Latest / Inside Politics / Jane Hume on rebranding net zero, and Hastie's abortion comments

Transcript

Jane Hume on rebranding net zero, and Hastie's abortion comments · Inside Politics

• 0:02
  S1: From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
• 0:05
  S1: This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Well, we are
• 0:11
  S1: coming to the end of a very torrid week for
• 0:13
  S1: the coalition, with yet more messy infighting over whether or
• 0:16
  S1: not it's going to dump its commitment to Australia achieving
• 0:18
  S1: net zero emissions by 2050. Opposition leader Sussan Ley has
• 0:22
  S1: been under an enormous amount of pressure. As usual, we
• 0:30
  S1: have our political correspondent Paul Chuckle, joining me from Canberra. Hi, Paul.
• 0:34
  S2: Hi, Jack.
• 0:35
  S1: And against that backdrop, the guests that Paul and I
• 0:37
  S1: have this week is a very timely guest. It is
• 0:39
  S1: Senator Jane Hume, liberal moderate and we are told a
• 0:42
  S1: long time listener of the podcast. So the rumour is true, Jane.
• 0:45
  S3: They are true, Jack. I'm afraid I am an addict. Which, uh. But,
• 0:49
  S3: you know, take it as a compliment. I really enjoy
• 0:51
  S3: listening to you.
• 0:52
  S1: As the highest of compliments. That's great.
• 0:54
  S2: That's the point of panellist.
• 0:56
  S3: Oh, ouch. You can't do that. That's like picking your
• 0:58
  S3: favorite child.
• 1:00
  S1: No, we won't ask you that, Jane. Okay, let's just
• 1:02
  S1: assume for a moment that everyone listening to this podcast
• 1:04
  S1: has been hiding under a rock or, I don't know,
• 1:06
  S1: on a beach in Byron Bay all week and they
• 1:09
  S1: haven't heard anything about politics. What exactly is going on
• 1:12
  S1: in the Liberal Party?
• 1:13
  S3: Ah, just in the Liberal Party or in Parliament, because
• 1:16
  S3: it's been a big week in Parliament all round. I mean,
• 1:18
  S3: there's a lot of things that are being discussed, whether
• 1:20
  S3: it be in the Senate or whether it be in
• 1:22
  S3: the House of Representatives. And right now, that environment protection
• 1:25
  S3: reform bill is going through being rammed through the House
• 1:28
  S3: of Representatives. So, you know, I don't want anyone to
• 1:32
  S3: think that there is only ever one thing going on
• 1:34
  S3: at a time in Parliament House, and that parties only
• 1:37
  S3: talk to themselves about themselves. That's not at all true.
• 1:41
  S3: That said, there has been some significant shifts in policy
• 1:45
  S3: positions within the Liberal Party and indeed the broader coalition.
• 1:48
  S3: This week. The National Party came out on the weekend
• 1:51
  S3: with their policy around net zero.
• 1:55
  S4: I'm proud to say that our party room has got
• 1:58
  S4: to unanimous position of scrapping net zero commitments by 2050. I.
• 2:03
  S4: A little while ago informed the opposition leader, Sussan Ley,
• 2:06
  S4: of the National Party's decision to scrap net zero by 2050.
• 2:11
  S4: This is about bringing common sense back to climate and
• 2:13
  S4: energy policy.
• 2:15
  S3: And now the Liberal Party, which has been working on
• 2:17
  S3: its energy and emissions policy for some time, is going
• 2:21
  S3: to come together and put some stakes in the ground.
• 2:23
  S3: And then the coalition, both the National Party and the
• 2:26
  S3: Liberal Party come together, find some compromises for a position
• 2:30
  S3: that we can take forward to the next election.
• 2:32
  S2: Did they just totally gazump you the Nats?
• 2:34
  S3: Well, no. No, I wouldn't say that. They gazumped us.
• 2:37
  S3: We kind of knew it was coming. They were very organised,
• 2:40
  S3: much more organised, I think, than we anticipated. There was
• 2:43
  S3: a lot of research that had gone into the work
• 2:44
  S3: that they had done. They had a website ready to
• 2:47
  S3: go almost the moment that they announced their position. So
• 2:51
  S3: I suppose, did that leave the liberals a little flat footed? Yes.
• 2:55
  S3: I don't think we'd plan for our own website. However,
• 2:58
  S3: we have been doing so much work behind the scenes.
• 3:01
  S3: One of the roles that I have is the co-convener
• 3:04
  S3: of a coalition policy committee group. Now that group allows
• 3:08
  S3: all coalition members, whatever their positions, to come together to
• 3:12
  S3: discuss policy issues. We've met about a dozen times, I suppose,
• 3:16
  S3: or so on issues around the Australian economy, whether it
• 3:19
  S3: be tax or budget issues or superannuation or housing. But
• 3:22
  S3: we've also met on energy. All of these things have
• 3:25
  S3: been really important.
• 3:26
  S2: But the Nats. The Nats are actually developing like they
• 3:28
  S2: put out a policy paper that had a bunch of
• 3:31
  S2: actual thought through research policies. There's nothing like that on
• 3:34
  S2: your side.
• 3:35
  S3: Well, I wouldn't go that far. There has actually been
• 3:38
  S3: an awful lot of work that's been done by Dan Tehan,
• 3:40
  S3: who obviously is a liberal. He's also the relevant shadow minister,
• 3:44
  S3: and that will be part of the Liberal Party's response.
