Laura Tingle on when politics is at its best

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in a sensible centre, but our Liberal Party reflects a range of views.

The National Party will sit alone on a principled basis.

We've always been about the planet, but we've got to make sure that people have have their daily needs met.

People are starting to see that there is actually a different way of doing politics.

Hello and welcome to the party room.

I'm Patricia Carvelis and I'm joining you from Rundere Country in Melbourne.

And I'm Frank Kelly on the Gadigal land of the Aura Nation in Sydney and Piquet.

It's been strange, strange times in the Coalition Party Room.

I think we can call it that again.

In the words of Mental as Anything, it was a case of if you leave me, can I come too.

After two weeks of breaking up and maybe making up, the Libs and the Nats did officially reconcile this week.

We have a coalition again, and their leaders, Susan Lee and David Littleproud, were all smiles as they announced finally, three weeks after the election drubbing, their new shadow cabinet.

The new coalition shadow ministry balances experience with new talent.

It reflects the full range of our philosophical traditions, values and perspectives across our two great party rooms.

And this is important because our parties are at their best when they work together to fight right now as a strong opposition.

New faces were elevated, familiar faces were dropped, and surprise, surprise, PK, some aren't too pleased with their demotions.

Laura Tingle, political editor with 730, is going to join us for the last time here on the party room to break down the challenges ahead for this new look coalition.

And also, we're going to get from Laura some of her reflections on her time, her long, long time in the press gallery, because she's leaving the gallery today after close to 40 years to take up her new role as global affairs editor.

So we'll have one final party with Laura.

Although we might have her on again in the future in her new role with a international political lens.

So let's save that idea up.

But we are definitely doing an exit party here with Laura very soon.

So I'm really looking forward to that.

I mean, obviously, she has incredible insights as somebody who, and I don't think she'll mind me using this term, like a press gallery veteran, you know, someone who's really been following the ins and outs of politics for a very long time and understands the sort of complexity of what's happened.

Fran, before we talk to Laura and get into what this week means and what the next three years might mean,

I just want to mark an important week in our calendar and in our country, Reconciliation Week and Sorry Day, something which has been covered a little bit, but I think largely overlooked this week.

You know, for those who are unfamiliar, of course, Sorry Day is important.

It reflects the forced removal of many First Nations people known as the Stolen Generations.

And Reconciliation Week generally is about sort of looking at the work that's already happened on reconciliation, but also looking forward.

There's been some important interventions this week too from very important players in Indigenous affairs about what's next because there's been inertia on Indigenous affairs since the voice referendum was voted down and it's been a really bleak time I think for many Aboriginal people.

Yeah and I think it's a shame.

I mean it's a shame

at any time if you know in a week like this an issue like this is overshadowed a little by you know for instance the coalition kerfuffles and reshuffles but PK it's 25 years this week since tens and tens of thousands of Australians walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for reconciliation.

It was a huge day but the reconciliation agenda too has stalled a bit in recent times, in recent years, not just post-the-voice referendum.

And we're reminded this week of the important work we still have to do in this country by Patrick Dodson.

Now Patrick was the original chair of the Reconciliation Council back in the 90s.

He's often referred to as the father of reconciliation and he gave an interview on 7.30 where he spoke about the pain among many in the First Nations community in the wake of the failure of the voice referendum.

And he called on the Albanese government, which he used to be a part of, to engage in a more ambitious Indigenous affairs agenda to find a way forward on truth and treaty.

He urged the government.

the Prime Minister really, to use the huge political victory it was handed just a few weeks ago to get going again, to bring the country to terms with the past and to try and work together.

Because as Patrick Dodson has been saying for decades now,

Australia will not mature as a nation until we heal this gap, until we come together.

They've got to go back and revisit the Uluru statement from the heart.

That doesn't mean they have to go down the constitutional path for a voice, but it does mean they've got to honour...

the two aspects or the Makarata Commission.

That wasn't voted upon by the people.

That wasn't part of the provision that we all voted on to vote down.

So they've got to go back to the treaty-making process and the truth-telling process.

And they can do that.

So, as you've implied, there's been little sign of that intention so far from the government.

No, I haven't seen a lot of attention on this from the government.

