Quiet Nauru deals, loud immigration protests

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hi, it's Sam Hawley from ABC News Daily, the podcast that brings you one big story affecting your world each weekday in just 15 minutes.

Trump creates his own reality.

When reality collides with his promises, he says that the reality is fake.

The numbers are fake.

The news is fake.

Everything is rigged.

And there's a real danger here.

Join me for ABC News Daily.

Find it on the ABC Listen app.

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.

Politics is the brutal game of arithmetic, but no one's going to vote for you don't stand for something.

We've always been about the planet, but we've got to make sure that people 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 Carvallis and I'm joining you this morning.

In fact, I've just got back from Runderie Country in Melbourne after spending most of the time in Parliament House with you, Mel.

Yes, I'm Melissa Clark.

I'm here in Ngunnawal Country in Canberra coming to you from Parliament House where we're getting near the end of two weeks of parliamentary sitting and boy have we been run ragged this fortnight.

Oh man.

Look it's been, you know, there's been a lot of big themes this week and then smaller themes that I think will, you know,

gather momentum a little later.

We've heard a lot about aged care packages, the fallout on migration, which I think is a big burning issue that will endure for some time.

And we're going to be joined a little later by Phil Coori, who is political editor at the Australian Financial Review, to discuss some of these issues, particularly around the migration issues.

Yeah, I'm really keen to talk to Phil about the rallies and the debate that that has has kicked off around not just how migration is managed in Australia, but public sentiment around it, some of the comments we're getting from some of the political leaders.

So let's go through that, PK, and then we can talk about the other big issues of the week, aged care, and then, of course, what's happening in China, because that is certainly got tongues wagging as well.

Which Australians are there attending this big powwow of political leaders with Xi Jinping.

But of of course, there's also this big story.

I think we need to start with PK.

It's the big story, but it's probably the one we, oddly enough, know the least about, and that's Nauru.

Nauru is definitely a story that has

kind of got everyone talking and asking questions about why we don't know more.

But like, I'll give you the backstory, okay?

So over the weekend, very quietly, so quietly, the government uploaded uploaded what appears to be a pretty significant plan, costing taxpayers, can I say significantly, you know, no press release, no brouhaha, no sort of bells and whistles and press conferences and lots of flags, nope, none of that.

Australia has agreed to pay the tiny island nation of Nauru $408 million to accept members of this so-called NZYQ cohort.

Now, that cohort consists of people who broke broke Australian laws but had done their time and there's a real fear about the reoffending.

They are, you know, many of them hardened criminals.

Then $70 million a year for the ongoing costs.

But there was a lot of questions about, well, how long does that go on for?

So much so that people may have seen, it's certainly been talked about a lot, the interview I did with the Prime Minister on Monday on afternoon briefing where I asked all those questions and didn't get a whole lot of traction, you would say, Mel.

The arrangements we have put out will continue to engage.

Of course, we want to deal with the NZYQ issue.

These are people who do not have a legitimate...

I think that's a very fair description, PK.

You peppered him with really basic questions of, well, can we just confirm how much money we're talking about or what are the terms of that funding?

How long might this deal go on?

That was the key question because I thought, okay, 70 million in a year, but for how long?

And I think we've got, we know now, sort of, don't we?

We do, we do.

Let's just run through how it played out, though, because I think this is important, because the Prime Minister was refusing to answer very basic questions with you about it.

He then, later in the week, held a press conference in the Prime Minister's courtyard where media had the chance to ask him about a range of issues.

And I tried to follow up for you, PK, and we kept asking more questions.

Very basic ones.

Well, if you're not telling us the details, when will you tell us the details?

This is expenditure of a lot of taxpayers' money.

Still refuse to answer any questions.

What we have now got some answers is because connected to this process is some legislation the government needs passed in order for it to it's trying to bypass giving procedural fairness around deportation decisions for this NZYQ cohort.

