator Feruki demands respect, but she does
(20:35):
not offer it. She denigrates anyone who doesn't agree with
her on everything regularly, including personally. I don't think this
is the leadership Australians expect. I don't believe this is
what Australian democracy is about.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
It's not any old censure. It's an extreme disapproval and
profound disapproval and also includes an extended censure. That is
not appropriate for Senator Ferruki to represent the Senator as
a member of any delegation during this life of this Parliament.
And this is absolutely outrageous. David holding up a sign
(21:16):
calling for the sanction of a foreign government and Senator
Farruki is effectively banned from the Parliament for three years.
Here's Senator Faruki's response.
Speaker 7 (21:27):
Labor and the Coalition in this chamber wants to avoid
the truth. You don't want to see it or hear it,
and now here we are you want me, You want
to force me to apologize for telling the truth. Well,
well done. You can all patch yourselves on the back
and move on, move on, while Palestinians are slaughtered. I
(21:48):
do want to draw attention to the words of Martin
Luther King in his letter from a Birmingham jail, and
it seems especially relevant while you all sit here and
sensure me for breaking what you call the decorum of Parliament,
of my failure to be polite or respectful, while a
genocide unfolds, while kids are being killed. He wrote of
(22:10):
his frustration with the white moderate, who is more devoted
to order than to justice, who seeks only the absence
of tension rather than the presence of justice, who says,
I agree with the goal you seek, but I cannot
agree with your ways of achieving it. Who has a
paternalistic belief they can set the timetable and decorum of
(22:33):
another people's freedom. Well, you can set your standards because
you don't want to see the truth, You don't want
to do anything about the genocide, And one day, you
know what, One day you will all have to explain
to your children and grandchildren where you stood when tens
(22:53):
of thousands of men, women and children were being slaughtered.
And I wouldn't like to be in your shoes then,
because you are all on the wrong side of history, right.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
And David, I think if we wanted to see evidence
of how much influenced the Israel lobby and the Zionist
groups have over the Federal Parliament of Australia, I think
this is a prime example. Within an hour the resolution
was put up by Senator Pennywong, it was voted on
and instead of sanctioning the state of Israel, it's the
government sanctioning and Australian senator for holding up her bloody sign.
(23:24):
It's absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 3 (23:27):
The sign didn't incite anyone to violence, It didn't call
for the deaths of anyone. It was a peaceful protest
that a senator or anyone should be allowed to do.
I don't look at Senator Faruki and think, oh, what
a terrible, racist, andy Semitic person she is. And obviously
she's well not obviously, but it's not surprising that she's
(23:50):
going to perhaps favor one side over the other. But
it's a conflict in which on one since Australia has
no direct interest in and so to favor one side
of the other shouldn't make any difference to her performance
as a senator or to her performance as a functioning,
engaged human being in Australia. Had someone else held up
(24:11):
a pro Israel sign, I don't think they should be
censured for that.
Speaker 8 (24:14):
Well.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I guess the point is that if I did hold
up an Israel sign, they wouldn't have been censured.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
And that's where the problem is. Senator Wong and Prime
Minister Albanezi have started using stronger language criticizing Israel. But
as you rightly said, recall the ambassador stop trade all
trade with Israel put in a do not travel advisory
to Australians traveling to that part of the world. I'm
not sure what else you could do. Certainly stop sending
(24:42):
arms and money over there, but Israel needs to be
treated as the prior it is till it fixes things again.
I think a return to the nineteen forty eight borders,
and I know some people are saying that's not enough,
we should dismantle the whole thing altogether. I think these
have to be done in state anyway. So a return
(25:02):
to the forty eight borders or at least the sixty
seven borders would be the first thing, with the United
Nations enforcing that through a task force. I think as
net Nyahu gets more desperate to avoid a trial and
almost inevitably prison, his actions are becoming more desperate. But
it's becoming hard for the I'll call it the non
(25:22):
aligned West, even though they're deeply aligned. But for places
like Britain and America and Australia to support that government,
it's a difficult thing. I understand that you shouldn't interfere
in internal politics over foreign government, but where we've hit
a humanitarian thing, let's be frank, it's not going to
hurt our economy that much. Whereas you might argue that
(25:46):
hitting China too hard will ruin the country, or hitting
America too hard will ruin the country, hitting Israel hard
will show Australia to be a much more principal place
than it's been showing itself to be over the last
few years, not hurt us that much. So from a
philosophical standpoint, it's right because we can't have innocent people
(26:06):
being bombed. I think they've got two hamas leaders in
the eighteen months, but sixty fifty sixty thousand people have
been killed and there's a hunger crisis there. Fifteen children
a day are starving to death and it's just appalling,
and it would be appalling I forwards the other way.