I mean, there were some signs, at least symbolically early, even from the victory night after they won the election, where, you know, they very deliberately acknowledged Indigenous traditional owners at the beginning, Penny Wong powerfully doing that after Welcome to Country had become an issue at the last part of the election.

That was about sending a signal that they weren't going to turn their backs on these very important signals and symbols of Aboriginal history in our country.

But in terms of more deeper, meaningful measures, no, we're not seeing a lot of it.

Patrick Dodson's intervention, I think, this week was really powerful in that it put the government on notice, while being,

I think, really pointed, still had a gentle delivery.

Generous.

He's so generous in the way he communicates with this message, always, always has been, and still was.

Absolutely, that's right.

Like this generous kind of, you know, you've got a big mandate.

treaty and truth were not on the ballot paper for the referendum and they weren't.

So I think his intervention matters.

There have been other people who've talked this week.

I mean, I spoke with Linda Burney, the former Indigenous Affairs Minister, and I actually asked her about the death in custody that we've seen in the Northern Territory this week.

This is, you know, another death in custody.

Like, we are seeing, it's not just symbolism that matters.

It's also, you know, real tangible things that are happening in Aboriginal people's lives.

You've got to wonder if there's going to be more public work or is the Prime Minister so

shaped by that experience that we just won't see it?

Yeah, that's a challenge, and there'll be a lot of challenges for him because, particularly because of the government's huge mandate, there'll be a lot of people making demands and calling for the government to be brave, I suppose.

We've seen that again this week, in particular, PK.

The pressure ratcheting up on the Albanese government over Gaza and the government's response to Gaza.

According to a YouGov poll commissioned by some aid groups this week, public opinion has shifted to the point that 82% of Australians say the aid blockade in Gaza by Israel is unacceptable and close to 70%

think Australia should do more to ensure food, water and medicines get into Gaza.

Now, the PM has spoken out strongly this week, probably his

strongest language for a long time, condemning the food blockade.

Australia finds these actions as completely unacceptable and we find Israel's excuses and explanations completely untenable and without credibility.

People are starving.

But PK, that stronger language hasn't been enough for some in Labor.

There are very, very strong calls now coming on the government to do more.

And to do what, do you think?

Well, yeah, stronger language and then

I think

pouring cold water on some expectations that we're building though, Fran.

So yeah, you know, stronger language initially in relation to the humanitarian disaster, potential famine.

I mean, Calling it intolerable.

I mean, there were strong words.

They were strong.

But of course it is.

But yeah, that's what I, yeah.

I mean, yes, okay, because we mark the politics and the significance.

And yes, they were stronger.

But I mean, I don't know, unless you've, you know, got your head under a doona.

I mean, there are children starving.

It's

unbearable.

What is the government being called on to do?

Well, if you listen to Ed Husick, the former minister, dumped, but he was outspoken on Gaza when he was a minister, now even more outspoken because he's on the backbench.

And of course, he's very much representing lots of people who are really passionate about this.

You know, he was

the first Muslim cabinet minister.

He says that there need to be targeted sanctions.

You know, I think it would be wise to have targeted sanctions,

looking at individuals who have been directing the operations in Gaza and clearly ignoring, violating international humanitarian law.

That could be members of the Netanyahu government, it could be members of the Israeli Defence Force.

It is one option.

Now, the Prime Minister was asked about sanctions.

He was pretty defensive, actually, in his answer.

Like, you could see he sort of bristled, Fran.

He was like, well, what sanctions are you talking about?

Well,

what are the sanctions you're suggesting?

I'm not sure.

Exactly, exactly.

That's the point.

That's the point.

You're not sure.

I just feel like there were expectations raised at the start of the week, and then it seems to me like a fire hose was taken out and sort of...

That's how I read it.

I don't know.

Did I get it wrong?

I'm not sure that you got it wrong.

It was definitely hosing down on sanctions.

But then, as I say, I'm thinking, well, is that a fair point?

Any sanctions we impose would be symbolic, but we do do that.

We do impose them on, I think, Russia.

I think we have.

Is it time to have a statement about what Australia is doing and to do more and engage more publicly?

Because yes, we have a voice in political forums, in global forums, we can use it.

But probably it's fair to say that the influence we have in those forums is not

going to make a big difference.

But on the humanitarian front, yes, perhaps I think Australia could lead more and could give more.

