Latest / Inside Politics / Coalition combust over net zero. Will the anti-climate action stance work?

Transcript

Coalition combust over net zero. Will the anti-climate action stance work? · 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, it's Friday, September 19th.
0:11
S1: This week, the government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target,
0:15
S1: committing Australia to climate action despite a retreat from the
0:19
S1: US and some other countries. Meanwhile, the coalition looked a
0:22
S1: lot like it was about to take up arms in
0:24
S1: the climate wars. Again, our federal political correspondent, Paul Circle
0:29
S1: has come down with tonsillitis this week, so we're giving
0:32
S1: him a much needed rest. And we warmly welcome chief
0:34
S1: political commentator James Massola. Hi, James.
0:37
S2: Hi, jacks. Good to be with you.
0:43
S1: James. On Thursday, the government announced its emissions reduction target
0:46
S1: for 2035. So this is an interim target to get
0:49
S1: us to net zero by 2050. And it was 62
0:51
S1: to 70% in reductions.
0:54
S3: This is a responsible target backed by the science backed
0:58
S3: by a practical plan to get there and built on
1:02
S3: proven technology.
1:04
S1: So what does it mean?
1:05
S2: Look, I mean, this is something that's been much delayed,
1:08
S2: the 2035 targets. When we signed up to the Paris
1:11
S2: climate deal, part of what we signed up to was
1:14
S2: to set targets each five years. That's what this is
1:16
S2: basically the thinking being, Jack, that you can't go from
1:20
S2: standard or current 2020 emissions levels or 20 tens emission
1:24
S2: levels straight down to zero. You have to do it
1:27
S2: as a sort of an orderly trajectory, if you like.
1:31
S2: And so, you know, that's what we're seeing here today.
1:32
S2: We've had a 43% by 2030. We now see 62%
1:36
S2: to 70% reduction by 2035. What does it mean? It
1:41
S2: means us signing up to do more things, more, take
1:45
S2: more steps in different sectors of the Australian economy to
1:48
S2: reduce emissions so that we don't sort of have to
1:51
S2: go off a cliff in 2049, if you like, and
1:53
S2: suddenly de-industrialized.
1:55
S1: Yeah, like a journalist with a deadline who starts writing
1:58
S1: at sort of five minutes to midnight. Well, you and
2:00
S1: I have never done that. No. So obviously, the climate
2:03
S1: and energy minister, Chris Bowen, and the Prime Minister and
2:06
S1: the treasurer and the head of the Climate Change Authority
2:09
S1: all gave this press conference on Thursday, and they announced
2:11
S1: $7 billion in funds to put into a sort of
2:15
S1: pool to help business and industry achieve the target. Jim
2:18
S1: Chalmers said it was a golden economic opportunity. They said
2:21
S1: it would be an orderly transition, very much in contrast
2:24
S1: to what they said the coalition had done, which was
2:27
S1: a disorderly, kind of chaotic transition that was no good
2:29
S1: for anyone. I want to talk about the coalition because
2:33
S1: even before the target was announced on Thursday, we saw
2:37
S1: members of the coalition get right out in front of
2:39
S1: it and start laying out their opposition not to the
2:42
S1: interim target, but to the overall target of net zero
2:45
S1: by 2050, which is what we've signed up to under
2:48
S1: the Paris Agreement. Andrew Hastie, the shadow home affairs minister
2:51
S1: and prominent WA conservative, was the first sort of cab
2:54
S1: out of the rank. What did he have to say, James?
2:57
S2: What? Andrew Hastie said, basically, Jack was if the coalition
3:01
S2: remained committed to net zero by 2050, his position on
3:06
S2: the frontbench would be untenable and he would have to resign.
3:09
S4: If Susan Lee, though, supports net zero by 2050. Where
3:14
S4: does that leave you?
3:17
S5: That leaves me without a job.
3:20
S2: Because he just couldn't ever bring himself to support that target.
3:23
S5: Um, you know, I've nailed my colours to the mast.
3:26
S5: I went on four corners and I said, the net
3:28
S5: zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country.
3:32
S5: And I believe that I'm actually quite passionate about it.
3:34
S2: In one sense, that's a statement of fact. We already
3:37
S2: know as well that that's what Andrew Hastie thinks, in
3:40
S2: the sense that he's been very vocal in his opposition
3:43
S2: to the 2050 target for net zero target for some time.
3:46
S1: He said it would be an economic straitjacket for the nation,
3:49
S1: which is exactly the opposite of what Chalmers said.
