Latest / Inside Politics / Best of 2024: What is doxxing, plus Barnaby's spill and a PM's wedding

Transcript

Best of 2024: What is doxxing, plus Barnaby's spill and a PM's wedding · Inside Politics

0:02
S1: Hi there. I'm Jacqueline Maley, the host of Inside Politics,
0:05
S1: The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald's weekly politics podcast.
0:09
S1: We're bringing you the best episodes of 2024 before we
0:12
S1: return in early February for the election year. In February
0:18
S1: last year, the identities of hundreds of Jewish academics and
0:21
S1: creatives who were members of a WhatsApp group were leaked
0:24
S1: by pro-Palestinian activists in the wake of the October 7th
0:27
S1: attack and the subsequent war in Gaza. In this episode,
0:32
S1: Doctor Simon Copland of the Australian National University and chief
0:36
S1: political correspondent David Crowe discuss whether this leak can be
0:39
S1: classified as doxing and whether such a practice should be outlawed. Welcome, gentlemen.
0:53
S2: Hi, Jackie.
0:54
S3: Thanks for having me on.
0:55
S1: So this week, the federal government announced plans to introduce
0:58
S1: new laws to crack down on something called doxing. Simon,
1:02
S1: that's where I want to start with this discussion. For
1:03
S1: those who don't know what is doxing.
1:06
S3: So doxing is the release of people's personal information, normally
1:12
S3: for malicious intent and by malicious intent. Normally this is
1:16
S3: understood to involve an intent for facilitating harassment of those people.
1:22
S3: So a really great example of doxing a number of
1:24
S3: years ago that I studied in the United States was
1:27
S3: a campaign called Thought Audit. Thought is an acronym for that.
1:32
S3: Ho over there. It's very widely used in men's rights circles.
1:36
S3: And in this audit, they were encouraging people to report
1:40
S3: sex workers to the IRS, to the Internal Revenue Service.
1:43
S3: And members created a huge database of sex workers, over
1:47
S3: 160,000 people and released it online. And that included people's
1:51
S3: personal information, their full names, where they lived, uh, their
1:55
S3: payment services, these types of things. Database was then used
1:58
S3: to harass individuals quite heavily and created significant negative impacts
2:02
S3: for those people. So that's a really clear example of
2:05
S3: of doxing, where people's personal information has been released for
2:08
S3: the purpose of harassment.
2:09
S1: Yeah, that's an awful example. I hadn't heard of that before.
2:12
S3: Yeah, it really was.
2:13
S1: David, the reason the government has decided to embark on
2:16
S1: this now is because the contents of a private WhatsApp group, WhatsApp,
2:20
S1: being a social media app where you can chat to
2:22
S1: other people and the names of the people in that
2:24
S1: group was leaked recently. Can you tell me about the
2:26
S1: WhatsApp group and exactly what happened?
2:29
S2: So the WhatsApp group was set up by a group
2:31
S2: of Jewish community members late last year and this included artists, singers, writers,
2:37
S2: people of various backgrounds to talk about what was going
2:40
S2: on in the Middle East and I guess to share
2:42
S2: their experiences in a private group that appears to have
2:46
S2: about 600 members, and their personal details were released by
2:51
S2: pro-Palestinian activists, I think would be a fair way to
2:54
S2: describe them, because they were identifying the members of this
2:57
S2: WhatsApp group as as their opponents. The WhatsApp group has
3:01
S2: really been covered in depth by our colleague at The
3:03
S2: Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, Chip Le Grand, who
3:05
S2: reported on this. But the key thing here is that
3:07
S2: the members of the WhatsApp group are members of the
3:09
S2: Jewish community with various views on the war in the
3:12
S2: Middle East. So it wasn't an exposure of a political
3:17
S2: activist group in some way. It was the release of
3:20
S2: personal information details, a photo gallery of members of this
3:24
S2: group and caused great personal harm to those people. Now
3:28
S2: that then, once Chip Le Grand had reported that in
3:31
S2: The Age and the Herald last Friday, then set off
3:34
S2: this debate about is this getting out of hand, what
3:37
S2: can be done about it? And it was a couple
3:38
S2: of days later, earlier this week, when Prime Minister Anthony
3:42
S2: Albanese was asked about this and said that he had
3:45
S2: asked the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, to bring forward laws to
3:49
S2: stop doxing. So that doesn't happen every day, where the
3:51
S2: Prime Minister says in a live interview that he's asked
3:54
S2: a minister to get cracking on something and bring it
3:57
S2: bring it forward. The government was already working on some
3:59
S2: Privacy Act changes that's been in the works for months,
4:03
S2: but the Prime Minister basically indicated that something new was
4:06
S2: going to be done. We don't know exactly how that's
4:08
S2: going to be shaped and structured, but it is a
4:10
S2: new development and it's underway now.