• 3:47
  S1: Jane. It just feels like it's gone on for a
• 3:49
  S1: long time. This is not an issue that's come up
• 3:51
  S1: overnight out of nowhere. I mean, it's been central to
• 3:55
  S1: Australia's politics for well over a decade. So, I mean,
• 3:58
  S1: from an outside perspective, it is like, what's the hold
• 4:01
  S1: up here? I mean, I know that you've got a
• 4:03
  S1: you've got an official review process sort of in place,
• 4:07
  S1: and that process apparently hasn't finished, but it doesn't seem
• 4:10
  S1: like anyone within the party has seen much of a
• 4:12
  S1: policy from that net zero review process. And from the outside, frankly,
• 4:16
  S1: it does look a bit like it's just an avoidance measure,
• 4:18
  S1: like it's just a process that is there to avoid
• 4:21
  S1: the issue, which nobody wants to grasp.
• 4:24
  S3: I wouldn't I wouldn't say that, jacki. I mean, there
• 4:26
  S3: are two issues here. One, we're less than six months
• 4:29
  S3: out from an election. I think we've just hit six
• 4:31
  S3: months from an election. And it's unusual for an opposition
• 4:33
  S3: to come out with a hard and fast policy two
• 4:35
  S3: and a half years before the next election. Things change,
• 4:38
  S3: things move, and and we should be able to be
• 4:41
  S3: nimble and be flexible. But of course, the other aspect is,
• 4:45
  S3: and this is where the urgency comes from, energy is
• 4:48
  S3: the economy. And at the moment our economy is stalling
• 4:53
  S3: and in fact going backwards because our energy prices are
• 4:55
  S3: so high. So this week we saw, for instance, the
• 4:59
  S3: news about Tomago, uh, Australia's biggest aluminium smelter that is
• 5:05
  S3: has gone into receivership or doesn't think it's going to
• 5:07
  S3: be able to continue production. That's a real concern. But
• 5:09
  S3: it's not the first. No that's not. I want to
• 5:12
  S3: use a better expression, the canary in the coal mine.
• 5:15
  S3: We've already had, um, Oceana glass. We've seen Incitec pivot.
• 5:20
  S3: We've seen, um, there's a plastics company whose name escapes me.
• 5:24
  S3: I think it was, um, kinos.
• 5:26
  S2: I think it was called.
• 5:27
  S3: Yeah. I mean, all of these companies are going down.
• 5:29
  S3: There's actually 1400 manufacturing firms that have gone under just
• 5:35
  S3: under a Labour government.
• 5:37
  S1: So one.
• 5:37
  S3: Of.
• 5:37
  S1: The.
• 5:37
  S3: Drivers of that is very high energy prices. So getting
• 5:40
  S3: this right is really important.
• 5:42
  S1: But but as I mean that kind of proves the
• 5:44
  S1: point doesn't it. All of these all of these huge
• 5:47
  S1: energy burning industries are going under are struggling with international
• 5:51
  S1: competition and with energy prices because of the messy, expensive
• 5:56
  S1: transition that the economy must and is and will continue
• 5:59
  S1: to go through. You know that better than anyone. You're
• 6:02
  S1: one of the three members of the Liberal Party room
• 6:05
  S1: who are actually willing to put on record that they
• 6:07
  S1: support net zero by 2050. So the transition is happening.
• 6:11
  S1: Companies are hurting, jobs are being lost. So doesn't that
• 6:14
  S1: make the policy more urgent or the need for a
• 6:16
  S1: policy from you guys more urgent?
• 6:18
  S3: All right. I'm going to correct you first and foremost. Yes.
• 6:20
  S3: In the newspaper, there were only three of us that
• 6:23
  S3: came out and said we support a net zero position.
• 6:25
  S3: There are plenty more than that. Sometimes we get these
• 6:28
  S3: calls saying, what do you think of this? You know,
• 6:30
  S3: this is a survey. What do you think? And if
• 6:32
  S3: people don't respond, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't have
• 6:34
  S3: a position.
• 6:34
  S1: This is just just so our readers know that the
• 6:36
  S1: News Corp tabloids had a sort of piece this week,
• 6:39
  S1: basically going through every member of the party room and
• 6:41
  S1: saying whether or not they were on record as being
• 6:44
  S1: pro net zero, and Jane Hume was pro net zero.
• 6:46
  S1: But as she's saying, maybe not everyone took the call
• 6:49
  S1: from the Telegraph or got back to the Telegraph reporter.
• 6:52
  S3: But Netzero itself is has turned into this sort of
• 6:55
  S3: totemic phrase, this sort of binary issue. Are you pro
• 6:58
  S3: net zero or anti net zero? Which I think is
• 7:01
  S3: just crazy. Everybody wants to reduce emissions. Net zero has
• 7:05
  S3: somehow become this euphemism for whether you believe in man
• 7:08
  S3: made climate change or not, and whether you think that
• 7:10
  S3: a government should do something about it. We have already
• 7:13
  S3: signed up to the Paris Agreement, and even the National
• 7:16
  S3: Party have said that they want to maintain our Paris commitments.
• 7:20
  S3: Paris commitments means that each country sort of chooses its
• 7:24
  S3: own adventure to reducing emissions, agrees that emissions have to
• 7:27
  S3: come down, but they may set their own targets. And
• 7:30
  S3: this is what we've said now. Other countries have said,
• 7:33
  S3: you know, China has said net zero by 2060. India
• 7:35
  S3: has said by 2070, um, but it's all about managing
• 7:39
  S3: that pathway. I think what we can all agree on
• 7:42
  S3: in the Liberal Party is that the pathway that Labour
• 7:44
  S3: have chosen simply is not working. And Australians economy and
• 7:48
  S3: their households and businesses are paying an enormous price for that.
• 7:51
  S3: The 2030 targets don't look like they're going to be met.
• 7:55
  S3: There's problems with the renewables rollout and everything that comes
• 7:59
  S3: with that. And now the 2035 targets we think are
• 8:03
  S3: not just unachievable, but they're entirely unworkable. That's what we
• 8:07
  S3: should be focusing on. Labor's failures here to deliver on
• 8:10
  S3: their own commitments and the cost to Australian businesses.