You know, we've talked about it being a disaster for a while, but it's now,

I think there is a moral obligation.

And I've always thought that, you know, yes, only some people might be coming onto the streets and being passionate about this, but I think there's a whole lot of Australians who see those images and think it's unacceptable.

I mean, it's horrendous.

It's horrific.

And when you get it in your feed and your images of little kids who are literally skin and bone, and some of the very powerful interventions we've heard this week, in particular, from those doctors working over there, I spoke with an aid worker, a Palestinian aid worker.

She lives in Ramallah, she's got family in Gaza, and she just broke down really as she was talking about getting the calls from her family asking for help and being unable to help.

I mean, it's heartbreaking, and I think it's just gone up in intensity for

nearly all Australians.

Yeah, it certainly has.

Should we bring our guest in, Fran?

I can't wait, let's do it.

Laura Tingle, 7:30 political editor,

just about till she starts her new job.

Welcome to the party room.

Thank you, thank you.

Miss, I'll be missing the daiquiris.

I've got to do that.

Exactly.

Well, we've got a big jug of them for you today, Laura, just to celebrate.

Your big straw.

Exactly.

I hope you can enjoy that because not much work to do today anyway, presumably.

40 years, is that right?

And 14 prime ministers?

Oh, my God.

14 elections.

I can't remember how many prime ministers.

I think it might not be quite that, it might be 12.

I've loved this track, but it has been a revolving door lately.

You can turn quite a few, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Who keeps counting?

Exactly.

How does it feel?

How does it feel this last day?

Look, it hasn't really registered because it's sort of weird because I'm still at the ABC and I've still got a job and, you know, it's going to be a really big job and it's going to require me to rewire my brain.

So I haven't actually sort of gone, oh, I'm actually leaving the gallery after 40 years and I won't be sitting at my little place in classy corner, as we call it in the ABC Bureau.

So all of those sorts of things are still a little bit surreal, but it's time to go.

It's so much time to go.

Okay, well, and just to remind everyone, you're going off, yes, with still with the ABC, you're going to be our global affairs editor.

Laura, look, it is an amazing innings you've had there, and we really do appreciate you sharing your last day with our humble podcast.

But let's deal with your political insights and talk about the Coalition's cabinet shake-up because they are back together again after that quite spectacular break-up.

But while both leaders were promising that they were friends, stronger together.

But personally, David and I will be friends.

I think a woman who got a start in the shearing sheds of Western Queensland can always find something to talk about over a steak and a beer, David, with you, the person who represents those communities now.

So we will 100% take this forward together.

We will be stronger.

There's no doubt this split was messy and damaging and it's going to have a long tail.

Do you think?

Well, it was revealing more than anything else, wasn't it?

I mean, you know, just the complete lack of political judgment abroad and the sort of vanality of some, you could say.

You know, I don't just mean the actual first split, but everything that's happened since.

The sort of absolutely breathtaking apparent lack of reading the room from the election result in terms of what people were saying about what policy directions they should take.

I mean, where do you start with it?

I just think

it's the most stunning.

I think I said on the television a week ago, you know, if ever there was a bunch of politicians who wanted to prove to the electorate that they'd made the right decision,

it's this mob because, you know, they don't seem to have any organising principle around what they're doing.

You know, philosophical, strategic, political.

I've never seen anything like it.

And they are

in a world of hurt, right?

I mean, the bloodletting is quite intense.

Spectacular.

Yeah, it really is.

Susan Lee has announced her new front bench, and already I was sort of, oh, not shocked, actually.

I shouldn't pretend I was shocked.

I wasn't shocked at all.

But, you know, it's pretty spectacular that as soon as it happened, we had...

you know, open, open anger and briefing against her.

One of the things I was briefed on immediately as soon as the, and this is from other liberals saying, look, she's dumped lots of women, right?

So, you know, but it's like building a campaign against her, it feels like to me, Laura, am I right?

Well, look, I think it's deluded if that's what they're doing.

Seriously, I mean, get a grip, people.

I mean, I've been listening to a lot of the analysis of what's happened and the commentary and all those sorts of things.

And, you know, you can say that they've dumped a lot of women.

My starting point would be to say, have they dumped people who are really great performers?

And that's really bad.

I mean, you know,

if you think about it in those terms,

the right dumped Mark Dreyfus and Ed Husick, and there was no apparent reason for doing that.

