What Albo learnt from Scomo's Hawaii moment

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

I'm Stephen Stockwell.

I'm in Morwell in regional Victoria.

It's usually a pretty quiet place, but right now, the world's eyes are on this small town because the trial of Aaron Patterson has just begun, where a jury will decide: did she intend to kill her relatives with a poisoned beef Wellington lunch?

Or was this all a fatal accident?

Mushroom Case Daily is your eyes and ears in the courtroom.

We're dropping a new episode every day with the details everyone's talking about.

Hit the follow button on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast.

Find it in the ABC Listen app.

In some of his strongest language yet, the Prime Minister has condemned Israel's blockade of food and supplies to Gaza, labelling the move as outrageous.

Anthony Albanese says he made it clear Israel's excuses and explanations were completely untenable and without credibility.

But one Labor MP is stepping up and putting the pressure on the government to go further.

It comes as the Prime Minister heads to the flood-ravaged mid-north coast as the clean-up gets underway.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvallis.

And I'm Tom Crowley.

And on Monday, the Prime Minister used what was definitely the strongest, most forceful language yet to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and their behaviour in Gaza, which he called completely unacceptable.

But today,

Labor MP Ed Husick, who of course was a minister up until recently, he was dumped in a factional deal.

spoke up.

I mean, he certainly spoke up when he was also a minister, but now he has the freedom as a backbencher in a different way and he really doubled down on his calls for the government to go further.

Tom,

how significant is his intervention and in this timing?

I think it is really significant.

I mean it as you say, it was really significant when we had a cabinet minister that was often taking his own line and saying things that the Prime Minister wasn't prepared to say.

In a sense, now that he is, you know, just another backbencher, he comes down a notch in terms of seniority and being in the tent for the government's

thinking on this, but has more gravitas in some sense because he is a senior, a recognisable Labor figure now, someone who's got a bit of a grudge internally, a reason to have a grudge now.

So his interventions, which are even stronger than when he was in the cabinet, are going to be a really significant thing to keep watching on this issue.

He sort of stuck within the lines of saying, you know, this is what I want the government to do, and I expect that they will.

I think it's going to be really interesting to see how he uses this this and whether he is basically standing out ahead of the government on this.

His two specific calls summoning the ambassador and considering sanctions pointing to that statement by the UK and Canada that suggested that they were thinking along those lines.

So, you know, really interesting to see whether the government goes in that direction.

Penny Wong has been consistent in saying we don't telegraph sanctions and not willing to give anything away one way or the other.

It's not really the government's policy to threaten sanctions and to telegraph them.

So that's part of the reason for that response.

But as you say, very strong language from the Prime Minister yesterday.

I suspect that we will see, as Ed Husick has predicted, a further strengthening over the course of the next few days.

But his role, compared to, say, Fatima Payman, who quit the party, there's no sense that Ed Husick is going to do anything like that.

I thought when he was on QA with you just after the election, he answered that question so quickly.

He understands how the labor machine works and he sees his job as staying within it and trying to agitate for change within the labor beast yeah that's right i mean he's a true you know labor true believer he even defended the factional system right i mean you know and said he'd been previously a beneficiary of it so yeah there's no there's no threat um from him about like his ongoing involvement in the labor movement or the party or whatever but the pressure he's putting is pretty public and i'm sure is not loved by the the Prime Minister.

Also, you know,

there is talk that there's probably

a lot of, you know, deliberations about all of this inside the government.

So they probably don't love that he's front-running this issue.

Having said that, they haven't yet announced anything, though.

You know, last week, for instance, the UK and Canada and France issued a joint statement threatening to impose those sanctions.

And the Prime Minister has been asked, why didn't you sign up?

And he said

that was a statement by members of the G7.

So he's kind of like not gone there yet.

We think that he might be on the cusp of doing something.

But again, they're only words so far.

And that was actually the point of Ed Husick, that so far it's all words.

Look, the Prime Minister will speak soon.

He is

on his way, actually, to the flood-impacted mid-north coast.

I suspect it'll be a lot about actually the flood recovery process.

And I do think there is, before we go into the details of that, I think it's interesting if you look at the political success of the Prime Minister.

And there are so many reasons for his political success, I think.

But there was that key moment where he basically delayed the beginning of the election campaign because of another big weather event.