3:52
S2: Yeah. Look. Exactly. Chalmers modelling talked about billions or I
3:55
S2: think even close to trillions in extra GDP generated through
3:59
S2: to 2050. If we pursue the so-called orderly transition model,
4:03
S2: which is what Labor's doing.
4:05
S6: The baseline scenario would see our economy $2.2 trillion bigger
4:11
S6: by 2050, an extra $36,000 per person wealthier with 5.1
4:17
S6: million more jobs and investment up 80%. Now that's the
4:21
S6: baseline scenario.
4:23
S2: Which Hastie thinks it's a disaster, he says we should
4:25
S2: be putting consumers first. He wants Australia to be an
4:28
S2: energy superpower, he says. You know, we've gone from having
4:31
S2: some of the cheapest electricity in the world to some
4:33
S2: of the most expensive. He wants to reframe the debate around,
4:37
S2: I guess, cost to household retail to manufacturing cost to business.
4:40
S2: It's very retail. Yeah, exactly.
4:42
S1: Yeah, yeah. And I want to get on to that
4:43
S1: strategy later, because I think it's really interesting. And it
4:45
S1: could be really effective for the coalition. But just so
4:48
S1: Andrew Hastie comes out at the beginning of the week
4:49
S1: and then he's backed up by Senator Jonathon Duniam of Tasmania,
4:54
S1: who said that there would be a mass exodus from
4:57
S1: the coalition if the coalition signed up to net zero
5:00
S1: at any cost.
5:01
S7: Well, look, if we just said net zero at any
5:04
S7: cost by 2050, I think you'd find there'd be a
5:07
S7: mass exodus. The reality is.
5:09
S1: And then towards the end of the week, I just
5:11
S1: started hearing this phrase a lot more at any cost.
5:13
S1: We're not going to go for net zero at any cost.
5:16
S1: Is this their new line, James? Because Sussan Ley also
5:18
S1: trotted it out when she gave a talk this week
5:21
S1: I think on Wednesday.
5:22
S2: Yeah. Look I think that's right. Other MPs indeed have
5:26
S2: come out and supported Hastie and Duniam as well and
5:28
S2: said we need to junk this policy. Now, of course,
5:30
S2: the context here, Jack, is that the coalition plan is
5:34
S2: to have a year long review led by Dan Tehan
5:37
S2: of climate policy, so they can all get together, hold
5:40
S2: hands and agree on some. Well, you know, whatever the
5:43
S2: policy might be. Yeah, there's a whole bunch of people
5:45
S2: in the coalition who think the price of entry back
5:47
S2: into metropolitan seats of which they hold almost none. Now
5:51
S2: is to have a credible climate policy to stay committed
5:54
S2: to 2050 and net zero emissions. And then there's a
5:57
S2: whole bunch of people who think, no way this is
5:59
S2: economic suicide. We cannot do this. I don't see how
6:02
S2: that year long review, how it doesn't get crunched down
6:06
S2: into a couple more weeks. And when we return to
6:08
S2: Parliament in October, the coalition will have, I believe, I
6:12
S2: understand they'll have to have some kind of a policy
6:16
S2: to talk about, because at the moment they're trying to
6:18
S2: reframe the debate as you as you've just touched on
6:20
S2: the at any cost thing. And I think that's Susan
6:23
S2: Lee recognising that the parameters, if you like, in which
6:26
S2: within which she has to work, but they need they've
6:29
S2: got they've got nothing to show.
6:30
S1: Yeah. It's a question now of how long they can
6:32
S1: repeat that line for. We are not going to go
6:34
S1: for net zero at any cost. Well what is the cost.
6:37
S1: Are you going to go for net zero at all.
6:39
S1: Like they're going to be facing these questions again and
6:41
S1: again and again, particularly when Parliament returns, as you say.
6:44
S1: But it doesn't look like Hastie has done this coincidentally,
6:47
S1: or just because, you know, he happened to be asked.
6:50
S1: On the fly. It looks quite strategic. And his colleague
6:53
S1: or his sort of factional colleague, Senator Duniam, has come
6:57
S1: out very much in concert with him. And we've seen obviously,
7:00
S1: the Nats come out in concert as well on this
7:03
S1: issue and say that basically they're never going to support
7:05
S1: net zero. So Sussan Ley is kind of in an
7:07
S1: impossible position now isn't she?