• 8:14
  S1: Australian families. I want to I mean, I guess I
• 8:16
  S1: want to take a step back and you're talking about
• 8:18
  S1: the nitty gritty of the targets. And I agree with
• 8:20
  S1: you that the net zero sort of become this totemic thing.
• 8:23
  S1: It's become a totemic thing, though, because the coalition over many,
• 8:26
  S1: many electoral cycles has sort of shown the electorate that
• 8:29
  S1: it's not particularly convinced about reaching net zero emissions. And
• 8:34
  S1: it's not particularly convinced or convincing in its commitment to
• 8:37
  S1: the Paris Agreement. Isn't this a question of sincerity? I mean,
• 8:41
  S1: whether or not the voters actually think you're sincere? Because
• 8:44
  S1: I can say that I've got an aspiration to travel
• 8:46
  S1: to India. I'd love to go to India one day,
• 8:48
  S1: but I haven't booked a ticket and I haven't booked,
• 8:50
  S1: you know, travel insurance and I haven't, you know, made
• 8:53
  S1: childcare arrangements for my kid like that shows that I'm
• 8:57
  S1: not particularly sincere in that, in that aspiration, doesn't it?
• 9:00
  S3: I think you sound perfectly sincere in your aspiration. It
• 9:03
  S3: just means that you're not necessarily committed to the pathway
• 9:07
  S3: to getting to India just yet.
• 9:09
  S2: I can see an eat, pray, love style trip for Jackie.
• 9:11
  S1: Oh, yes. Yes, please.
• 9:13
  S3: Um, look, I mean, I think we should wear the
• 9:16
  S3: Liberal Party. Should wear its environmental credentials on its sleeve.
• 9:19
  S3: You know, we're the party that established Kakadu National Park.
• 9:22
  S3: We established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Reserve. This is
• 9:27
  S3: something that's really important to us. And there is something
• 9:29
  S3: to be said for conservation and environment being a really
• 9:34
  S3: important principle to conservatives. There's actually a reason why conservation
• 9:39
  S3: and conservative, uh, have a very similar origins. But at
• 9:45
  S3: the same time, this particular issue, this idea of reducing
• 9:49
  S3: emissions by a particular time frame and doing it through
• 9:51
  S3: a renewables only approach is something that we have rejected
• 9:55
  S3: for some time or been sceptical of for some time.
• 9:58
  S3: And it's not just the Liberal Party. Dare I say
• 10:00
  S3: you put out there in any form of polling, any
• 10:03
  S3: form of survey, do you believe that we should reach
• 10:06
  S3: net zero, that we should reduce emissions? And everyone says, yeah, absolutely.
• 10:10
  S3: And then when you say and how much you personally
• 10:12
  S3: are prepared to pay for it in terms of higher
• 10:14
  S3: electricity prices or higher grocery prices or a lower standard
• 10:17
  S3: of living, and everyone goes, oh, hang on, I'm not
• 10:19
  S3: entirely sure that that's the way I want to get there.
• 10:21
  S3: I want to get there, but I want someone else
• 10:23
  S3: to pay for it. And that, I think, is the
• 10:26
  S3: sort of the realist, you know, the realistic approach to
• 10:29
  S3: making sure that we meet our commitments, reduce our emissions,
• 10:33
  S3: you know, have a better environment for the next generation.
• 10:36
  S3: But at the same time, we don't turn the lights
• 10:39
  S3: out on the way.
• 10:40
  S2: Just on this on the net zero tagline, I find it.
• 10:44
  S2: It's incredible how cosmetic and superficial this debate has become. Internally,
• 10:47
  S2: you're arguing over the set of words, not over the
• 10:49
  S2: mechanisms to get to emissions reduction. You talk about the
• 10:52
  S2: kind of purity test that's come of this. To me,
• 10:56
  S2: the most convincing argument I've heard from some in your
• 10:58
  S2: party to get rid of net zero is that it's
• 11:00
  S2: become a toxic word to some segment of the voter base.
• 11:03
  S2: It has come to mean different things, and they're they
• 11:06
  S2: just won't abide it. And that's that's a big portion
• 11:09
  S2: of your party base. And that you guys can use
• 11:12
  S2: different words to reach a green future at a slower
• 11:15
  S2: pace than labor. Still, try and make the forceful argument
• 11:18
  S2: to the public that you are serious about emissions reduction,
• 11:21
  S2: but using different mechanisms, using different frames, and making different
• 11:25
  S2: political arguments. Would you be comfortable if the party landed
• 11:29
  S2: with some commitment to the Paris Agreement without the term
• 11:32
  S2: net zero done in the liberal way, do you think
• 11:34
  S2: you can win that argument?
• 11:36
  S3: I think that the phrase net zero has become synonymous
• 11:40
  S3: with the Paris Agreement because Paris has said that getting
• 11:44
  S3: to net zero emissions is how we keep global temperatures lower. Yeah,
• 11:50
  S3: that's part of the the the 2050 framework. If we
• 11:57
  S3: abandon the phrase net zero. I think for so many people,
• 12:01
  S3: that will mean that they think that we have abandoned
• 12:03
  S3: a commitment to reduce emissions. And let's remember, not everybody
• 12:07
  S3: is engaged as politics, in politics, as me or or
• 12:10
  S3: the two of you or the people that are listening
• 12:11
  S3: to this podcast. They would see one as a euphemism
• 12:16
  S3: for another. I hate that idea that people would assume
• 12:21
  S3: that somehow the Liberal Party has abandoned its commitments to
• 12:25
  S3: either lower emissions or to improving the environment.