And in that process, there has been a short committee hearing in Parliament House of of which officials with the Home Affairs Department were able to be questioned.

And it's from them that we have finally learnt some of the details.

So before we get into that, I just want to point out, I think it is really wrong that we are learning about

significant government decisions and government spending from public servants.

I think we've had the Prime Minister and the Home Affairs Minister abrogate their responsibility here when it comes to outlining decisions taken at the cabinet table, but leaving it to Home Affairs departmental officials, public servants, to give any information about it whatsoever.

All right, so now I've got that off my chest, PK.

Let's go to what they have actually revealed.

And so we now know that this is a 30-year-long deal.

And if you look,

it's a very long deal.

And when a deal is 400 million up front and potentially as much as 70 million each year after, I mean, that could be a two and a half billion dollar deal.

That's an enormous amount of taxpayers' money.

We also learn a bit about how those payments are meant to work.

So, a small amount of this first upfront $400 million

is meant to go, you know, as direct cash payment to the government, and the bulk of it goes into a trust fund.

And then, depending on how many of these individuals from the NZYQ cohort that Nauru is willing to take, depends on how much of the subsequent money goes to Nauru and which amounts go direct to the government and which continue to go into the trust.

And if they don't take enough

of the cohort, then Australia might be able to get some of the money back from the trust.

But exactly what that threshold is doesn't seem to have been decided yet.

So it seems like there are some really big gaps that haven't been sorted out.

But the short and long of it is it could be as much as $2.5 billion.

It could run for 30 years.

There's no guarantee Nauru will take any or they could take as many as 354.

I've got some answers PK but now I've got a whole lot more questions too.

A whole lot more questions although we did you know and that shows I agree with you that it should have been announced transparently.

Of course I would agree with that.

I mean you know I should be sacked immediately as a journalist if I had any other view right like just get rid of me.

Like I absolutely think it should have been announced.

However, it is good that we had that, even if it was a short one process where we got some more of the details within the week.

I was relieved to see that.

But you are right, there are now more questions there.

What's interesting, you know, as I always say, people are probably sick of hearing it, like, you know, politics now, the party room, it's all on the label, right?

The politics is really interesting here, too.

We now have such a consensus position on border security.

We have had it for some time.

I'm not saying this is like a big new reveal, but the level it's got to is kind of next level, Mel, like really.

We now have zero emotions as far as I can see, and I've asked from the Labor left, which has traditionally really, you know, raised these issues and concerns.

I mean, like, no, this is not keeping them up at night.

Well, this is something that over a longer sweep of recent history, there have been very hardly fought battles within the Labor Party about what is an acceptable policy to have towards asylum seekers, towards issues of immigration.

They used to be pretty hard-fought battles.

I think we learnt from the caucus meeting this week in Parliament where all the Labour MPs gather together.

They do this each week that Parliament sits.

They gather together, discuss key issues, how they're going to vote on different bits of legislation.

It seems not a single question from the caucus was raised about this.

None of the backbenchers felt sufficiently

curious to know any details to ask the Prime Minister or the other cabinet ministers in their caucus meeting for more information about this.

Now, I know there's a lot of discussion that goes on in earlier meetings amongst the factional branches, and caucus has been a little bit hollowed out because a lot of the decisions are made before they even turn up there.

But I think it shows that there really has been a diminishing of the willingness to debate these issues within the Labor Party.

Yes, full stop issues.

However, which we'll get to with Phil Curry,

I think there was

a little more feelings and raising, a couple of people raising issues around migration, the far right.

And one person did question the Prime Minister's,

you know, good people going to the rallies, for instance.

And multiculturalism is a part of who we are as a modern nation.

And I'd just say to people of, and I have no doubt that there would have been good people who went along.

My point is, there's some feelings about other issues from some people in the Labor Party, but this issue of offshore detention, very, very hardline policies that I can, that if you look around the world, in the UK, for instance, these debates are so behind ours.