7:09
S2: She pretty much is. Look, there's a really interesting thing
7:11
S2: that's happening inside the coalition at the moment that I'm
7:14
S2: trying to keep track of and write about Jack. And
7:16
S2: that's that. There's a real split in the national right
7:19
S2: or conservative faction of the party between a younger generation
7:23
S2: who want the party to be pragmatic. Some of these
7:26
S2: guys actually do support having targets. And then there's a
7:28
S2: sort of an older generation of MPs, if you like,
7:31
S2: who are just not net zero. It can't happen at
7:34
S2: any cost. It can't happen at all type thing. I
7:37
S2: don't know how they're going to resolve this, but this
7:39
S2: is the kind of at its heart, this is the
7:41
S2: battle that's going on for the soul of the Liberal
7:43
S2: Party at the moment. And Susan Lee. Unfortunately, sitting on
7:46
S2: top of that much reduced pile of MPs. You know
7:50
S2: that party room of MPs and it's a powder keg.
7:52
S1: And she does not want to be the leader who
7:55
S1: presides over basically a split in the coalition or even
7:58
S1: a split in the Liberal Party over this issue. But
8:00
S1: if she signs up to the net zero target, her
8:02
S1: own leadership is going to be under threat. I mean,
8:04
S1: that seems pretty clear. But if she doesn't, then, as
8:07
S1: you've just said, the liberals are perhaps consigning themselves to
8:10
S1: a very, very, very long period in opposition. I just
8:13
S1: do want to note, though, that the liberals are kind
8:15
S1: of getting a little bit more coherent, I would say,
8:17
S1: in their arguments against net zero. So they're sort of now,
8:21
S1: from what I can gather, they're saying, you know, it's
8:23
S1: going to push up electricity costs. It already has the
8:26
S1: race to to lower emissions. Emissions are not going down anyway.
8:30
S1: You know, the government hasn't succeeded so far in pushing
8:33
S1: down emissions. And why should we pinch our economy and
8:36
S1: also our household budgets when Australia only accounts for 1%
8:39
S1: of emissions? These are all arguments that they're using. Do
8:42
S1: you think that if they repeat those arguments again and
8:45
S1: again and again with really credible, strong voices, like maybe
8:49
S1: your Andrew Hastie's, they're going to cut through. After a while.
8:54
S2: I think there's a chance of that happening. I mean,
8:56
S2: and you and I have both seen this happen before, jacki,
8:59
S2: particularly that line, you know, Australia is only 1% of
9:01
S2: the world's emissions. I mean, that is true. That was
9:04
S2: used very effectively by Tony Abbott back in 2009 through
9:08
S2: to 2013.
9:08
S1: Whatever we do, it's not going to make. It's not
9:10
S1: it's not going to make that much difference anyway. So
9:12
S1: why would we bother? I mean, there's a lot of
9:13
S1: counterarguments to that, but it is a strong argument.
9:16
S2: Yeah. Look. Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the
9:18
S2: most fascinating things here. Well, sorry, I'll make two points.
9:21
S2: One is we've seen a fight in the coalition in
9:24
S2: the last week over a number that we don't have
9:27
S2: to reach for 25 years. They have no credible answer
9:30
S2: to how to get there. Or should they get there,
9:31
S2: or will they get there? Or will they try and
9:33
S2: get there? But they can't even settle something as far
9:36
S2: out down the track as that with, you know, potentially,
9:40
S2: you know, policies that are a bit TBC. We're actually
9:44
S2: seeing an orderly plan over the next ten years to
9:47
S2: get to 62 to 70% emissions reductions, like they can't.
9:51
S2: That's the harder question. What are they going to do
9:53
S2: about do about on this? We have absolutely no idea
9:56
S2: at all. And that's you know, that's that's where the
9:59
S2: debate now moves.
10:00
S8: The coalition is hopelessly divided on targets for 2050. So
10:04
S8: how can the coalition have any credibility on targets for
10:06
S8: 2035 ten?
10:08
S9: And I have just come out of a shadow cabinet
10:10
S9: meeting where I can assure you there was absolutely no
10:12
S9: division in opposing Labor's latest piece of train wreck energy policy.
10:19
S9: And we know that we're doing this on behalf of
10:22
S9: hard working Australians who actually expect better.