I think it's much more complicated on the coalition side because none of them were really stellar performers.

And you could say, in a political sense, Jacinta Nampajimpa-Price

did a great job on the voice from the perspective of the coalition, but we don't know that she had any other policy substance to her.

She's still still got to prove that.

You know, Jane Hume, whatever the story was behind that, was in the middle of the whole work from home debacle, which more or less cost the coalition the election.

So I don't remember what Sarah Henderson's contribution was to education.

So I think one has to be pragmatic on the one hand and say it's hardly surprising that Susan Lee will reward some of her backers.

I mean, everybody always does that.

And on the other hand, you've got to say, well, has anybody been really unfairly dealt with?

And

not immediately apparent to me that that has happened.

Yeah, I get what you mean in terms of performance.

But what's interesting, though, and I had a very senior person in the sort of professional wing of the Liberal Party organisation, you know, I've talked to a lot of people as I worked on these Four Corners, who said to me, you know, whatever people say about Peter Dutton, he didn't exactly have

like a strong front bench backing him up, did he?

And I think that's right.

I don't think he, you know, he was out there on his own.

Now, some people have said to me, well, that's not entirely fair because he, you know, divided and ruled and he did like to repress talent.

That's what I've been told.

But, you know, all of them, Laura, like they weren't exactly scoring much, were they?

Well, this is my point.

I mean, now, as some of the people who've spoken to you have said, as it became really transparently obvious during the campaign, but was always the case, essentially Peter Dutton just ran things or didn't run them from his office.

People would say to me, look, you don't seem to understand Laura.

It's not just the ABC that doesn't get to talk to Peter Dutton.

Shadow ministers can't talk to him.

Shadow Minister staff can't talk to the leader's office.

I mean, it was a completely dysfunctional organisation where there weren't proper shadow cabinet discussions discussions about policy issues.

I think that's my sort of take out of the whole thing.

Now, the question in all of those circumstances is what is the collective responsibility?

How much do you sheet home to Peter Dutton?

How much do you sheet home to the individual portfolio areas?

But you know, certainly from the outside, you know, none of them were particularly inspiring, shall we say?

No, it was not a strong front bench and the government in contrast has a strong front bench.

But at the same time, you know, Peter Dutton was given credit for keeping the party unity together, and maybe that was his strategy for doing it, just to sort of be a top-down leader.

Susan Lee is making the point that she's not going to be that.

She's definitely not that person.

She's consultative.

But I think it's unlikely we're going to have a unified party room and a unified coalition.

I mean, already, let's look at the Nats, who they've dropped from their front bench selection.

They get six on the shadow cabinet.

David Littleproud has dropped two former leaders, Michael McCormick and Barnaby Joyce, in the name of generational change.

They took about 30 seconds to complain about that and suggest that, well, if it's generational change, how come there's people older than me still on the bench?

Oh, I wouldn't be human if I didn't, so I was disappointed.

I still have a lot to offer.

I mean, I was told that it was generational change, and a couple of those people who are going to get jobs are actually older than me.

But look, you'd have to ask the leader of the business.

And Barnaby Joyce

basically telling it how it is, which is what he does, and said it's about politics and personalities.

You know, Laura, this is going to be trouble for these leaders.

Already, these people who are on the back bench are speaking out publicly, and they're speaking out publicly on very sensitive issues like net zero.

It's not a point of having a committee about getting rid of net zero.

Net zero has just got to go and there's a big issue that I can and others can focus on.

Well they are and look

I can say this because I'm going, but I don't care.

I mean, like, seriously, I mean, these people are irrelevant for the next little while.

You know, they, you know, they're a sideshow, they're a clown show.

And the fact that their personal ambitions are just so blatantly out there, basically disgraceful, because we as taxpayers are paying for them to be looking after the interests of their voters in their electorates and to be looking after the national good.

And that means sort of going, right, well, I've lost out this time.

You know, politics is politics.

I've got to work out, you know, how I can best contribute here.

Now, Peter Dutton may have kept the party together, but he did that by basically rolling over to the Nats on all of these energy issues.

You know, once again, I go back to the point, have any of these people learned anything from the election?

Now, I still think we need to know a lot more about what Susan Lee's plans are, but I think the indications are that she probably has listened a little bit, you know.