4:13
S1: Simon, my understanding was this is a group of Jewish creatives.
4:16
S1: As David said, there's hundreds of people on this private
4:19
S1: chat group and they were talking about all sorts of issues,
4:21
S1: but mostly coalescing around the war between Gaza and Israel
4:24
S1: and sort of possible responses to it. I think there's
4:26
S1: some suggestion that some organizations might be lobbied or pressured
4:30
S1: to cut ties with people who have a very anti-Israel
4:33
S1: or pro-Palestine stance. Does this actually classify as doxing, given
4:37
S1: that no addresses or phone numbers were published online, only
4:40
S1: their names and the transcript of the chat?
4:43
S3: Yeah, I think that there are two elements that I
4:45
S3: would suggest that mean that this probably isn't a case
4:48
S3: of doxing. The first one you've already mentioned, which is
4:50
S3: that names were released of people engaging in this chat.
4:54
S3: But no, as you said, addresses, phone numbers, emails were released.
4:59
S3: And that has a significant difference in terms of the
5:01
S3: ability of people to contact these people to to track
5:04
S3: them down or to harass them. I think the second
5:07
S3: area is an area where I slightly disagree with David
5:09
S3: on this. One is it seems very clear that there
5:12
S3: was quite a bit of political chat in this conversation.
5:15
S3: It certainly from my understanding, and I know some people
5:18
S3: who were in this chat initially, it didn't start in
5:20
S3: that way. It started as a group of people coming
5:22
S3: together to talk about how to support each other during
5:24
S3: a very difficult time, and then headed in a direction
5:28
S3: towards more, trying to engage in political discussions and political
5:33
S3: action around the Israel-Palestine issue. Now, some people have been
5:36
S3: caught in the mix of that, people who weren't participating
5:39
S3: in those conversations, and that's not good. It's really been
5:42
S3: very unfortunate, but I think one can make an argument
5:45
S3: that this was a more of a sort of version
5:47
S3: of a kind of political whistleblowing. And in fact, the
5:50
S3: initial material was leaked by a member of that group
5:53
S3: to those pro-Palestinian activists. So I think that given those
5:57
S3: two factors, that it was only names and it was
5:58
S3: names of already public figures generally, and that this was
6:01
S3: very political in nature, suggests that we're looking more at
6:05
S3: a leak, kind of whistleblowing leak. And I think there's
6:07
S3: real risks in suggesting that that's something that we might
6:10
S3: want to consider banning.
6:11
S2: I have an issue with that, actually. I really disagree
6:14
S2: with what you've just said, Simon. When I look at
6:17
S2: the statements about what happened. I see statements from, well,
6:22
S2: from the Jewish community that that talk about what happened
6:26
S2: with that group as sort of encouraging consequences that can
6:30
S2: menace or intimidate or harass those members of the WhatsApp group. So,
6:35
S2: you know, maybe this becomes a threshold question. Do you
6:38
S2: have to release the phone numbers of somebody for it
6:41
S2: to be a kind of a doxing that can be
6:44
S2: menacing or intimidatory towards those people? Because that's clearly what
6:48
S2: the government is looking at. It won't be just, well,
6:51
S2: it will be about the consequences of doxing being to
6:54
S2: Being to menace people. Wasn't that happening here with this group?
6:58
S2: Wasn't the release of the information going to be used
7:01
S2: in a way that encouraged people to be intimidated?