(26:26):
I think it's time the world stood up properly. Words
aren't enough in this case. We need actions.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
This is New Politics with Eddie Jokovic and David lewis
the best podcast on Australian politics and news commentary. You
can support us through Patreon and substack and also find
us at newpolitics dot com dot a u.
Speaker 9 (26:49):
Sh Edules Life two Strange as Jesus tell Me, where
a black eyes.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Was talking to a strange.
Speaker 7 (27:07):
Says talking to.
Speaker 8 (27:22):
A boost for democracy or a ploy to capitalize on
the youth vote. The Labor government announced it would deliver
on a manifesto pledge to give the vote to sixteen
and seventeen year olds, and for some it was a
welcome move.
Speaker 10 (27:36):
I'm really happy about it because I've always been kind
of frustrated just watching politics and not being able to
do anything. Sixteen to eighteen is quite like a maturity jump.
But like I think a lot of people, even from
a very young age have very strong opinions and they
think their opinion should be heard.
Speaker 8 (27:55):
For the Prime minister. It is a logical step designed
to boost voter turn out.
Speaker 9 (28:00):
They're old enough to go out to work, they're old
enough to pay taxes, so to pay in and I
think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity
to say what you want your money spent on which
way the government should go.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Britain is reducing the voting age to sixteen in time
for the next election, which is due at some point
before twenty twenty nine, and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer
suggested that if people are working in paying taxes, doesn't
matter how old they are, they should be entitled to
vote and this shouldn't be the only reason for getting
sixteen year olds to vote in elections. You're functioning and
(28:38):
thinking citizens, so you should be in total to vote,
whether you pay taxes or not. And there is a
similar push to lower the voting age to sixteen in Australia.
The Independent Member for Ku Yong, Monique Ryan, is planning
to introduce a bill in the Lower House to reduce
the voting age to sixteen, and if this is adopted
(28:59):
by the guar it will add around six hundred thousand
people to the electoral roles, or around four percent to
the overall electoral number, and I think that this would
be a positive development. We should be encouraging more people
to participate in the democratic process. There's already seven countries
that have got a voting age of sixteen, including Brazil, Argentina,
(29:22):
Austria and Malta. And there's four other countries that have
got a voting age of seventeen. So it's not really
such a big deal and it should be done as
soon as possible.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I saw arguments in Britain saying that our sixteen year
old brain isn't developed enough. Well, if we're going down
that route, the male brain doesn't develop till it's about
twenty five. So maybe females should be allowed to vote
at eighteen, a male should be allowed to vote at
twenty five. Can't wait to see the reactions from the
anti lowering the vote.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Well, m'd actually be more concerned about the people who
are fifty years old who vote.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Yeah, and I'm wondering if we should make voting non
compulsory after the age of eighty five, not to take
people off the rolls, but instead of GPS being tied
up for a couple of days going through their patients
and explaining to the commission that they can't vote, just
you have the right to opt out and you have
the right to stay in. There are plenty of eighty
(30:17):
five year olds who are sharper considered, who are an above.
But for those people who just don't have it in
them anymore, instead of making them jump through all the
bureaucratic hoops, they're on the role. But if they don't
turn up, that's fine.
Speaker 9 (30:31):
Well.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
There's also a lot of noise every time this idea
of lowering the voting age comes up. It doesn't happen
that often, but when it comes up, there's always this
white noise that sort of follows the argument. And sure enough,
it's always the conservatives that rush in to dismiss it.
And it's always that suggestion that sixteen year olds don't
know enough about the world. You mentioned this idea about
(30:53):
their brains not being fully developed. There's other ideas that
they haven't been educated enough about civics and don't understand
the voting system them at all, and they're all two.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And who's fault is that?
Speaker 2 (31:03):
And that they're also very gullible, and that sounds like
a lot of people that I know who are over
the age of eighteen and vote in federal elections. But
the main reason why the Conservatives are opposed to this idea, David,
is that younger people lean heavily to the left, not
necessarily to the Labor Party, but under the two party system,
their vote would likely end up favoring the Labor Party
(31:26):
if they did have the right to vote. And for
that age group between eighteen to twenty five, it's around
sixty five to seventy percent that favors the Labor Party
in two party preferred voting. That's what the figures were
at the last election. So I'm assuming that sixteen or
seventeen year olds would probably have the same amount of number.