And

if the Nationals in particular and some of the people in the Liberal Party are so determined not to listen to the message about these policy issues and find a different path, they don't have to just roll over and agree with what Labor's position is, but if they don't find a...

a rational policy position that doesn't involve a ludicrous nuclear policy which

never actually was spilt out properly or any of these other policies which were all just thought up on the back of the bar coaster,

they deserve to

be in the state of oblivion that they should be.

It's fascinating, right, in terms of the lessons of the election.

I mean, one of them is quite clear, the cities have abandoned them.

And

for the last two elections, Labor has taken a renewables future to the electorate.

And

Labor's kind of wall to wall everywhere now.

They've got more than 90 seats and they still are now debating whether they pull out of net zero by 2050.

I just, I don't, I don't get how they are going to come to any conclusion on that that will ever win them a city seat and how

they can stay together, Laura.

Like how could they stay together if the Nationals insist on pulling out and some Liberals?

Like there's that's not a party room that can function.

Well, it's not a party room that can function and even if we think beyond the energy issue I mean the other thing that really just struck me was the coalition really didn't have an original idea you know apart from nuclear reactors which you know big idea big idea um but I mean they they were literally pulling out ideas from the Howard era like private sector TAFEs and the private sector TAFs didn't work the first time.

They were a financial disaster.

So

my sort of sense is that the coalition doesn't have any ideas and it hasn't had any ideas for a really long time.

And I don't just mean policy ideas, but they've still been working on the pitch that was based on John Howard's pitch to older Australians, you know, with a lot of largesse and handouts.

Most of those people are dead now, as I keep saying.

I mean, you know, yes, people are getting older, but it's a demographic that, you know, is locked in with the policies of the past.

There are all these other people they don't speak to.

We've got this huge intergenerational wealth issue largely as a result of those policies.

And until the coalition really understands those dynamics, I think they're destined to fail.

And Laura, just talking about no ideas, the government has some ideas and has some ideas in the context of intergenerational wealth.

And the big one they've got at the moment is the super tax, changes to the super tax.

And I'm going to ask you this because you're pretty good on tax policy over the years.

The change will be increased tax on super balances over 3 million.

It's going to affect about 80,000 people, so the experts tell us.

But there's a lot of critics of it.

Paul Keating,

former Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, Ken Henry, who led the Henry tax review way back when, and a whole lot of business leaders and economists.

What do you think?

Is this good policy or not, and will Labor stick to it?

Well, it's not a big idea.

I'd start off by saying that.

It's the smallest possible economy I can think of.

Look, which is my major criticism of it, I think, which is I was thinking I really need to revisit this a couple of weeks ago.

And when I looked at it, I thought, right, I'll just go and see, you know, where the best example is of the Treasurer advocating for this and why it's a good idea.

It doesn't exist.

I mean,

this is basically a money grab.

It's not sort of a wash with great tax principles, I mean, which is why it's being attacked by people like Paul Keating and Ken Henry.

And the taxing of unrealised gains is not a good look.

The lack of indexation, you know, I'm not that fussed about, but it's an issue.

But the broader point is just, you know, it looks for all the world like something where you're trying to raise money but hit as few people as possible and just say, well, it's just rich people who'll get it, who'll get hit by it.

But doesn't that come into the arena of trying to get more equity into the super system?

I mean, you know,

all Bratton and others are saying for years that it's just built in this intergenerational inequity in the super screen.

And this is absolutely

pathetic.

If you're going to do that, you're going to have to do seriously.

Something big.

This isn't going to change the intergenerational equity of the superannuation system.

It might change the way people arrange their tax affairs,

realistically.

It's not addressing the big issue.

And my concern is that if they can't land the argument about this, I don't mean whether they win or lose in Parliament, but if they can't make the case for this, we're in big trouble because there are much, much bigger issues that they're going to have to be great advocates for.

You know, that they have to actually become a bit better and not just say, oh, everybody's being mean to us.

Get braver and bolder and better at communicating.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, everyone's being mean to us with their more than 90 seats.

Okay, so Laura, the other thing that they had,

you know, delayed before the election, and

now that's that's very busted.

Amazing, aren't they?

Yeah, I know.

The timing is incredible.