7:03
S3: Well, there has certainly been negative consequences of this, and
7:06
S3: people have been intimidated, and we already actually have legislation
7:09
S3: that can stop that. So, um, but.
7:11
S2: So if you say that, Simon, that means it's not
7:14
S2: just whistle blowing here. It's, it's it's kind of people
7:18
S2: are being ganged up on by the public release of
7:21
S2: this information in that way.
7:22
S3: And I think, as I said, there's already legislation that
7:26
S3: can stop harassment, um, in that should be used and
7:29
S3: in fact is often not used because a lot of
7:31
S3: our enforcement agencies don't understand online harassment and refuse to
7:36
S3: engage in it. But I think we have a question
7:38
S3: here about what does a political leak or whistleblowing look like?
7:42
S3: And whistleblowing often results in this, and that's not a
7:46
S3: thing that I would condone. I do not suggest that
7:48
S3: the that the consequences of people online who then take
7:54
S3: names and harass people is a good thing. And as
7:56
S3: I said, we have legislation against that already. But when
7:59
S3: there's political conversations going on in a very heated debate,
8:02
S3: there is a legitimate argument to be made that this
8:04
S3: is a leak or a whistleblowing situation, not a doxing situation.
8:09
S3: And I think it's very difficult to claim that there's
8:12
S3: malicious intent here, or that there is an intent from
8:15
S3: the people who did the leak to promote the harassment
8:19
S3: that followed. Now, it's really blurry here because, you know,
8:23
S3: obviously harassment followed, and that's really unfortunate. And I don't
8:27
S3: condone that in any way. But is there a public
8:30
S3: interest to know that there are groups of creatives getting
8:32
S3: together who are discussing ways to politically engage in this debate?
8:38
S3: In some cases, discussing ways where they were encouraging people
8:41
S3: to go to pro-Palestinian Facebook pages, to to out people
8:45
S3: to do those sorts of things. If that's happening, I
8:48
S3: think there is a case to be made that that's
8:50
S3: within the public interest to to know that that's going on.
8:53
S1: I think you've both hit on something very, very important
8:56
S1: and I want to get to it. Now, in terms
8:58
S1: of the remedy that the government might propose for doxing,
9:01
S1: if indeed you call this doxing, because I think the
9:03
S1: consequences for the people involved is indisputable, whether or not
9:06
S1: that harm was sort of intended by the people who
9:08
S1: leaked the information. What kind of legislation is the government
9:11
S1: proposing to put in place to stop this practice? We
9:15
S1: don't know the details of it yet, but do we
9:16
S1: have any sort of indications, Simon? Perhaps based on what
9:20
S1: has happened internationally?
9:22
S3: Look, I don't as I said, we don't have the
9:24
S3: details yet. And so it's a bit hard to tell,
9:26
S3: and it'll be hard to judge until we see those details.
9:28
S3: And at the moment, what the government has said is
9:30
S3: that they want to ban doxing. And they're using that
9:33
S3: definition that I used previously, which is the release of
9:36
S3: personal information for malicious intent. And I think I think
9:39
S3: there's two key elements that they're going to have to
9:41
S3: address here. First of all, what do they mean by
9:43
S3: personal information. And does the release, for example, of names,
9:47
S3: does that cross that threshold? The second element is what
9:51
S3: how do we define malicious intent? And I think that
9:53
S3: that's a really, really challenging one, because there are heaps
9:57
S3: of examples of what we would consider doxing, that there
10:00
S3: are arguments to be made about that. So, so one
10:03
S3: really good example that I've used previously is in the
10:05
S3: United States following the Charlottesville riots.
10:09
S4: We begin tonight with that breaking news, a horrific scene
10:12
S4: in Charlottesville, Virginia, a white nationalist rally that descended into
10:16
S4: deadly violence and chaos. A car plowing into a crowd
10:19
S4: of demonstrators protesting against those white nationalists. A 32 year
10:24
S4: old woman killed a number of.