And now we've got, you know, this devastating flooding and the impact in the mid-north coast.

And he's leaning into that again.

So, you know, he, I feel like the PM really understands,

you know, he learned the lessons watching Scott Morrison.

You'll notice he doesn't turn up to Taylor Swift concerts anymore.

I feel like the Prime Minister has,

he, he gets that you have to be present for these things.

And it actually has given him an incredible boost, I think, to his Prime Ministership and the optics around the way he's there.

He doesn't go missing.

And so he's been meeting with the SES, the ADF.

How important is it, Tom, to have him on the ground?

And I wanted to give that like broader framing because I feel like he always got it.

I mean, the Hawaii moment for Scott Morrison gave him all of the lessons he needed.

There were moments, though, that I know Labor backbenchers were like, well,

too many concerts.

I literally heard people say to me, too many concerts.

That's gone.

He is always there now.

It is like

he is not resting on that landslide.

That's right.

I think this is one of, you know, the word optics is such a dirty one in politics, and it so often suggests decisions that are made just for the sake of marketing, just for the sake of polls, and don't have any particular meaning.

I think natural disasters are one of those issues where actually optics speak to the public's expectation of the symbolism of national leadership, that a leader goes to these places, in a sense, on our behalf, when there's someone anywhere in the country, when there's a community that's dealing with a natural disaster.

The expectation is perhaps that there's not actually any particular policy that changes because the Prime Minister's on the ground.

I think that the disaster payments and the way that that system works, there are always issues with money getting out the door, et cetera.

But the government has that down to a pretty fine art.

On both sides of politics, now it's something we've had a lot of practice at responding to floods and that sort of thing.

So the way that state and federal authorities coordinate, the use of the ADF, all of these things seem to be pretty much down pat now.

So there may not necessarily be anything he needs to do other than to be seen to be there, not just because it looks good.

And yes, I think that's part of it, as you say, with the tennis and all of that, but also because it's what we expect.

I think that's what Morrison struggled to understand.

And that was what that I don't hold a hose mate line was really all about was this idea of, well, well, you know, why do I need to be on the ground when I'm not actually doing anything there was the Morrison question.

And the answer that came back from the public really was, because you are our national leader.

You know, moments of national grief.

You expect the Prime Minister to give a speech that grieves and expresses that on behalf of the country.

It's the kind of thing that, you know, John Howard used to do a lot of.

Kevin Rudd, I think, got a foot infection of some sort wading through floodwaters.

It's always been an important part of the job of a national leader to go there in moments like this to roll the sleeves up.

Yes, you can be cynical about the photo ops in the raincoats and all of that.

But I think it is something that Albanese, as you say, has grasped from watching watching how his predecessor struggled.

Yeah, he has grasped it and it's a big thing to grasp at the moment because this is something that because

of the kind of country we have,

certainly climate change, according to scientists, means that our prime ministers have to do this a lot more than they ever have.

And so, you know, it is actually a central part of the job now.

If you were applying for it as a proper job, not like an election, you know, you'd have to put it in there that, you know, this is a regular occurrence and I will be there, I will front up.

And so the cleanup is going to be a big task, but also then there's the cost.

And the cost is huge, isn't it, Tom?

It is.

I think in New South Wales alone, the government's estimate is that it costs the economy $250 million every year.

The cost of the sort of flooding that we've seen in the last few years in that state, a much bigger cost across the country.

And of course, individual costs that fall on the shoulders of the households that people have homes and livelihoods destroyed in these parts of the world.

We know the Northern Rivers in New South Wales, for example, just sort of getting hit over and over again every time people try to rebuild.

That cost is immense.

I think there's a really interesting set of policy problems for the federal government to confront here.

And we're all looking around for some big reforms that Labor might do with its political capital.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of them.

Interesting to note, in the last parliament, in response to the 2022 floods, there was a parliamentary inquiry that looked at the problems that were going on with home insurance, chaired by Daniel Molino, who's now moved into the ministry ranks as the Assistant Treasurer.

He's a bit of a nerd when it comes to market design and insurance and things like this.

And he observed kind of two problems.

There's a lower-level problem, which is that there are some real kind of bumpy things in the insurance pricing market that can leave individual households in a really tough spot.

So for example, the cost of temporary accommodation while your house is getting fixed.

and also the cost of what happens if your stumps turn out to be rotten when they take a look at the house and there's something they didn't expect.