10:25
S1: Well, it depends how successful. I would say the coalition
10:27
S1: is at reframing the debate and in pulling it back
10:30
S1: onto their territory, because I just keep thinking about the
10:33
S1: The Voice campaign. It's not a completely sort of pure analogy,
10:36
S1: but the coalition signed up to the no Case for
10:40
S1: the voice campaign, when the polling showed that the majority
10:44
S1: of Australians supported The Voice and were going to vote
10:47
S1: yes for it, and they basically threw a very effective campaign,
10:50
S1: helped by various other elements and parties and lobby groups
10:53
S1: were able to change a public opinion. So maybe they're
10:56
S1: betting on being able to do the same thing here.
10:59
S2: Yeah. Look, I think that's right. And even I actually
11:02
S2: think your analogy is quite a good one, because if
11:05
S2: you remember back to voice, who helped lead the decision
11:08
S2: for the coalition, like it wasn't a joint decision. Yeah.
11:11
S2: The Nats went first and they were helped by, you know,
11:14
S2: led by Jacinta Price in that she's a strong opponent
11:17
S2: of net zero. She's close to Andrew Hastie. Hastie has
11:21
S2: just done arguably something in terms of similar damage to
11:25
S2: what she did when she went out and took the
11:28
S2: Nats with her ahead of the liberals. She dragged them
11:31
S2: kicking and screaming, and we might see that again. Or,
11:33
S2: you know, conversely, do we see. Yeah. Do we see
11:37
S2: a split in the parties? I mean, it's not I'm
11:39
S2: not saying it's an 80% chance, but I don't think
11:42
S2: it's a it's a not zero chance.
11:44
S1: If that makes sense. But I mean, the other the counter,
11:46
S1: the counter argument I guess is that, that. Yeah, they
11:47
S1: won the battle on on The Voice. But they didn't
11:50
S1: win the war. I mean, it didn't it didn't help
11:51
S1: them at all. In fact, you could almost say, you know,
11:54
S1: it was sort of against their interest to win that
11:56
S1: in terms of the overall party brand by the time
11:59
S1: they got to the election.
12:00
S2: I think they learned the wrong lesson from the voice
12:03
S2: that by going hard, by opposing, by standing for something,
12:07
S2: you know, opposing for opposing sake, by using that kind
12:09
S2: of abbotonians, if that's a word.
12:12
S1: Yeah.
12:13
S2: Form of opposition that that would propel them to the
12:16
S2: election victory. What I think actually happened with voice is
12:18
S2: that people didn't like it. They voted against it, but
12:21
S2: they didn't hold it against Anthony Albanese at all. They said,
12:24
S2: this is the thing you believed in. You gave it
12:25
S2: a go. You didn't go on about it after you lost,
12:28
S2: you know. Good on.
12:29
S1: You. And it was a discrete issue. It wasn't a
12:31
S1: whole of economy, sort of globalized sort of issue. It
12:33
S1: was just a discrete referendum vote. I mean, as you
12:36
S1: referred to before, the coalition support has absolutely tanked in
12:39
S1: key demographics, like really big demographics, like female voters, young voters.
12:44
S1: So Gen Z and Gen Y voters. And in metropolitan
12:47
S1: areas like they have less than a handful of metropolitan
12:50
S1: seats now. And these voter cohorts are also the ones
12:53
S1: who want to see, we know from research, also want
12:55
S1: to see climate action. So even if they manage to
12:58
S1: sort of the coalition takes a stand against net zero
13:00
S1: and manages to keep the coalition or the liberals together
13:03
S1: and even have a point of difference and maybe win
13:05
S1: over some voters. How are they ever going to get
13:07
S1: back those cohorts if they take a sort of anti-climate action,
13:12
S1: if you like branding?
13:14
S2: I tend to agree with that analysis. But the counterargument that,
13:18
S2: you know, the sort of Andrew Hastie's of this world
13:20
S2: will make and are making is that if we don't
13:24
S2: stand for anything, if we're just Labour lite, then people
13:28
S2: will just vote Labour. And if we're just a small,
13:30
S2: smaller target version of them, they'll just vote for Labour.
13:32
S2: Whereas if we come out as hastie's trying to do
13:35
S2: reframe the debate, say it's about energy security and what
13:38
S2: have you, that might work. Yeah, I wanted to read something.
13:42
S2: You know, I touched before on this sort of divisions
13:44
S2: within the party between the older and younger generations. I
13:47
S2: noticed something on Tim Wilson, who's a Melbourne MP, his
13:49
S2: Facebook page, how he's trying to reframe the debate about
13:53
S2: climate in a different way to Andrew Hastie, the way
13:56
S2: he's talking about this and he's not Robinson Crusoe in
13:59
S2: the party room. His approach to energy policy should be
14:02
S2: or he believes the coalition's approach should be, net zero
14:05
S2: price increases and net zero outages. And then after that,
14:09
S2: we work about how we get to net zero. Now
14:11
S2: that there's a fair bit of colouring in to be
14:15
S2: done there, like, you know, what are the policies you'll
14:17
S2: actually implement. But that is a more, I guess, suburban friendly,
14:22
S2: punter friendly pitch, if you like, that people could take up.