10:27
S3: People, scoured the photos of those riots, and found the
10:31
S3: white supremacists who were participating in those riots, found their
10:34
S3: names and often released their location as well. Now, using
10:38
S3: the first part of that definition, releasing personal information that
10:40
S3: clearly would be considered, it meets that first criteria of doxing.
10:44
S3: But is that malicious intent? And that's a really good question,
10:46
S3: and I don't have an answer for it. Do people
10:49
S3: have the right to know that there's white supremacists living
10:51
S3: in their community. I think you could argue that either way.
10:54
S3: And so the malicious intent question here is really challenging,
10:57
S3: one that was clearly called doxing. But I think that
11:00
S3: if you're using that definition, it becomes really, really tricky
11:03
S3: to understand how you would ban it.
11:04
S1: Yeah. It veers close to vigilantism though doesn't it, in
11:08
S1: some cases. David, I just want to ask, once we
11:10
S1: see the legislation from the government on what they plan
11:13
S1: on doing on this, is there likely to be any
11:15
S1: kind of debate or controversy around the issues that Simon's
11:17
S1: talking about, that there could be public interest in leaking
11:21
S1: information of these kinds of private chats? As journalists, we
11:24
S1: leak information that is intended privately all the time. Is
11:28
S1: there likely to be sort of a free speech, freedom
11:30
S1: of information kind of angle on this from some people,
11:33
S1: perhaps within the coalition?
11:34
S2: The indication from the government so far is that it
11:36
S2: will be a criminal sanction on doxing. Now, what language
11:42
S2: they're using about the intent of the doxing is quite unclear,
11:46
S2: because there's been no statement from Mark Dreyfus so far
11:49
S2: about any shape of the law. So that's to be determined.
11:54
S2: The statement that we had from Mark Dreyfus said this
11:58
S2: no Australian should be targeted because of their race or religion. So,
12:02
S2: you know, in the sense of this particular case, there
12:06
S2: is a concern that people would target it because they
12:08
S2: were members of the Jewish community. Now that's again a
12:11
S2: threshold question that would have to be dealt with when
12:14
S2: they come to putting out a draft law. They're also
12:17
S2: talking about further sanctions against hate speech, which of course
12:21
S2: is a very vexed issue because it's, say, a decade ago,
12:24
S2: we had a big debate in federal parliament about whether
12:27
S2: section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act should be changed.
12:31
S2: Things have moved on since then, but there are still
12:33
S2: those tests about whether opposing hate speech turns into something
12:37
S2: like an anti-bigotry law. So you're not allowed to offend
12:40
S2: any religion, and also questions about racial discrimination. So it's
12:44
S2: not going to be easy. I haven't had so far
12:47
S2: a big amount of vocal concern from Members of Parliament
12:51
S2: about the shape of this law, but I think it's
12:53
S2: only a matter of time before that happens. There are
12:55
S2: some conservatives who already say be very cautious here because
13:00
S2: of the impact on free speech. The statement from the
13:02
S2: government is that they will make sure that this change
13:06
S2: to the Privacy Act does have an exemption for public
13:09
S2: interest journalism. So if there is a public interest in
13:11
S2: the disclosure of information, it would be protected by that exemption.
13:15
S1: Gentlemen, that was such an interesting chat. We really appreciate it.
13:17
S1: We love a little bit of creative tension too. So
13:20
S1: thank you, Simon, for joining us. I'll let you go now.
13:22
S1: Really appreciate.
13:23
S3: It. Well, thank you very much for having me on. Thanks, Simon.
13:34
S5: Hi. Morning edition listeners, if you're looking for a series
13:37
S5: to binge over the break, I want to recommend Trial
13:40
S5: by Water. It's a podcast by some of my colleagues
13:42
S5: at The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. It's about
13:45
S5: a man, Robert Farquharson, who was convicted of murdering his
13:48
S5: three sons by driving them into a dam, and about
13:51
S5: the people who are now questioning that conviction. Trial by
13:55
S5: water is a compelling and informative podcast series that will
13:58
S5: make you question the way our justice system operates. So
14:01
S5: please take a listen and recommend it to your friends. Thanks.
14:10
S1: David. I'm going to touch on the engagement because we
14:12
S1: can't miss it out. It's too it's too exciting.