But when you take these factors into account and that
(31:48):
this age group would add around four percent to the
electoral role, well that's probably enough to give the Labor
Party an extra one or two percent in the two
party preferred vote across Australia, and that would be enough
to shape the outcome well, not just close election, probably
all elections. And if I was a Labor government, I'd
act on this as quickly as possible, not just because
it's good public policy and that we should be encouraging
(32:09):
democratic participation for younger people, but because it would give
a huge advantage to the Labor Party just at a
time when the demographic trends are starting to drift away
from the Coalition and at the moment, policies the governments
produced that relate to education, health, mental health, and the environment,
(32:30):
and these are policies that interest and affect sixteen and
seventeen year olds. These policies are developed and directed towards
the parents of these children and not the children themselves,
because it's the parents that vote, not the children. But
if young adults could vote, I'd say that we'd see
a major policy shift in some of these areas, if
not all of them. And this wouldn't be a process
(32:52):
of destroying democracy, which is what some of the conservative
distractors have been saying. It would enhance democracy because I
think they're getting more people to participate in politics and
in democracy. Well, that can only be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
It is, and we need an informed and engaged electorate. Now,
not every sixteen year old is going to be informed
and engaged, but not every forty year old is informed
and engaged. Every time there's a suggestion of changing the
electoral system, the right in particular jump up and down
about how unfair it is and how again, there are
(33:31):
sixteen year olds who vote to the right, who are
members of the National Party, who are or Young Nationals,
members of the Young Liberals, those who might not be
members of the party but think that the Labor Party
is dangerous. Maybe they've been conditioned to think that, Maybe
they've come to that through their own thinking and recognissance.
For all the complaints the right have about compulsory voting,
(33:53):
far more right wing governments have been elected than left
wing governments at a federal level, and I think even
at a state.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
All that at a star level it's more even. But
certainly in federal politics, the non Labour side of politics
has held office for seventy percent.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
It hasn't advantaged anybody at all. It has advantaged the electorate,
and I guess that's what they're most scared of, a thinking,
engaged electorate. I was one of those nerds who pre
enrolled to vote when I was think you were seventeen.
The Electoral Commission came round and to the school and
spoke about the importance of voting, and five of us
signed up out of a class of eighty or something
(34:31):
or a year of eighty. And I suppose too, we
were some of the middle class kids who had that
privilege to be able to think a little bit more
about it. So again, it might give labor a short
term boost. And of course where Labor's winning elections is
in the preferences. They're winning on second and third preferences,
which if you're a young person who votes Green at
(34:53):
number one and then maybe an independent at number two,
you're not putting Liberal at number three, You're not putting
them nationals at number three, You're not putting one nation
at number three, You're putting Labor at number three. And
those preferences might flow through that way, but that's been
what happening anyway. I suspect that one or two percent
advantage they might get if the polls are right and
(35:15):
if voting intentions stay, I don't think it's as big
an advantage as the fear mongering right will tell you.
And of course this goes back to our earlier point
of is the Liberal party moderating a bit? And if
it is, you may find that quite a few of
these sixteen year olds. I think, actually, this isn't a
(35:38):
bad party now, and this starts to reflect my values
and my.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
View of the world.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Bringing in more people to vote is never a bad thing,
even if it advantages the other side, because then you've
got to rely on your own arguments, your own policies,
your own candidates to win them back over. And that's
really as it should be.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
It's deja vu for Tasmanians after another election.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
We were actually it was groundhog it was groundhog Day.
We thought it was probably going to happen.
Speaker 8 (36:29):
It was silly election. We didn't need to have election,
We didn't need to have.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
It feels pretty much exactly the same as it did
last week and like we'll probably get us pretty similar.
Speaker 7 (36:39):
Yeah, it's going to look like exactly the same.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
Nothing really changed, which is disappointing.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
But yeah, we had the Tasmania election last weekend and
it's provided the same result as the election last year
and the Liberals ended up with fourteen seats. Labor won
ten seats. Is a possible that they might get one
more seat, but that's what they've got at the moment,
(37:04):
and the Labor Party ended up getting its worst result
on record on the primary vote. But the ridiculous thing
is that it's still got a chance of being able
to form government with the Greens and Independents who hold
the other fifteen seats. I think there was a disaster
for the Labor Party in quite a few other ways.