And that's newly minted Environment Minister Murray Watt confirming he will approve the controversial extension of the Woodside Northwest Gas Project in WA that extends its operations to 2070.

As I was saying to David Spears yesterday, do not work out how old you'll be because that's just not something you want to do.

Certainly not for me.

Not for me.

Anyone listening?

Like, it's so way out, right?

So, okay,

it's a step.

It's not the final, but there are some conditions.

But what do you make of it, given obviously they have been under pressure on this issue and did not want to reveal their hand before the election?

Well, I think that they were always going to do this.

You know, we all love Western Australian resources these days, don't we?

And the Prime Minister's going off over then next week to have, I think, cabinet meeting and, you know, do a lap of honour so pragmatically this was always going to happen and you know pragmatically if you're going to do it do it as early in the term as you can but once again the thing is we have such a disjointed conversation about gas in in this country.

I mean most of this is going to be flogged off overseas.

Now that's fine but the Prime Minister was saying the other day that you know we have to have gases affirming power because you know renewables are coming on, that's fine.

But then he was sort of somehow sort of associating North West Shelf gas with the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Well, none of the gas from North West Shelf is going to be going to Tomago.

I think that's a really important point.

I'm so glad you said that.

The North West Shelf extension is for some of it's for the WA gas reserve, all of it's exported to the region.

Yeah, I mean it's good for WA gas supplies in the short term, or you know, the medium term.

You know, hopefully, you know, West Australia, like the rest of Australia, will have made the transition to renewables anyway.

The technology will be

will roar ahead and this will sort of not really matter.

But I think we need to be realistic about how

there are lots of really big fault lines in the gas market in Australia and in the energy sector.

The fact that New South Wales and Victoria are both, the governments are both paying to keep coal-fired power stations going, you know, which says, well, you know, gas would probably be better, you know, but you know, there's just, it's just a mess.

Yeah, it is.

And of course, one of the one of the issues which is huge is in relation to ancient Indigenous rock art.

You know, it's not insignificant that this could actually be damaging to ancient Aboriginal rock art.

And part of the conditions now in this interim judgment from Murray Water about the way they deal with emissions so that it doesn't do damage

to this ancient rock art.

They say the science isn't settled on this.

But those concerns from Indigenous traditional owners have been raised with the Prime Minister and he said, I've met with Indigenous traditional owners there

and there are different views, let me say, on that issue.

Now he's right and that is often a complexity, as you know, Laura, covering these things for so long.

Like, you know, there is, of course, contest among Indigenous traditional owners, but

for the view that we like.

This is not just any rock art.

This is one of the most astonishing, astounding, beautiful rock art galleries in Australia, there in the Barak Perinsula.

You know, I haven't been there, unfortunately, but it's one of the most beautiful renditions of rock art we have, dating back

tens of thousands of years.

And so it is particularly significant and worth saving.

Well, it is, and I mean, two things.

Yes, there are differing views amongst the Indigenous community about the project and about looking after the rock art and what's needed there.

And there's different science.

What I've read in the last week or so

gives cause for concern about the extent to which sort of

an increased acidity in the air is eroding the rock already.

And I mean, I think in those sorts of circumstances if as a government you're going, well, we're going to let this project go ahead in the greater economic good of the country we will be incredibly diligent about doing everything that is possible to protect that art you know and

which sort of sounds pathetic but you know it requires more than just a you know

the sort of you know the talking points it requires making sure that you are equipping the bureaucracy and the regulators and all those people to make sure that everything that can be done is done to protect that rock art.

Yeah.

Laura, look, it's time for us to go again.

Just keep sucking on that daiquiri for a little while longer.

Sloop, sloop.

Because, you know,

you're leaving the gallery after such a long time.

You were there when I was there.

You know, you're an inspiration to me as a political journalist, your capacity to deal with facts, break down political...

point scoring, you know, get to the real story.

You've got real integrity in your political commentary and political journalism.

But I wonder what you've learned from your long time there in the gallery.

When do you think politics is at its best?

I think politics is at its best when, you know, people come into politics with strong beliefs and that's admirable.

Politics is at its best when they sort of can say, well, this is what I believe, but this is what I think I should do.

And, you know, we saw that in the Hawke and Keating governments and we saw it with John Howard at his best, you know,

things like where he basically changed his mind on things like intervening in East Timor, where he would just go home and say, wait a minute, let me just think about this, you know, step outside myself and think about this with fresh eyes.