14:14
S2: Yeah, I think it's been a big week in sort
14:17
S2: of personal politics, from one extreme to the other, from
14:20
S2: sort of revenge and vengeance to lovers in the air.
14:24
S1: Yes, David, this week a few very personal stories came
14:27
S1: out of Canberra, although they were very different to each other. First,
14:30
S1: I want to talk about the happy news, which is
14:32
S1: that the PM announced on Thursday he was engaged to
14:34
S1: his partner Jodie Haydon. How did this announcement go down
14:37
S1: in Canberra? I mean, you guys love love, right?
14:40
S2: I think it's fair to say that once that news happened,
14:42
S2: everybody knew that every other news item in federal Parliament
14:46
S2: would be secondary, no matter how important the tax debate
14:50
S2: or the IR debate is, or how important the questions
14:53
S2: are over the release of detainees from immigration detention. Everybody
14:57
S2: knew that this was the talking point.
15:00
S6: Prime Minister.
15:00
S7: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, this is indeed a great
15:03
S7: day here. It is a great day on so many levels, Mr. Speaker.
15:08
S2: And I expect it to be a discussion whether the
15:12
S2: Prime Minister is talking about policy or the treasurer is
15:15
S2: talking about, you know, labor force figures.
15:18
S7: I say this this is a day in which every
15:20
S7: Australian will get a tax cut. All 13.6 million.
15:24
S2: It's been greeted fairly positively. How else would you greet this?
15:28
S8: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, perhaps just on indulgence first.
15:30
S8: Can I extend to the Prime Minister and to Jody?
15:32
S8: I'm sure on behalf of the whole House, our congratulations
15:35
S8: and best wishes to you. We look forward to our
15:38
S8: version of the royal wedding sometime in the near future.
15:41
S2: People have said to me, well, it's about time we
15:43
S2: had some good news coming out of Canberra.
15:47
S8: You know, need a best man. I'll be there throwing
15:48
S8: roses out in front of you, Prime Minister. Whatever it takes.
15:51
S8: Whatever it takes to get an invite to the gala. Wedding.
15:54
S2: The proposal came on Valentine's Day, so the timing is logical.
15:59
S2: My first reaction was, really? Why would you propose in
16:02
S2: a parliamentary sitting week? But that just shows that I'm
16:04
S2: stuck here in Parliament after always seeing things that way.
16:07
S1: That is so, so unromantic of you, David.
16:11
S2: I forgot for a moment that it was Valentine's Day.
16:13
S2: So the proposal was made at the Lodge after Anthony
16:17
S2: Albanese and Jody Hayden had been at dinner at an
16:20
S2: Italian restaurant in Canberra.
16:21
S1: I won't make any comment on Mrs. Crowe's prospects on
16:24
S1: Valentine's Day if you forgot that it was on yesterday.
16:26
S1: Moving swiftly on, I don't want to be too cynical
16:28
S1: about this, I swear, because I know that the couple
16:31
S1: are very much in love. But this won't exactly hurt
16:33
S1: Albanese's political prospects, will it?
16:35
S2: It's fair to say that in Parliament House, people think immediately. Oh, okay,
16:40
S2: so this will help in the Dunkley by election on
16:42
S2: March 2nd, right.
16:43
S1: It's terrible. Plus the.
16:44
S2: Tax cuts.
16:45
S1: Yeah. Terrible. But true.
16:47
S2: If you look at it in terms of the political cycle,
16:49
S2: it's probably good to get this news out now well
16:53
S2: before the next election. I've already asked the logical question
16:58
S2: is the wedding going to be before the election or
16:59
S2: in the next term of Parliament?
17:01
S1: Exactly.
17:02
S2: There's no answer on that. It's too early to ask
17:04
S2: about those kind of things, but it naturally becomes a
17:08
S2: subject of discussion. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand chose not
17:12
S2: to get married while prime minister. The wedding happened once
17:15
S2: she left office. I think Boris Johnson got married while
17:18
S2: prime minister in the UK, but this is pretty new
17:21
S2: territory in Australia and we don't know quite how it's
17:24
S2: going to play out. But the initial reaction is certainly
17:27
S2: positive and positive for Anthony Albanese when he's facing that
17:30
S2: by election. Probably won't hurt before the next federal election.