14:26
S1: Yeah. So how would you I mean, how would you
14:28
S1: sort of describe or characterize that pitch?
14:31
S2: I think that's very much more saying he's on board
14:34
S2: with net zero and the coalition should be on board
14:36
S2: with net zero. It's obviously providing zero details about what
14:39
S2: your mix of energy sources, for example, would be to
14:41
S2: get there. But it's also appealing to Australians hip pockets
14:46
S2: without saying I'm a dinosaur who doesn't believe in climate change,
14:51
S2: which is, I think, what some people hear when they
14:52
S2: hear Andrew Hastie or Barnaby or whoever talking about their
14:56
S2: opposition to net zero. So it's he's in a different
15:00
S2: spot on the pendulum or spectrum, if you like.
15:02
S1: Yeah. What about the global situation? Because that's something that
15:05
S1: the coalition MPs are bringing up again and again. And
15:08
S1: they're kind of right, aren't they? They're saying, you know,
15:10
S1: the US under Trump has pulled out of the Paris
15:12
S1: Agreement entirely. People talk about Canada having sort of watered down,
15:16
S1: even though they've got like a sort of centre left
15:18
S1: government there. They've watered down their emissions reduction targets under
15:22
S1: pressure from from the right, from the conservatives. I mean,
15:25
S1: are we seeing a bit of a global retreat on
15:26
S1: this issue, and could that leave Australia out on a
15:29
S1: bit of a limb.
15:30
S2: Look, we are seeing a global retreat. Absolutely. The war
15:34
S2: in Ukraine has played a significant role in that, too, Jackie,
15:37
S2: because you've seen countries like Germany who are on track
15:40
S2: to decommission nuclear power stations, suddenly have to turn back
15:43
S2: to coal fired power stations, which is obviously not a
15:46
S2: solution for the long term. We've seen the UK start
15:49
S2: to retreat in the form of the conservative opposition, from
15:52
S2: its commitment to net zero and climate action. I think
15:54
S2: China's target is net zero by 2060, so they're already
15:59
S2: not on the same trajectory. As, you know, Western nations
16:02
S2: have been. I think India is roughly in the same basket.
16:06
S2: It's not just the US that this is happening in
16:08
S2: that trade off, that eternal fight between do you want
16:11
S2: to do something for the environment? Oh yeah, that sounds great.
16:14
S2: Do you want to pay out of your own pocket
16:17
S2: to do something for the environment? Yeah, I'm not so
16:18
S2: sure about that. That's at the heart of what's going
16:21
S2: on here, I think.
16:21
S1: Yeah. So the government, we saw them on Thursday try
16:24
S1: to particularly Chalmers I thought just try to be really
16:26
S1: upbeat about it. And you know Chalmers was basically saying
16:28
S1: there's going to be money in your pocket. Like they
16:30
S1: talked about an analysis, which, you know, I mean, there
16:33
S1: was a blizzard of numbers going around, but they talked
16:36
S1: about their analysis being that each Australian would themselves sort
16:41
S1: of be enriched by tens of thousands of dollars a
16:44
S1: year under the economic modelling scenario. I mean, what are
16:48
S1: the risks for the government here if they're making those
16:50
S1: sort of promises and saying this is a golden economic opportunity,
16:54
S1: this is going to be wonderful. We're going to have a,
16:55
S1: you know, a brave new, a brave new dawn. And
16:58
S1: then people are like, actually, my my electricity is really
17:01
S1: expensive and we're having power outages or whatever the consequences
17:05
S1: of this transition might be.
17:07
S2: Yeah. Look, I haven't had a chance to go through
17:09
S2: all the Treasurer's, um, or the Treasury's modelling yet. Jack. Well, you.
17:13
S1: Can work on that over the weekend. I think there's.
17:15
S2: A few graphs and stuff in my assignments. Due Monday. No, um,
17:18
S2: I a few numbers that I did see that I've
17:20
S2: read that sort of stood out to me, um, to
17:23
S2: get to the 62 to 70% target. We need to
17:26
S2: get about 50% of car sales to be EVs by 2035.