And that's the bit that I admire the most.

It's not necessarily saying, I was wrong.

It's about saying, actually, I've thought about this again and I've changed my mind.

I mean, it sort of sounds stupid, but to me...

No, I love the changing mind.

I agree.

To not be frightened to say, I've changed my mind, you know.

And the other thing is, of course, to say that.

After listening and learning.

After listening and learning.

Yeah, absolutely.

That's the thing that I think is most admirable in politics.

And it also reveals a sort of intellectual curiosity, doesn't it?

Like, okay,

you know, I feel like that's...

life's journey without sounding silly, but you know what I mean?

Like you learn things and you're like, oh, okay, that's a different perspective I did not

consider because of my own prism.

Yeah, and you know you get stuck and I think it's easier to get stuck these days because you know in newspapers we used to just be filing once a day and

you had time to stop and think.

Stories have become so iterative now when you're filing all day, every day, you know, with every latest development.

And the same is true for politicians.

They used to be able to turn, you know, take the phone off the hook and go away for a couple of days and nobody does that anymore.

And it just does mean that you're not given that chance to just you know sit individually or collectively go is this you know we've been going down this path for the following perfectly good reasons but the you know politics is always context and the context has changed and we have to change with it and we can be smarter about the way we approach things.

Well, let's see.

Let's see.

Let's watch and see.

You can watch from afar as our global affairs editor, Laura.

What you will be doing actually is watching the most important global political developments, right?

It's an amazing time to be sort of trying to sort of just ride that wave.

So I'm really looking forward to it.

What times we live in.

We're looking forward to it too.

Laura, thank you so much for joining us here one last time.

Thank you.

It's been always a pleasure and I'll take my stroll with me.

See you, Laura.

We'll move to questions without notice.

We'll give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you very much Mr Speaker.

My questions to the Prime Minister.

Order.

Hello, it's time for our questions because the bells are very, very loud and ringing.

Our first question comes from Kendall.

Good morning, friend and PK.

My name is Kendall and I'm in beautiful Ngunnawal country in Canberra.

My question today was regarding ministerial portfolios.

Now noting the recent controversy with Elhom's markets losing their portfolios, I was wondering why it is that some ministers have multiple portfolios.

Why can't some of those just be spread around to their other colleagues?

I guess further to that question is: why can't the executive Anthony Albanese create enough portfolios to account for at least the majority of his upper and lower house colleagues?

Well, thank you so much for all your effort recently.

I love the frequency and I love the Four Corners Report, BK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kendall.

That was a lovely thing to say.

Yeah, look, I think it's an interesting question you make about

why can't everyone, it's like, why can't everyone get a prize?

There are enough people and some people have a couple of different jobs.

Look, a lot of it is convention,

but also...

you know you can't have every single person having a job um well i suppose you could if you wanted to but like there are higher wages for instance there are some practicalities for ministers not everyone can have one of those so there is a sort of divvy divvying up you need to do for those bigger responsibilities.

Staff allocation that comes as well for having a minister, to being a shadow minister.

So you can't like have everyone be one because the maths wouldn't work.

And I suppose there is a sort of responsibility which is beyond just one area sometimes.

You can have omega portfolios which link to each other.

So I don't know if that adequately answers your question, but a lot of it is convention.

There is basic sort of maths of how to distribute the pie if you like on an opposition or a government bench as well and in terms of backbenchers who don't get one of these portfolios like you're saying you know someone gets three titles why doesn't someone in the backbench get one of those three

they actually are meant to do a lot of policy work on committees in other places.

You just don't often hear about that because, you know, we can't cover every minute of the parliament.

So that's where you're meant to cut your teeth to practice if you like before you become a shadow minister or a minister.

So you know if you're on the economics committee you're meant to develop ideas that then can feed into the process and then maybe become one of your major policies.

That's kind of the way the process works.

I think it's a good process actually.

I think the people who do a lot of that big policy work behind the scenes become better later.

I think sometimes when you can get parachuted too quickly, but I'm a bit old school like this, Fran, you know this about me.

I think I did, I don't know, I did rounds in newspapers, so I know policy.

Honestly, I go on about it, but it has helped me.

It has helped me understand policy and developing how policies work.