• 12:28
  S2: So keep the term if if the leader drops the
• 12:32
  S2: term and goes with the right and with the Nats
• 12:35
  S2: and where they're pushing her. view, the moderates and the
• 12:38
  S2: small center right actually put her in the job. Andrew
• 12:41
  S2: Bragg and Tim Wilson and you in recent days have
• 12:43
  S2: made super strong comments about Susan Lee's leadership. What would
• 12:46
  S2: happen to her position as leader if she were to
• 12:49
  S2: go in that direction? Would there be frontbench resignations? Would
• 12:52
  S2: you guys push for a split with the nationals? Where
• 12:54
  S2: do these threats actually lead to?
• 12:56
  S3: I think not only is that catastrophizing, but it is
• 12:58
  S3: also beyond hypothetical. We have a lot of steps in
• 13:03
  S3: this process to get through before those kinds of decisions
• 13:06
  S3: need to be made. Susan Lee has said from the
• 13:09
  S3: outset that she wants us to meet our commitments. She
• 13:13
  S3: wants to lower emissions, but not at any cost. That
• 13:17
  S3: was her phrase, and I think that most Australians would
• 13:20
  S3: agree with that. The question is, how do we get there?
• 13:23
  S3: And that's exactly what we're going to land on.
• 13:25
  S1: I would say the question is what what does at
• 13:28
  S1: any cost mean? I mean, when is the Liberal Party
• 13:30
  S1: going to actually come out and say, this is the
• 13:32
  S1: cost base that we will accept and this is the
• 13:35
  S1: cost that we will not accept. Well, this is a
• 13:37
  S1: good question. There's no clarity around any of that.
• 13:39
  S3: 100% agree with you on this one. To be honest,
• 13:42
  S3: I think that reducing emissions and the cost to get
• 13:46
  S3: there should be business as usual. It should be part
• 13:50
  S3: of our budgeting process. You know, we have aspirations about
• 13:53
  S3: where we want to see debt get to in a
• 13:56
  S3: decade's time when we want to see a budget come
• 14:00
  S3: back into surplus, what we want inflation to be, what
• 14:03
  S3: we want productivity to grow at, what we want the
• 14:05
  S3: economy to grow. This is part of what we do
• 14:08
  S3: reducing emissions. And I think energy supply and reliability of
• 14:11
  S3: the grid should also be part of that process. I'm
• 14:14
  S3: actually I've been advocating in my party room to include
• 14:18
  S3: emissions reductions and energy supply mix and price as part
• 14:25
  S3: of a budget process, a separate budget book, even. And
• 14:28
  S3: that way you could also list all the measures and
• 14:31
  S3: the costs of getting there, because there are so many
• 14:34
  S3: things in our you know, when we go through Senate
• 14:37
  S3: estimates that are dedicated to reducing emissions, whether it's the
• 14:40
  S3: Clean Energy Finance Corporation or Arena or the National Reconstruction
• 14:44
  S3: Fund or the Emissions Reduction Fund, there's the climate Change authority,
• 14:49
  S3: the net zero authority. I mean, there's.
• 14:50
  S1: Just is that something.
• 14:51
  S3: That.
• 14:52
  S1: Is that is that something that's going to be part
• 14:53
  S1: of the liberal policy then? Because what you're talking about
• 14:55
  S1: sounds a lot like a net zero aspiration or a
• 14:57
  S1: net zero target. And maybe there's a budget paper there
• 15:00
  S1: that is like, you know, this is the cost of
• 15:03
  S1: emissions in this budget year.
• 15:04
  S3: I would love to see that, because I think that
• 15:06
  S3: that would hold governments to account. And it would also
• 15:08
  S3: be entirely transparent. So you could say, well, this is
• 15:11
  S3: where we want to go, but this is what's going
• 15:13
  S3: to cost to get there. That way, each government each
• 15:16
  S3: year gets to make adjustments accordingly.
• 15:18
  S1: And they're accountable.
• 15:19
  S3: Exactly right for the decisions that they make. Look, this
• 15:21
  S3: is the story that really got to me. I was
• 15:24
  S3: pushing my trolley through Woolworths the other day, and I
• 15:27
  S3: saw up on the wall a big sign that said
• 15:31
  S3: Woolworths is committed to net zero by 2050. And we're
• 15:33
  S3: going to do this by electrifying our trucks. And I thought,
• 15:36
  S3: oh well good on Woolworths for doing that. I'm probably
• 15:39
  S3: paying slightly higher grocery prices for that. But you know
• 15:42
  S3: okay I'm prepared to do that. And then I was
• 15:44
  S3: getting ready for the estimates week and I was reading about, um,
• 15:49
  S3: investments that the Cefc had made. And on my heavens,
• 15:53
  S3: there was $6 million from the CFC that had gone
• 15:55
  S3: to Woolworths to electrify their trucks. And then I dug
• 15:58
  S3: a little further. Arena had given $19 million to Woolworths
• 16:02
  S3: to electrify their trucks. So that's $25 million of taxpayer
• 16:06
  S3: money that had gone to a private company. Sorry, a
• 16:09
  S3: publicly listed company that, let's face it, uh, made about
• 16:14
  S3: $1.6 billion in underlying profit last year. So to.
• 16:17
  S1: Get to net zero, I.
• 16:18
  S3: Think why is this? I don't want to pay. My
• 16:20
  S3: taxes are higher, my energy bills are higher, and my
• 16:23
  S3: grocery prices are higher for this objective. And Woolworths is
• 16:27
  S3: taking the credit.
• 16:28
  S1: Sure. But I mean, they're not the only big company
• 16:30
  S1: that's making a large profit, that's taking, you know, a
• 16:33
  S1: taxpayer subsidy. And the Tomago smelter that you've just talked about,
• 16:36
  S1: that corporate.