Like, there's so much more outrage at the idea of offshore detention, turning back boats, all of these sorts of themes.

In Australia, the left has completely capitulated on this.

I'm really glad you raised the UK because it's been interesting to watch their debate effectively follow where the Australian debate was

10, 15 years ago in discussing options for trying to deter asylum seekers.

But I do think it also goes the other way still.

I think there are elements of the federal government going by discussions that are quietly had in the background that they see the pressure that this is putting on Kiostama and it's sort of a trigger or a reminder of the past political battles that Labor felt it has lost to the coalition about not being tough enough in terms of controlling border arrivals and that they're seeing the pressure that's putting on Kiostama's Labor government in the UK and it's like a reminder of where they were 10, 15 years ago and that they don't want to be back there.

They don't.

So the Labor Party is very happy at this point.

to be seen as being completely in line with the coalition on this because politically that's what they want.

They don't want this to become an issue where there is any point of difference between them and the coalition.

So they're willing to go hard and push the boundaries in terms of policies and legislation and what's legal.

You know, a lot of what the government is doing now will be challenged again in the High Court and it's quite possible that many of these steps like getting rid of procedural fairness around the deportation orders to third countries, I mean, that could be found to be unconstitutional as well.

But the government's willing to give it a go and see, because they're willing to try anything to try and resolve this issue and they're not worried about going too far towards coalition territory in political terms.

Not only are they not worried, they're happy for us to say it.

They're happy for us to say it.

In fact, I had one senior person say to me that, you know, when the left arcs up, not left inside their caucus, sorry,

outside of the Labour Party left.

So we're talking the Greens, other independents

and people.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And people just who are activists on refugee issues.

I feel like there's diminishing kind of focus on that.

There's been other issues that have become more prevalent.

But they say, you know, that's fine.

That's helpful for us.

So that's interesting too.

Like they're like, good, let that message get out.

If people want to depict us as hardline on borders, that is helpful.

And I had another person who said to me, Mel,

this is actually quite...

quite a good deal, this Nauru deal.

Now, to me, at face value, it seems pretty pricey for such a small cohort of people.

So maybe my concept of good deal is different.

This person said to me, you know, we must be strong contributors to aid funding in that region, right?

In this case, we are providing it.

We can't frame it that way, but we're providing this money, which of course operates as some sort of aid to that country, you know, that it's a big, significant part of their GDP.

So we

support them and we get something out of it.

That's how they see it.

Look, I'm glad glad you raised Nauru circumstances because I do think that is a factor here.

It is a country that is in a lot of financial difficulty and Australia has traditionally been the source of support for Nauru.

And

if you accept that this is the right policy direction

and you look at what it takes pragmatically to strike a deal like this with Nauru, you have to consider Nauruan politics in this.

And I don't envy anyone negotiating with the Nauruan government because they play by slightly different rules from what we do.

And, you know, the President David Adiang is someone who has a lot of experience in dealing with Australia and with Tony Burke in the portfolio he is now.

I mean, David Adiyang used to be the justice minister back in the Rudd government days, and so was deeply involved in negotiations around earlier Nauru resettlement plans.

And they have no interest in transparency or public debate about government decisions if we look at the track record.

So back in that first Nauru resettlement deal,

David Adiyang was when the then president, Baron Wonger, was out of the country and David Adiyang was the acting president.

He banned broadcasters in Nauru from playing any of an opposition interview that raised questions about that Nauru resettlement deal.

Not contested it, literally banned local media from playing.

Outrageous.

Yeah, so these are things that we would not accept in our democratic country but they the Nauruan government over various iterations has long been hostile to open media questioning and so I wouldn't be surprised if the Australian government was also trying to accommodate the Nauruan government's desire to keep a lot of these details under wraps.

I picked that up from my interview with the Prime Minister.

There was a sensitivity around that.

You know, he kept talking about we'll announce it with Nauru.