After the last Tasmania election in twenty twenty four, sixteen
(37:26):
months ago, they ruled out a negotiation with the Tasmania
Greens and the Independence even before the counting had been finalized,
and they also push forward a vote of no confidence
a couple of months ago. At that stage they also
refused to negotiate with the Tasmania Greens and Independence, and
they could have avoided this election fully. And I just
(37:51):
think David, that in politics, you take the opportunities that
are provided to you when you try and form government
at every opportunity, whether there's an elect or not. And
there's been quite a few changes of government within Australia
without actually going to an election where the government changes
on the floor of Parliament, so that is always a possibility.
But I think that a part of this is that
(38:13):
visceral hatred of the Greens that the Labor Party has
gone and We see that very much with Anthony Albanezi
in Federal Parliament. You talked about that earlier on David.
Not so much in the Act because the Labor Party
and the Act Greens were in a formal coalition for
fifteen years. But a lot of this stuff is illogical.
(38:34):
Tasmanian electorate has voted in a particular way and now
it's up to the elected members to make it all work.
The Premier, Jeremy Rockcliffe, he's the incumbent and the winner
of the most seats, so he's got the right to
go to try and convince the Governor of Tasmania that
he has got the confidence of the parliament. And if
he can't do that, we'll all be up to the
(38:55):
Labor leader, Dean Winter to do the same. But it's
unclear what will happen in this situation because nine of
the ten independents that have won at the Tasmanian election
they are progressive and left of center. Then there's the
grains and it's hard to know what will happen here
and who will be supported.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
There's an old axiom or joke I suppose that says
be careful that toes you step on today they may
be part of the legs that are hanging off the bottom.
You've got a kiss tomorrow, and Labor with its relationship
with the Greens in particular, seems to ignore this. And
politics is brutal. People will remember what you did. It's
not May Angelou in politics where May Angelou said people
(39:35):
won't remember what you say or what you did, but
they will remember how you make you feel. In politics,
they remember everything and they hold onto it forever. So
the hollow victory you get today may come back to
bite you in five or ten years. Bruce government lost
a vote in Parliament that Billy Hughes essentially helped engineer.
Because Bruce rolled Hughes back in nineteen twenty one and
(39:57):
in nineteen twenty nine, Who's got his revenge. There are
more recent examples too. Politics is strands of shifting allegiances,
and sometimes your political friend today can be your political
enemy tomorrow. And that's why you'll see often a lot
of politicians on opposite sides actually socialize and get on
well because they understand that over parliament we're calling each
(40:18):
other the most horrible names and accusing each of the
most horrible things, but we don't really mean it, because
that's how the strands of advantages. Next week we'll be
voting together on the same topic we were ripping together,
and that's how negotiations work. Probably shouldn't be as simplistic
as Scott Morrison's response to one of the independents. Nexanaphon says,
(40:40):
let's go and grab a coffee, thinking it'd be just
a nice way of keeping in, and Morrison says, I'm
purely transactional. Of course that costs Morris badly. You need
some transactional relationships in politics, of course, tit for tati
for eye, one hand backscratching, and it depends. And the
wiser karma heads understand the Which isn't to say they
(41:01):
weren't great hatreds of course from time to time, but
Paul has Luck threw a glass of water over a
golf whitlam. But they remain good friends, even though they
were totally opposite politically.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Well Goth might have been thirsty at the time.
Speaker 3 (41:13):
Might have been frustrated has Luck and has like a
man of composure, lost it, but they ended up reconciling.
They had very similar tastes in literature and music and
things like that, and were able to bond over that.
But there's a maturity in knowing that my friend today
might be my enemy tomorrow, but if I can extend
the friendship for a couple of days, we're all happy.
(41:36):
And Labour's approach to the Greens hasn't been like that recently,
and they've got to really rethink about it that you
don't have to be best friends. No one's sending each
other Christmas cards. There's no need to be disruptive and obstructionist.
And it goes both ways, of course.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Oh for sure. But it's also a case where I
realized that every jurisdiction is going to be different across Australia.
But you've got a formal coalition between the Act Greens
and the Labor Party in Canberra, yet nowhere else is
the same sort of recognition of the like minded outcomes
that could be achieved through that. So in Tasmania there's
(42:13):
this visceral hatred of the Labor Party towards the Greens.
The Liberal Party actually formed a coalition with the Tasmania Greens.
I think that might have been about thirty years ago.
That didn't go well at all, But the point is
that it did happen between the Labor Party and the Greens.
They just don't want to go there. But that's a
different issue. But I think the Hair Clark electoral system
(42:34):
overall in Tasmania, well it's been around since nineteen o seven,
or there are bouts, but I think in this case
it's delivered a very representative outcome. And critics argue that
it doesn't produce definitive outcomes. Well, I'd argue that it does.