• 16:36
  S3: Welfare side, I think is something that really irks people.
• 16:40
  S3: So if you said, all right, well, we want to
• 16:42
  S3: have a target to get to a net zero future,
• 16:45
  S3: but there must be, you know, a reduction in that
• 16:48
  S3: corporate welfare program. There must be investment in new technologies
• 16:53
  S3: that can bring us there, rather than just throwing money
• 16:56
  S3: at proven technology subsidies for proven technologies. There's got to
• 16:59
  S3: be better social licence and community consultation for the rollout
• 17:04
  S3: of the renewables and transmission lines across regional and rural communities,
• 17:09
  S3: which is just so contentious. There are better ways of
• 17:12
  S3: doing this. Um, and Labor's way isn't.
• 17:16
  S2: We're so in some ways so in the weeds of
• 17:19
  S2: a policy development process for a party that's just lost
• 17:22
  S2: an election. It's probably two elections away from getting back
• 17:25
  S2: into government. It's quite bizarre in some ways how focused
• 17:28
  S2: we are on an opposition policy. Do you ever step
• 17:30
  S2: back and think, why aren't we spending more of our
• 17:34
  S2: time thinking about the structural issues in the party? Your
• 17:37
  S2: 2022 election review how you get your values messaging, campaign strategies,
• 17:42
  S2: communication right? Do you find this just a bit paralyzing
• 17:46
  S2: and not the main game? Are you despairing about the
• 17:48
  S2: existential issues at the moment or?
• 17:50
  S3: Well, I despaired about the existential issues in 2022. And
• 17:54
  S3: that document that you're referring to, the review into the
• 17:57
  S3: election loss in 2022 that I was a co-author of
• 18:00
  S3: with Brian Loughnane, had some three groups of recommendations for
• 18:05
  S3: the parliamentary team, but also for the organisational wing and
• 18:09
  S3: the professional wing. So the membership and the the campaign
• 18:14
  S3: guys really, uh, and for the parliamentary team, funnily enough,
• 18:18
  S3: there was really only one recommendation, which was to stay
• 18:21
  S3: united and disciplined. Now we absolutely did that in the
• 18:24
  S3: last Parliament, but unfortunately it came at a cost. And
• 18:28
  S3: that cost was we didn't hold up our end of
• 18:33
  S3: the bargain with the obligation to dissent. Uh, any dissent
• 18:36
  S3: was seen as disunity. That's a bad thing. Now, maybe
• 18:40
  S3: we've gone too far the other way in this Parliament.
• 18:43
  S3: Everybody said, I'm not doing that again. Next time something
• 18:46
  S3: doesn't sit right with me, I'm going to speak up.
• 18:48
  S3: And there's a lot of people speaking up right now.
• 18:51
  S1: Yeah. Do you, um, do you think, Jane, that Susan
• 18:55
  S1: Lee is the right person to lead the party through
• 18:57
  S1: this extremely difficult period in terms of political disunity, but
• 19:01
  S1: also policy development?
• 19:03
  S3: Well, Susan is a very calm person. She's got a,
• 19:06
  S3: you know, the right temperament. I think for this it's
• 19:09
  S3: not an easy thing to navigate. Uh, energy policy, uh,
• 19:13
  S3: has taken down leaders before, as we know. Uh, but,
• 19:17
  S3: you know, I think she's stuck to her guns, and
• 19:19
  S3: I admire her for that. Her messaging hasn't changed. Her
• 19:22
  S3: messaging hasn't changed.
• 19:23
  S1: She's very inscrutable, though. I mean, she she hasn't said
• 19:26
  S1: what her personal position is on net zero. In fact,
• 19:29
  S1: I think voters don't really know her very well at all. What?
• 19:31
  S1: What are your impressions of her? You know her personally.
• 19:34
  S1: What she really likes.
• 19:35
  S3: Uh, well, I don't know her particularly well, so I
• 19:38
  S3: don't want to, you know, make claims to that. Uh, but, look,
• 19:44
  S3: I do think she has been upfront with her party
• 19:48
  S3: and with the public that she wants to make sure
• 19:51
  S3: that all voices are heard, that opinions are sought and considered.
• 19:56
  S1: Jane, why do you think that, um, Liberal Party has
• 19:59
  S1: lost the trust of so many female voters?
• 20:01
  S3: Uh, look, it's a really tough one to say because
• 20:05
  S3: prior to 2001, more women in Australia voted liberal than labor. Um,
• 20:11
  S3: there's a couple of reasons why I think that is
• 20:14
  S3: no longer the case. And some of them are sort
• 20:16
  S3: of structural. Uh, you know, one of them is the
• 20:19
  S3: fact that the labor movement has become far more feminized.
• 20:23
  S3: So women are now seeing themselves reflected in the labor
• 20:26
  S3: movement more than they did in the past, when it
• 20:29
  S3: was all a very sort of blokey thing. The labor movement,
• 20:32
  S3: the union movement was very blokey. And as the union
• 20:38
  S3: movement has become more feminized, so too has the Labor Party.
• 20:43
  S3: So I think that that is something that we probably underestimate.
• 20:46
  S3: The other problem, of course, is it becomes, um, a
• 20:49
  S3: little bit of homosocial reproduction, which for the uninitiated is no,
• 20:54
  S3: not something that some of my big word. It is. Well,
• 20:57
  S3: it's two big words, actually. It's not something that Eric
• 21:00
  S3: Abetz would naturally vote against. That's not it. It's, uh,
• 21:04
  S3: it actually just means that we tend to replicate ourselves.