17:34
S1: Indeed. I want to talk briefly now about Barnaby Joyce,
17:36
S1: who's had his personal life also in the news for
17:38
S1: very different reasons. He was filmed last week lying on
17:41
S1: his back on a footpath in Canberra, swearing into his
17:45
S1: phone in sort of an apparent drunken state, and images
17:48
S1: of that went viral.
17:49
S9: Barnaby, let's start with you. Morning. How are you?
17:52
S8: Oh, look, I'm.
17:53
S10: Obviously, you know, I made a big mistake. There's no
17:57
S10: excuse for it. There's a reason. And, you know, there's
18:01
S10: a very eventful walk home, wasn't it?
18:04
S1: What was your reaction when you first learned of the incident, David?
18:07
S2: I thought it was really sad. I thought it was
18:09
S2: sad that nobody helped him up. And I thought it
18:11
S2: was sad that they thought that the way to treat
18:13
S2: somebody like that was to take photographs and then, I presume,
18:17
S2: sell them to the Daily Mail. I thought that was
18:19
S2: really not not something we want.
18:23
S9: Are you kind of are you kind of angry that
18:26
S9: you were lying on the ground and someone filmed you
18:29
S9: and no one helped you?
18:32
S10: Well, that's a question for them. You know, uh, you know,
18:36
S10: for me, the Good Samaritan was the, uh, was the
18:39
S10: Indian taxi driver who pulled over as I was walking
18:42
S10: home and said, do you need a lift, mate? which
18:45
S10: I obviously did.
18:46
S2: Barnaby Joyce is a polarizing figure. I think it's safe
18:49
S2: to say he's been so damaging to debate. In many ways,
18:53
S2: I think the nationals party room was much more unified
18:56
S2: and cohesive before he became leader, because he can be
18:59
S2: an antagonizing figure, but he's also a force to be
19:02
S2: reckoned with in politics. He's he's he's a very talented politician.
19:06
S2: He's not to be underestimated. So he's got multiple sides
19:09
S2: to the way he works. And one thing I've always
19:12
S2: found is that he fights his corner and he deals
19:15
S2: with you in a pretty straight way. So as a
19:17
S2: human being, I don't want to see him, you know,
19:20
S2: lying flat on the footpath with nobody helping him. He's
19:25
S2: had ups and downs in his personal life and his career.
19:28
S2: The primary issue is, is not just a political one,
19:31
S2: it's the personal one. In what way will people try
19:34
S2: to help him when he acknowledges that he's got some
19:37
S2: issues where he was taking some medication that contributed to
19:41
S2: what happened, if he needs help. One of One of
19:44
S2: the challenges in this building is that you can spend
19:46
S2: 20 years in the building, and you end up with
19:48
S2: a lot of colleagues and not enough friends. So some
19:51
S2: of the people around him may advise him to take
19:54
S2: a break, but he won't trust them in terms of
19:57
S2: what happens with the nationals. People had already said to
19:59
S2: me that Barnaby has said privately he doesn't entertain the
20:03
S2: idea of coming back as leader. People won't believe that.
20:06
S2: But what happened last week rules that out for good.
20:10
S2: He will still be a force in politics, I think,
20:12
S2: for some time.
20:13
S1: He's actually one of the most unpopular figures Australia has
20:16
S1: ever had. According to the Australian Election Study, which is
20:19
S1: done after every election by the Anu. But he's immensely
20:22
S1: popular in his own electorate. Is he a drag on
20:25
S1: the Liberal vote, and is he likely to be one
20:27
S1: at the next election if he stays in politics?
20:30
S2: I think he's a drag on the coalition vote. I
20:34
S2: think he's a drag on the ability of the liberals,
20:37
S2: in particular, to reach out to the swinging voters they
20:40
S2: need in the major cities, primarily at the next election.