17:31
S2: We need to double the number of solar panels on
17:34
S2: residential roofs. We need to triple the amount of solar
17:38
S2: in commercial buildings. Yeah, I think it's like, say 6%
17:42
S2: cut in emissions. Agricultural emissions, about 15% more anticipated to
17:46
S2: be needed in the electricity sector overall. A number that
17:50
S2: I saw that I didn't understand at all. So 62
17:53
S2: to 70% reduction means, I think it was a 72
17:56
S2: to 81% reduction per capita or per Australian. Right. Which
18:01
S2: is a lot. So in theory maybe Treasury. And again
18:04
S2: I haven't read the modelling, but perhaps they're saying you'll
18:07
S2: be better off because the chances are we'll all have
18:09
S2: solar panels so we'll all have cheaper electricity. Yeah. Maybe
18:12
S2: that's how they got to the number. Yeah, I don't know.
18:15
S1: Yeah. We'll all be cycling to work. And, um, I
18:17
S1: don't know exactly. Diligently, um, sorting our paper from our
18:22
S1: tin in the recycling bin. That's not part of emissions.
18:25
S1: But you know what I'm talking about.
18:26
S2: Yeah.
18:27
S1: Yes, yes. I mean, that was one of the interesting
18:29
S1: things that Chris Bowen actually said was that he sort
18:31
S1: of tried to almost do kind of like a this
18:33
S1: is a war effort kind of thing. Like we're counting
18:35
S1: on every Australian. It's not just the government. Private investment
18:39
S1: is going to lead this, which was sort of a
18:41
S1: liberal lite kind of line, I thought. Private investment is
18:43
S1: going to lead this. And also individual Australians are all
18:46
S1: going to have to do their part. And I suppose
18:49
S1: that that is true, like all of us will have
18:50
S1: to put our money where our mouth is if we
18:52
S1: want emissions to come down, if we actually support this cause.
18:55
S2: Yeah. Look, that's absolutely right. And if I can take
18:58
S2: a step back, you just you touched on something there
19:00
S2: that I don't think we've covered yet. The line of
19:03
S2: the day or the catchphrase of the day was ambitious
19:05
S2: but achievable, ambitious but achievable. You know, I think the
19:08
S2: PM said at some point about we're not on a
19:10
S2: crusade or whatever it might be like. We're not going
19:13
S2: beyond 70%. We're doing what the the science and the
19:16
S2: economic modelling says we can do in an affordable enough way,
19:20
S2: essentially politically, What labor is doing is quite smart with this,
19:24
S2: this rhetoric. They're playing themselves in the center. They're positioning
19:28
S2: the greens out as a far left. The liberals and
19:31
S2: the liberals are frankly helping this by fighting amongst themselves.
19:34
S2: They're over on the far right where the sensible guys
19:36
S2: in the middle. Trust us, you know, this will be orderly.
19:39
S2: Here's the modelling. Let's see how it plays out over
19:42
S2: the next ten years.
19:43
S1: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, the global uncertainty and also
19:48
S1: just the power of bill shock I think, you know,
19:50
S1: is not to be underestimated. And the word that you
19:52
S1: made up on this podcast earlier, Aberdonian politics has shown
19:55
S1: us the power of Bill shock is strong and very
19:58
S1: effective in the electorate. James, that's been so interesting. Thank
20:01
S1: you for coming on. Thank you for inventing a new word.
20:03
S1: We're going to take it up. We'll put it in
20:05
S1: the Inside Politics dictionary.
20:07
S2: On that, on that Aberdonian thought, I'll never forget driving
20:11
S2: through Halls Creek in north western Western Australia in the
20:14
S2: middle of that campaign, like two months before the 2010 election,
20:18
S2: stopping in a pub to get a beer, and the
20:20
S2: first thing the publican starts talking to me about is
20:22
S2: the carbon tax and how it's pushed up his bills.
20:24
S2: And Tony Abbott, to his credit, you know, in one sense,
20:28
S2: had been campaigning so effectively that had permeated all the
20:31
S2: way through to Halls Creek in far flung WA.
20:34
S1: Yeah. There you go. Thanks, James. See you soon.
20:36
S2: Thanks, Jack.
20:39
S1: Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong. Our executive producer
20:43
S1: is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
20:46
S1: To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
20:49
S1: follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
20:52
S1: listen to your podcasts and to stay up to date
20:55
S1: with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age
20:59
S1: and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism,
21:02
S1: subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe.
21:08
S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you for listening.