• 21:06
  S3: So I think you find if the Labor Party has
• 21:09
  S3: attracted more, more female votes, then the Liberal Party naturally
• 21:15
  S3: seeks votes from a different demographic. And that becomes a
• 21:18
  S3: self-perpetuating thing. Uh, which is a big mistake because let's
• 21:22
  S3: face it, you can't leave out 50% of the population
• 21:24
  S3: in your policy development. And, you know, I think that
• 21:28
  S3: perhaps we might have done that. Now, I should say, too,
• 21:31
  S3: that while Labour have done a much better job, I
• 21:34
  S3: think it's speaking to women than the Liberal Party have.
• 21:37
  S3: They have a very different philosophy. It's almost like they
• 21:40
  S3: want to compensate women for being women as opposed to
• 21:43
  S3: empower them. And I think.
• 21:45
  S2: Do you need to do do you need to do
• 21:47
  S2: a big set piece apology on the work from home
• 21:49
  S2: thing to kill that issue off and move forward?
• 21:51
  S3: Work from home is such a fraught issue and you know,
• 21:53
  S3: you can see it playing out now. I've actually tried
• 21:55
  S3: to keep my head low on this one because this
• 21:57
  S3: policy was so badly misrepresented. It was originally about Canberra
• 22:05
  S3: public servants, 60% of whom are working from home and
• 22:09
  S3: making it really difficult to get stuff done up here.
• 22:12
  S3: Everything from graduate programs and mentoring programs to meetings with
• 22:17
  S3: stakeholders weren't going ahead. Or if they did go ahead
• 22:19
  S3: like you'd fly your team up from Melbourne. Walk into
• 22:22
  S3: a department and be met with a screen with everybody
• 22:25
  S3: coming up on the screen. So look, that's what it
• 22:28
  S3: was trying to amend. Now, uh, labor really. You know,
• 22:33
  S3: they ran rings around us on this one and somehow
• 22:35
  S3: created this giant scare campaign that it was going to
• 22:37
  S3: go wider than that, that it was about the private sector,
• 22:41
  S3: not the public sector. And we even said from the
• 22:44
  S3: outset it no existing arrangements would change and flexible work
• 22:48
  S3: would always remain. It just had to be something that
• 22:51
  S3: was negotiated with your with your manager rather than a
• 22:54
  S3: right to demand it.
• 22:55
  S2: There's no doubt labor absolutely weaponised it and made false
• 22:58
  S2: claims about it. But do you acknowledge in hindsight now time,
• 23:01
  S2: so much time has passed that your speech that you
• 23:04
  S2: gave sent a kind of anti work from home signal
• 23:07
  S2: across the economy, which could have been interpreted by private
• 23:10
  S2: sector employees as something that might eventually, if it exists
• 23:13
  S2: in the public sector, be reflected in ebas across the community.
• 23:17
  S2: And did you do well enough to explain that and
• 23:19
  S2: tamp it down? To me? It felt at the time,
• 23:21
  S2: as on your part and others in the party, that
• 23:23
  S2: there was a stubbornness to acknowledge how this had flowed
• 23:27
  S2: into the society. And I think Keith Wolahan has effectively
• 23:30
  S2: said it cost him his seat.
• 23:31
  S3: Yeah. Look, I wouldn't agree with Keith on that. In fact,
• 23:34
  S3: if you look at the, um, the way that the
• 23:37
  S3: votes fell in his seat, that probably isn't true. But that's,
• 23:41
  S3: you know, by the by, um, look, to be honest,
• 23:45
  S3: this is a policy that we probably should have not
• 23:47
  S3: released in a, in an election campaign. Um, it was
• 23:52
  S3: plagued with probably bad messaging, bad timing, um, a really
• 23:57
  S3: good campaign from labor, if you remember rightly, like the
• 24:01
  S3: week after was the cyclone or hurricane in Queensland. So
• 24:04
  S3: everybody's conversation, everybody sort of started looking elsewhere. No policies
• 24:08
  S3: were announced. This one had the opportunity to sort of
• 24:11
  S3: be hijacked quietly behind the scenes acknowledge.
• 24:14
  S1: And I mean, it's good to hear you sort of
• 24:16
  S1: talk about it and to remind us as well, what
• 24:17
  S1: the original intent of the policy was. But do you
• 24:20
  S1: do you think that it just sort of ended up
• 24:22
  S1: giving a message that the Liberal Party didn't understand working
• 24:27
  S1: parents and their juggle, and they didn't understand the sort
• 24:30
  S1: of the new situation or the contemporary reality of most
• 24:33
  S1: working families where both parents are working, juggling kids, trying
• 24:37
  S1: to get to work, trying to be good employees, trying
• 24:39
  S1: to be good parents, and they're trying to do it all.
• 24:41
  S1: And working from home is a really, really important and
• 24:43
  S1: useful tool in trying to manage that juggle.
• 24:46
  S3: I think that we never denied any of that, but
• 24:49
  S3: the messaging that was coming out from labor, which like,
• 24:52
  S3: you know, let's be honest, it was kind of being
• 24:55
  S3: amplified by the media as well, didn't do us any
• 24:58
  S3: favors in that regard. Trying to get the messaging right
• 25:01
  S3: was difficult. I think Peter stumbled. I mean, and look,
• 25:05
  S3: people stumble on messages during campaigns all the time. Peter
• 25:08
  S3: stumbled on some messaging there. He said, well, women can
• 25:10
  S3: always job share. That was, you know, that was.
• 25:13
  S1: A.
• 25:13
  S3: That was a, that was a that was a flat
• 25:15
  S3: footed comment. And even he would say it was a
• 25:17
  S3: flat footed comment. Um, so of course there's things that
• 25:20
  S3: you would, you know, you would rethink. But to be honest,
• 25:23
  S3: I think the backflip of the policy was probably almost
• 25:27
  S3: as damaging, perhaps more damaging than explaining the policy appropriate.