Those costs at the moment, they're not standard for inclusion in insurance contracts, which means that all of the risk falls on the household that essentially at random finds out, oh no, I've got terrible stumps, or oh no, they discovered some problem that I couldn't possibly and they couldn't possibly have foreseen.

All of that cost is on me.

Insurance and making those markets work well is all about pooling financial risk.

And when you have something that's required that everyone is insured a little bit for it, then those really risky households, that cost essentially gets spread among everyone.

It's exactly the same concept of public health.

You know, we all pay our taxes for the health system and therefore the really sick people don't have to bear those costs themselves.

You can essentially make that argument for the really dangerous houses.

So there are some small things that he recommended in that inquiry that the government might be able to do, but he also pointed to this bigger problem, which is that as insurance companies start to get pretty good in their information about about the flood risk of individual houses, and as climate change makes flooding more and more likely in particular regions, there are going to be some homes that essentially become totally uninsurable without some sort of government intervention.

Whether that is requiring everybody in the country, again, to pay a small amount to share in that risk so that people in these flood-affected areas have that safety that they're not going to have to pay out of pocket.

Or on the other hand, would the government say, well, we're going to need to maybe incentivize people to move out of these really dangerous areas where homes are uninsurable?

That's a really, really thorny question for us to confront.

I'd be interested, given Daniel Molino has been elevated, I think Sam Ray was also on that.

There are a few, I think, Allegra Spender as well, some real movers and shakers in the parliament who were involved in one of these quiet inquiries that no one ever heard of in the last term of parliament.

As this continues to be an issue, I think it'd be interesting to see what happens in that space.

I like how you described it as a quiet inquiry, because often people hear the big P politics stuff on politics now and just generally I think the media covers but so much work goes on in the parliament that you don't see really interesting recommendations and those who are nerdish and I can tell you I've read a lot of parliamentary reports you know see that work.

It doesn't always get a lot of attention.

Look before we finish there are some pretty significant things that actually have happened so I don't know if it's quite before we finish because it might take a bit of time but let's go to one of them which is we're finding out the final composition of of the Senate.

That vote takes ages till those last spots are sorted out and we've got the result.

It'll keep unfolding the next couple of days but we have it for Tasmania where Jackie Lambie has made it in.

And of course that was you know in doubt.

That means though that One Nation's Lee Hanson, who's Pauline Hanson's daughter, misses out, Tom.

So that's settled.

I mean Jackie Lambie I think has rated as one of the most popular politicians.

It would have been quite surprising, I would have thought.

So when it was in doubt, I was like, wow, you know, she's so well liked, but obviously took a little bit of a hit and now has managed to get her way back in.

She survives.

I mean, it's worth...

I guess, taking this opportunity to reflect.

I think this is now her third six-year term that she's been elected to in the Senate.

That is an extraordinary career for someone who came along on the Palmer United Party ticket way back when, to have really, you know, on her own personal brand and that high approval that she has around the country, has been able to make herself into a really significant national political figure who will be remembered as one of the long-serving independent senators in Australian history.

It is quite an extraordinary achievement in that sense.

Definitely did have a bit of shine taken off her there in Tasmania.

There's some discussion about whether that was partly the salmon industry, some of the areas where there are the most workers in the salmon industry.

I believe there seems to be some evidence that Lambie's vote went backwards there because of her strong opposition to the industry.

So that maybe is part of what has gone on there, but it's another six-year term for Jackie Lambie, who won't be as significant a player in the Senate this time around.

It's the Greens and the coalition who are the kind of single blocks on their own with whom Labor can pass legislation.

That sidelines Lambie, Pocock, and the others, but she'll still be there and I'm sure she'll make her voice heard.

Oh, she'll still make her voice heard, but it's true the government doesn't have to negotiate with her the same way.

So there is a different sort of flexing of muscle, but the smart politicians find a way to still be relevant.

And if they're interesting to speak to, and Jackie Lambie clearly is, doesn't mean they won't have a voice.

Look, the other big thing, which is like...

huge actually, huge, and has massive implications for Indigenous heritage, for the environment, for industry, and that's kind of this decision that's expected from the Environment Minister Murray Watt, who's going to make a decision on that controversial WA Northwest Shelf gas expansion.

We're waiting for that.

Where's that at, Tom?