This is the outcome. This is an outcome that parliamentarians
have to work with. It produces an electoral outcome that
(42:56):
is more reflective of the community. And sure the Liberal Party,
he was the one that got the most votes in
the most seats except for everyone else, except for everyone else.
And it's got around fifteen to sixteen seats that are
center right out of the total of thirty five seats,
but you need eighteen seats to form government, and the
other nineteen seats are center or center left, and not
(43:17):
that i'd call the Labor Party in Tasmania center left,
but they are slightly to the left of the Liberal Party.
Gengers can't and we actually did suggest last week, or
I suggested that there would be a few surprises, but
the surprise was that there were no surprises at all,
and it wasn't like the recent federal election where the
(43:37):
Liberal Party was wiped out. In Tasmania. There was a
lot of emphasis on the debacle of the AFL stadium
at Macquarie Point and the AFL team that they planning
to set up down there as well, but I think
there were a wide range of other issues as well.
Salmon farming was a big issue, as was environmental degradation,
(43:58):
public health, the quality of education and the management of
the budget. That was a big issue as well. So
the results are in. It's not really chaos. This is
what the electorate has voted for and they do not
want another election. I think in Tasmania they've had five
elections in the past seven years of state and federal elections,
so they're probably sick of this process. But they want
(44:21):
the elected representatives to sort it all out and if
Labor and the Greens need to form a coalition with
some light minded independence, well then that's what they'll have
to do. And that's the big message from this election
in Tasmania, and that probably applies to all elections from
now on, not just in Tasmania, but all across the
country MPs are elected to do a job. Go ahead
(44:44):
and do your job and make it work. That's what
you're elected for.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
It was an early election.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
Well that's right. The previous election was sixteen months ago,
in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Yeah, and that's how Westminster parliamentary democracies, which essentially Tasmania is,
as is the rest of Australia work. If it's not working,
you hold another election and let the public decide how
it's best work. This isn't a disaster. That there's a
lot of independence is probably reflecting a lot of public
dissatisfaction at the major parties. The stadium is a terrible
(45:18):
error of things, and of course New South Wales struggled
for years to put in anything that wasn't either a
car track or a stadium. Okay, the Olympics was a
part of that, but there are other things to build.
I'm sure Tasmania would love better hospitals, expansion to Utahs,
the University of Tasmania, public housing, public housing, more funding
the public schools, more better coordinated court and justice system.
(45:43):
Now let's have a football stadium that they're never going
to fill because they're not going to be able to
put enough big games on to attract the mainland, and
that was the whole argument that oh well the Mainlanders
will come down maybe, and tourism is important to Tasmania
and it's a great it is really a great place
to visit, but there are other ways to get people
down there. Once you're Melbourne AFL fans have been, and
(46:07):
maybe your Sydney ones and possibly a Brismoban ones. That's
that for the year, they're not really going to go
down They might hold the Grand Final down there, but
that's only one game a year. Even here in Sydney,
the Home Bush Kudos Arena in the football have something
on nearly every week, and it's not just sport. It's
big concerts and stand up comics and rock bands and
(46:28):
hip hop artists and so it keeps it busy. Will
TASMANI be able to attract someone of the performance caliber
of Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran or Kevin Hart. I'm
not sure. They cost a lot of money to go
down there, and it might not be worth their while
to hire the stadium, out sell the tickets and then
continue on. It's hard enough to get to get those
(46:48):
big x to Australia because it's expensive and it's logistically hard.
Even Ed Sheeran, who's got a fairly simple rig, still
has to accommodate his crew, accommodation for other and so
for a football team. Are the Melbourne team's really going
to want to hop on the plane every three weeks
to play the home game, let alone Sydney, let alone Brisbane.
(47:09):
I don't know. Maybe they are, maybe they can see
the advantage of it, but it seems to me that
that stadium wrecked the Liberal Party and it's not going
to help the Labor Party at all.
Speaker 2 (47:22):
That's it for this episode of New Politics. Thanks for
listening in, and if you'd like to support our style
of journalism and commentary, please make a donation at our
website at newpolitics dot com dot au. We don't beg plead,
beseech or gaslight you about journalism coming to an end.
We just keep it very simple. If you like what
we do, please send some support our way. It keeps
(47:43):
our commitment to independent journalism kicking along. I'm Eddie Jokovic.
Thanks for listening in, and it's goodbye to our listeners.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
I'm David Lewis, we'll see you next time.
Speaker 7 (48:00):
Good Bye.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Do he wants below? Doing he wants below?
Speaker 8 (48:12):
Get by Joe Joe,
Popular Podcasts
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.