• 25:32
  S2: Shouldn't have backflipped on it.
• 25:33
  S3: Yeah. Look, other people will decide. Look, hey, there's an
• 25:35
  S3: election review coming out. I'm absolutely certain that this will
• 25:38
  S3: come up. Um, but to be honest, if you want
• 25:41
  S3: to say. Is that the reason why we lost the election? No, no, that.
• 25:44
  S2: Was what was.
• 25:45
  S5: Let's let's let's.
• 25:46
  S1: Move on because we don't have a lot of time left.
• 25:48
  S1: And there's a few other things I want to step through.
• 25:50
  S1: Andrew Hastie's been in the news a lot. He's often
• 25:52
  S1: talked about as a leadership contender. Now, you and also
• 25:56
  S1: Susan Lee were a bit critical of him this week
• 25:58
  S1: because he made some comments during the debate about Priya's law,
• 26:01
  S1: which for listeners who haven't been following along, um, Priya's
• 26:05
  S1: bill rather, which is about extending parental leave entitlements to
• 26:09
  S1: parents or women who've had a stillborn baby. He said
• 26:12
  S1: that he was concerned that the policy would be misused
• 26:15
  S1: basically by women who are having late term abortions, which,
• 26:18
  S1: as we know, is incredibly, incredibly rare. As one of
• 26:22
  S1: one of my contacts texted me and put it to
• 26:23
  S1: me this way, it's as though the Liberal Party is
• 26:26
  S1: actively searching for new cohorts of the population to actively offend,
• 26:30
  S1: because that is so offensive to so many women, and
• 26:32
  S1: so many women will have either lived through a miscarriage
• 26:35
  S1: or a stillbirth, or had an abortion. All of those
• 26:38
  S1: things are very, very common, as I'm sure you know.
• 26:41
  S1: I mean, do you just bang your head against the
• 26:43
  S1: wall when you hear someone like Hastie cropping up and
• 26:45
  S1: saying those things?
• 26:46
  S3: Well, let me start by saying that I'm very fond
• 26:49
  S3: of Andrew Hastie. He and I came in at about
• 26:51
  S3: the same sort of time. So we've, you know, we're
• 26:54
  S3: kind of a cohort. We're an alumni. And he's extremely
• 26:57
  S3: talented and and articulate. And I think he's got some
• 27:00
  S3: really important things to say. I entirely respect his views
• 27:03
  S3: and the views of the others that, uh, that spoke
• 27:06
  S3: on this bill with that perspective. However, I don't necessarily
• 27:12
  S3: think this bill was the right vehicle to express that opinion.
• 27:16
  S3: You're right. This was a bill that was about putting
• 27:19
  S3: paid parental giving, paid parental leave to parents that had
• 27:22
  S3: suffered from a stillborn birth, which is so traumatic. And
• 27:29
  S3: the idea that somehow it would be turned into a
• 27:31
  S3: conversation about abortion or late term abortion, or whether people
• 27:35
  S3: are having late term abortions and then trying to claim money.
• 27:37
  S3: You know, I mean, I.
• 27:38
  S5: Just it.
• 27:39
  S3: Just seems so. It seemed like a, a long bow and,
• 27:43
  S3: and and be entirely unnecessary in this context. Now, if
• 27:48
  S3: you if that's something that you feel very passionate about,
• 27:50
  S3: certainly you talk about it in whatever chamber you want
• 27:53
  S3: to speak about, but just not in the context of
• 27:57
  S3: this industrial relations bill.
• 27:58
  S2: What does it say about Andrews Hastie's potential to lead
• 28:02
  S2: a party?
• 28:03
  S5: Oh.
• 28:04
  S3: I wouldn't speculate on that. Susan Lee is the leader
• 28:06
  S3: of the party. I know he's he's he's expressed leadership ambitions, but, uh,
• 28:11
  S3: he's he's young. He's got plenty of time.
• 28:14
  S1: To to be really frank. Do you think that someone,
• 28:17
  S1: that someone who holds those views and who suspects women
• 28:20
  S1: are capable of, of such a rorting is fit for
• 28:24
  S1: a leadership position? The leadership of the of the Liberal Party.
• 28:27
  S3: Uh, well, there's a lot of interesting views around all
• 28:31
  S3: sorts of parts of the Parliament, whether it be in
• 28:34
  S3: the Labor Party, whether it be in the Liberal Party,
• 28:36
  S3: whether it be in the National Party. The real issue
• 28:39
  S3: is whether you take those very personally held views and
• 28:41
  S3: you turn them into policy. And I would imagine that
• 28:46
  S3: there are a lot of very conservative leaders that have
• 28:48
  S3: had some quite strident views about these things personally, that
• 28:50
  S3: haven't necessarily taken them into policy development in the past,
• 28:54
  S3: because they know that while they might feel something passionately
• 28:58
  S3: mainstream Australia, who they are representing, don't.
• 29:01
  S1: Yeah, but doesn't that mean that they're not fit for leadership?
• 29:03
  S1: If they don't, if they don't basically have values that
• 29:06
  S1: represent mainstream Australia.
• 29:07
  S3: No, I don't think you necessarily have to have values
• 29:10
  S3: identical or personally held. Positions that.
• 29:13
  S5: Reflect the broad mainstream values of Australians hold.
• 29:16
  S3: Broadly. Reflect is one thing, but you know, everybody's different.
• 29:19
  S3: Everybody has different perspectives on all sorts of things. It's
• 29:22
  S3: really whether you can, um, you know, say, well, this
• 29:25
  S3: is what I think, but I'm interested in what the
• 29:28
  S3: people I want to represent think and make sure that
• 29:30
  S3: we build policies and positions around their opinions, their hopes,
• 29:36
  S3: their dreams, not something that you, you know, believe and
• 29:40
  S3: and adhere to at home.