Because that's actually really significant.

And perhaps a little bit of an explainer on why it actually matters so much.

Well, it's really significant, I suppose,

from a gas supply perspective, if you look at it that way, and then has some really significant opposition from both an environmental and a First Nations heritage.

You know, those are the two categories of exception that people have taken with it.

Decision does seem to be imminent.

The signs seem to suggest that Labor is going to approve it, maybe with some conditions of some sort, as these things are sometimes done.

It's worth saying that the kind of decision that is being made is not a decision that really has anything to do with, say, the emissions.

It's a decision that has to do with biodiversity under the current laws.

That's really the kind of thing.

It's exactly the same kind of process that Murray Watt, the new environment minister, would need to go through if it was a solar farm that was being built.

What is the impact on the surrounding environment of this major construction project?

The really thorny thing, I think, comes rather than this individual decision with Labor's reform to environmental laws, because Labor recognises that both businesses are really frustrated, fossil fuel businesses and energy businesses, with how hard it is to get approvals.

They say it makes it much costlier to invest in the sorts of supply.

The government says we need gas, but we can't build the gas plants.

That's essentially the view that comes from that sector.

On the other hand, environmental groups say, well, there's a bit of a, you know,

these laws aren't tough enough.

The government seemed to think under Tanya Plibasek that it could find a way to somehow make both of those angry groups, because they were both so determined that the status quo was untenable, that they could find some case for change that managed to bridge the gap between the two of them.

Maybe that happens now.

It's a big challenge, though, for Murray Watt, because even the moderate bill that Tanya Plibasek brought forward that didn't really deal in a big way with these biodiversity laws.

There's a lot still.

She couldn't land that.

Murray Watt might be able to get that one through, but the bigger picture reform, it's a really, really tough one to confront.

Yeah, there is a lot of expectations on Murray Watt's shoulders on the basis that somehow he's missed to fix it.

I've got to say though, and I do think he's a very competent minister, but I do think that the metrics need to be a little fairer between him and Tanya Plibasek.

And he's got a lot of an easier run after an election with a thumping victory and the authority that comes with that than Tanya Plibasek, who basically had the Prime Minister over her shoulder

also because he was hedging and managing, you know, what the electoral ramifications would be of these decisions too.

So, you know, don't you think that matters?

I just, I don't know.

Maybe I'm just, I'm not saying this in a factual way, just what I believe must be probably a frustration for her.

It just seems like

it's a bit easier for him at the moment.

Yeah, the landscape's totally different.

Totally.

You know, I mean, you look at just this issue alone.

You could argue that Josh Wilson came really close to losing the seat of Fremantle pretty much purely on this issue from the environmental anger perspective.

And then there's this concern about other seats just in Western Australia.

This is a red-hot issue.

You know, the heritage laws in WA were a big issue as well.

All this sort of stuff about, you know, environmental approvals is a really white-hot issue over there.

When you've got a two-seat majority, you really can't afford to take any big risks on either side.

When you've got, what are we going to end up with now?

An 18-seat majority or something absurd like that?

I mean, hey, maybe you could even take on the WA-GST deal, lose every seat in Western Australia and still be the government.

You know, that's the kind of new playing field that we have.

So the tricky politics of WA, but any issue that is really, really thorny in just a handful of electorates, it's a totally different playing field.

So yes, regardless of who the minister is, it's a much easier task for Murray Watt than Tanya Blibasek.

I agree.

What a good point, though, about you could even take the GST directly.

I could sneak that in there, which that was a very good thing to sneak in because that deal, I think, is the source of a lot of trouble on the budget paper.

Absolutely.

And our nation.

And yet it's a political fix that's been bipartisan because of the sensitivity of W.

WA.

I haven't seen yet any indication that the Prime Minister, I think he enjoys being very very popular in WA, so I suspect he won't touch the state.

He does, but when you have the seat of Hasluck, with, I think that was one on preferences.

That was something that was a Liberal seat six years ago, where Labor now has 50% of the primary vote, at least the last time I checked.

So when you're that dominant in the state, perhaps you can take some of those risks.

Such a good point.

Tom, I've enjoyed myself thoroughly.

Thanks for doing Politics Now with me today.

Always a pleasure.

Piquet, thanks.

And I'll be back for another edition tomorrow.

David Spears will be my co-host.

I'll see you then.