And you see the ideas people ultimately get promoted.

I mean, we've seen it with Labor's new ministry.

Daniel Molino was responsible for a lot of economic thinking and work and policy development.

When he wasn't in the ministry, he's been promoted because of that work.

Malcolm Turnbull came in when he was fresh into the parliament, did a lot of big thinking around water and the Murray-Darling, and then he got promoted to that work.

We saw it with Tim Wilson.

He's now been promoted straight back into the shadow ministry because of the work he did largely when he was around first time.

So you do see it.

I think it's a good practice.

But yes, Kendall, Piquet's right, it's largely about distributing the resources within a budget, but also logistics, because how could you manage effectively a ministry that has

double the number of people around?

It just gets more and more tricky.

So I think you've got to have a number of people who fit around that table and can talk together and have good, clear communication.

I think that's part of it too.

Our next question comes from Chloe.

Hi friend and PK love the pot.

We've been talking a lot lately about quotas and targets with Labour obviously succeeding in meeting their quotas and the Liberals consistently failing to meet their targets for women candidates.

My question is how does pre-selection work in each of these parties and does that have an impact on the different

outcomes when it comes to targets or quotas.

Thank you guys.

Chloe, good question.

And I I think we heard a lot of this actually after the election loss from the Liberals.

Some loud complaints.

Charlotte Maltlock, a young Liberal woman who runs a Liberal women's network called the Hillmans Network, she came out and said, look, you know, of course we don't represent the bulk of Australia because our pre-selections come down to our party membership base and our party membership base is old white blokes over the age of 70, by and large.

So, you know, we need to revolutionise and modernise our party membership practices.

You do need to work on your pre-selection processes.

It does come back to that, to your pipelines.

And,

you know, clearly they're failing within the Liberal Party.

Clearly, Labor's decision all those years ago, back in the 90s, to have quotas for women has worked.

It took a long time to get some of the sort of the sniping and the bitterness out of that process, but it's pretty accepted now.

And so, you know, I think we are seeing change and the Liberal Party is paying lip service to this.

Let's see if they do it.

I will say that, yes, there is some commitment.

And even the fact that Melissa McIntosh has been appointed as the

like the shadow on women helping Susan Lee, she's really passionate about this because she had, you know, branch stacking essentially, trying to take her out, even though she was successfully winning that marginal seat of Lindsay.

I mean, it's extraordinary, right?

Susan Lee herself, they tried to take out.

So

there is a lot of work to do, but I've got to say, I have spoken to liberal women for years and recently who tell the most horrific off-the-record stories.

And why are they just off the record?

I'll tell you why, because they're scared of their own members.

They're scared about what will happen to them

and

how they will be hunted down and sort of pushed out.

if they sort of tell you what really happened.

But I have been told horror stories in terms of, oh, you know, how are you going to do that?

And you've got kids or, you know, like really offensive questions that you would seriously want to just yell at someone, but you have to sort of politely just take that.

Because, again, the membership is too old and male.

And so the headspace of these old men

is and not all old men are like that, but a lot of these men are asking silly questions.

They need to modernize the party, that word again, modern, so that those silly questions are not asked because modern women, left, right, center, they know what it's like to have a family, to have a job, to do all these things.

These are normal things.

These aren't sort of...

crazy ideas actually, you know, having children and turning up to work for crying out loud.

Yeah, one senior liberal said to me very recently since the loss, it's really hard being a liberal woman.

And I just thought, well, what an interesting thing to say when you've been one for decades.

but I remember that moment when Karen Andrews and she was a cabinet minister at the time and there was another you know allegation of sexism and misogyny in the party and she came out and said I've had a gutful you know and it was a really loud shout like you're like whoa someone said something nothing changed but she did come out and say it and I think as you say we've been hearing this for a long time We have.

Well, that's it for the party room.

Keep sending your questions in.

We love them.

We're especially, of course, into your voice notes that you can send to the partyroom at abc.net.au.

And remember to follow us on the ABC Listen app.

Politics Now is the feed.

You never miss an episode of the party room if you press that heart button.

So follow us there in the app or wherever you get your podcasts.

That's it for the party room this week.

David Spears will be back in this feed on Saturday with an episode of Insiders on Background.

Can't wait for that.

See you, PK.

See ya.