20:44
S2: That's always been a dynamic for the coalition or it
20:47
S2: has been in recent times. And we saw that in
20:49
S2: the nemesis series, where the return of Barnaby Joyce to
20:53
S2: the leadership, while Scott Morrison was prime minister, did not
20:56
S2: help Scott Morrison. We'll see that with the climate change debate,
21:00
S2: because we know that Barnaby in particular is campaigning heavily
21:04
S2: against wind turbines. I think that that issue is an
21:07
S2: issue that bites in regional communities, but they've got to
21:10
S2: be careful at the way that plays out in the
21:12
S2: cities where people do want a shift to renewable energy,
21:16
S2: or where there's a large proportion of voters who want
21:18
S2: to shift to renewable energies.
21:20
S1: Yeah. You've mentioned nemesis there, the ABC docu series, which
21:23
S1: finished up this week. Just quickly, David, what do you think?
21:26
S1: If anything, the series taught us about how power works
21:30
S1: in Australia.
21:31
S2: It highlighted what a lot of people instinctively know, just
21:35
S2: how personal it is and how no matter how often
21:38
S2: political leaders are talking about big policy ideas and their
21:42
S2: vision for the country and the way they want to
21:44
S2: change the country. At a base level, it can be
21:47
S2: very much about personal rivalries and personal enmities.
21:49
S11: The French president is calling you a liar.
21:52
S12: I got big shoulders. I'm sure President XI Jinping called
21:56
S12: me worst.
21:59
S13: As I said at the time, I think Morrison sacrificed
22:03
S13: Australian security, sovereignty and honour all at once. It was
22:09
S13: a terrible it was the worst decision of his government,
22:11
S13: in my view.
22:12
S2: And that's what came through so strongly in nemesis. And
22:15
S2: that's why it was a sobering reminder about just what
22:20
S2: went wrong during the nine years of the coalition government,
22:25
S2: with three prime ministers, six defence ministers and so much
22:30
S2: upheaval over the years.
22:32
S1: A lot of very emotional men there in Canberra. David,
22:35
S1: except for you, of course, you're sober, and.
22:37
S2: It would have been good if Julie Bishop had volunteered,
22:40
S2: had come forward. The fact that she didn't get enough
22:43
S2: votes in the end, is still one of those moments
22:46
S2: in Australian politics that people will think about for a
22:50
S2: long time.
22:51
S14: She was the great political survivor, the first woman in
22:54
S14: Liberal history to be elected deputy leader. She rose to
22:58
S14: foreign minister in his government and held on for the
23:01
S14: second coming of Malcolm. But in last year's coup, Julie
23:05
S14: Bishop's time at the top ran out.
23:07
S2: I actually approached Julie Bishop and I said, would you
23:10
S2: last week? And I said, would you talk about what
23:12
S2: happened there? And she replied and said, no, I'm not.
23:15
S2: I'm not going back to talk about those years I've
23:17
S2: moved on.
23:18
S14: Her departure had been whispered in the wake of the coup,
23:21
S14: and her anger at the men in her party was
23:23
S14: signalled by her dazzling red shoes and her loud silence.
23:27
S8: Can you see a point where the Liberal Party will
23:29
S8: bring itself to elect a popular female leader?
23:33
S15: Well, when we find one, I'm sure they will.
23:35
S2: But that was a big moment because it's a what
23:40
S2: if moment. What if they had selected Julie Bishop in
23:43
S2: August 2018 instead?
23:45
S1: Yeah, that must have been a huge sort of personal
23:47
S1: and ego blow to her as well. David. Fascinating as always.
23:51
S1: Let's come back next week. Maybe we'll have more details
23:54
S1: of the wedding, then talk then.
23:57
S2: Thanks, Jackie.
24:00
S1: Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Tammy Mills,
24:03
S1: with technical assistance by Dave McMillan. Our executive producer is
24:07
S1: Ruby Schwartz. The Morning Edition is a production of The
24:10
S1: Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy this
24:13
S1: show and you want more of our journalism, subscribe to
24:15
S1: our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what
24:18
S1: we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm Jacqueline Maley.
24:26
S1: This is Inside Politics from the morning edition. Thank you
24:29
S1: for listening.