• 29:41
  S2: And to put just to put their argument very briefly
• 29:43
  S2: because they're not here to defend themselves. But Andrew Hastie
• 29:46
  S2: says privately that he went out of his way to
• 29:48
  S2: be as sensitive as possible in his speech. Um, even
• 29:51
  S2: some of his right wing colleagues say, right, you were
• 29:54
  S2: sensitive in the way you spoke about it. But the
• 29:55
  S2: decision to speak in and of itself might have been insensitive.
• 29:58
  S3: And I'll put my hand up and say, I haven't
• 29:59
  S3: actually heard what it is that they said. Exactly. I
• 30:02
  S3: haven't read the transcripts I read.
• 30:05
  S1: I've read all the transcripts. I read the Hansard. I
• 30:07
  S1: am sure he was perfectly sensible, and he made the
• 30:10
  S1: point that he that he supported the bill overall and
• 30:13
  S1: he supported the intent of the bill, but that doesn't
• 30:16
  S1: really offset, I think, for a lot of women, the
• 30:20
  S1: fact that he spoke up and that he chose that
• 30:22
  S1: opportunity to shoehorn in this other issue about which he
• 30:25
  S1: obviously feels strongly. I do want to move on, Jackie.
• 30:27
  S3: It's really important to, to to for your listeners to
• 30:30
  S3: know that this is not a widely held view around
• 30:33
  S3: the Liberal Party and that, you know, for the majority
• 30:37
  S3: of people in the Liberal Party, I think a woman's
• 30:39
  S3: right to choose is fundamentally important. There is no desire
• 30:44
  S3: to go out there and change abortion laws as a
• 30:47
  S3: sort of first order of business. And in fact, there'd
• 30:50
  S3: be an awful lot of people that I think would
• 30:52
  S3: leap to the other side of the chamber, should that
• 30:54
  S3: even be considered.
• 30:55
  S1: And Opposition Leader Susan Lee made that very clear, that
• 30:58
  S1: she supports a woman's right to choose. I want to
• 31:00
  S1: move on because we're pretty much out of time. Let's
• 31:03
  S1: just pass forward. Jane, what is the best ground that
• 31:06
  S1: the opposition can fight on? To take the fight up
• 31:09
  S1: to the government and to convince Australians that you guys
• 31:11
  S1: are ready to govern again? What what grounds should you
• 31:13
  S1: be fighting on?
• 31:14
  S3: Oh that's easy. Economics, economics and a little bit more
• 31:17
  S3: on economics, because the cost of living has still spiral
• 31:21
  S3: out of control. You know, we've seen housing prices or
• 31:24
  S3: house prices go up by around 20%. We've seen food
• 31:29
  S3: prices go up by 15%. Health is up by 15%.
• 31:33
  S3: Electricity is up by 40%. You know, everybody has felt
• 31:36
  S3: this is just in the last three years. So everybody's
• 31:39
  S3: feeling this. There must be better ways to have a
• 31:43
  S3: prosperous economy, because I think that that sense of aspiration
• 31:47
  S3: and opportunity has been sucked out of our society, which
• 31:50
  S3: is just, you know, that's not who we are. We
• 31:53
  S3: want to be a positive, hopeful country that, uh, you know,
• 31:59
  S3: where the next generation feel that they have a chance
• 32:01
  S3: to do better than the last. That I feel has gone.
• 32:04
  S3: That's the. That's where we should be fighting on reward
• 32:06
  S3: for effort and and making sure that we're sort of
• 32:11
  S3: tilling the soil of our economy so that there are
• 32:13
  S3: opportunities for that next generation, interesting businesses to go into
• 32:18
  S3: exciting industries and and making sure that everyone feels like
• 32:22
  S3: they have an opportunity to get ahead. That's what I'd
• 32:25
  S3: like to see.
• 32:25
  S1: Yep.
• 32:26
  S2: Just super quickly, you want to get back on the frontbench?
• 32:28
  S3: Oh, absolutely. You know, of course I want to get
• 32:31
  S3: back on the frontbench. The frontbench is where the action happens,
• 32:34
  S3: particularly in government. Now, in opposition. There's great opportunities in
• 32:37
  S3: the backbench to. I've already introduced two bills just in
• 32:39
  S3: the last couple of weeks alone, one to repeal the
• 32:42
  S3: moratorium on on nuclear energy, another one to allow couples
• 32:46
  S3: and families to split their superannuation evenly between them. That's
• 32:49
  S3: stuff that I couldn't be doing if I was on
• 32:51
  S3: the front bench.
• 32:51
  S2: But do you want to get back in Susan Lee's
• 32:53
  S2: frontbench or do you wait for the next?
• 32:54
  S3: I would like to get back on on the frontbench
• 32:56
  S3: because it is a really important it's a really important
• 32:59
  S3: way to affect change.
• 33:00
  S1: Thank you Jane, so much. That was very, very interesting.
• 33:03
  S1: Thank you for being a friend of the podcast and
• 33:05
  S1: we hope we can have you back.
• 33:06
  S3: On me too. That was fun.
• 33:16
  S1: Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong with technical assistance
• 33:19
  S1: from Michael Pack. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and
• 33:23
  S1: Tom McKendrick is our head of audio. To listen to
• 33:27
  S1: our episodes as soon as they drop, follow Inside Politics
• 33:30
  S1: on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen to your podcasts.
• 33:34
  S1: To stay up to date with all the politics, news
• 33:36
  S1: and exclusives, visit The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald
• 33:39
  S1: websites to support our journalism. Subscribe to us by visiting
• 33:43
  S1: The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thank you
• 33:49
  S1: for listening.