Like there was a feeling of, you know, playing a particular role because of the politics of Nauru for sure.

I agree with you.

But if you're waiting for Nauru to announce it, then we're never going to get the details because that's not the way the Nauruan government has operated in any time in recent memory.

That is not how they roll, my friend.

Should we bring our guest in?

I think we should.

Phil Coorie is the political editor for the Australian Financial Review.

Welcome to the party room.

Thanks, Patricia.

We were just talking about Nauru,

which has been quite timely because of the anti-immigration rallies that started the week.

We have a big migration theme to the week, and we want to talk about that.

But just before we do, what do you make of the way the government has handled announcing this deal?

And what do you make of this as a policy solution to the NZYQ cohort?

Well, two points to make.

I think the secrecy was disturbing.

I think it was Friday morning last week, Tony Burke put out a press release announcing they'd bought Don Bradman's baggy green cap or something.

And

as that press release came out, he was in Nauru.

The fact they didn't even tell us or put out a press release and then they posted it quietly on the Depot Mental website Friday afternoon, which is junk time,

shows obviously they were sheepish about it.

But on the other hand...

What it tells me too is just the sheer ruthlessness of that arrangement, that this government is not going to make the same mistake it made when it was last in power and and offer a scintilla of

what's the word, I don't know, weakness if you like on borders.

I remember a line that always sticks with me that Bernard Keene from Crikey wrote: there's only two ways to deal with this, with illegal arrivals, inhumane and more inhumane.

And

we saw what happened last term when Labor let a cracker light in when they abolished the Pacific Solution.

It pretty much bought down Kevin Rudd and everything else.

And

they're just not going to give it a crack this time.

So,

you know, had the coalition done this, there would have been all sorts of stomping up and down about how terrible it was, but it just shows that

there's not a crack of light now between the major parties on this.

I think we certainly see

we all see this in the same political lens.

Phil, let's go to the anti-immigration protests that

were over the last weekend but are still reverberating right through the week.

How they've been discussed has been been a really crucial point here, the language that's been used.

We've had the Prime Minister referring to the fact that there were good people at the rally, which seems to have upset some in the Labor Party who think that's giving a bit of succour to people with racist views is the view of others.

We've also had the opposition leader Susan Lee make reference of immigration affecting our way of life.

Because what the government has stated is putting pressures in every corner of this country.

So what's the number on infrastructure, on housing, and on our way of life?

She's raised other eyebrows.

What do you make of the language and how the leaders have responded to what were some fairly ugly moments at those protests on the state?

Look, it's a really,

it's such a vexed issue politically because

we don't need to delve into the politics of migration and the passions that stirs.

That's been well documented.

I thought, I sort of had a counterview.

I thought we had some really thoughtful contributions from Ann R.

Lee earlier in the week, and then Paul Scar to the opposition immigration spokesperson and then Albanese picked up on that vibe that clearly there were you know there are unsavoury elements of these rallies I mean you know what's the what's the saying when the Nazis get involved the argument's lost there were people there who just wanted to fan race hate you know and attack Indian communities and the Chinese and all that sort of stuff but that doesn't exclude the fact that people are that there are people who aren't Nazis or aren't extremists who are concerned about the impacts of migration and whether their perceptions are wrong or not, they're legitimate,

their fears have to be treated seriously.

Like when you go to an auction and you can't buy a house or your local park's got getting flats built on it because

all your green space is disappearing and you're seeing natural habitat wiped out for sprawling suburban development, people associate that with immigration.

And

those they have to be addressed.

They aren't lunatics.

They're people with genuine fears.

And I thought Philip Ruddick, he wrote a very good piece in our paper during the week on it.

I mean, this was the theme that came out on what day did this all Monday.

Yeah.

That because the government has allowed this debate to get away from them, you know,

the communication issue.

Yeah, the drift.

Because the numbers being touted about, you know, 1,500 people a day, that stuff wasn't right.

There was a lot of misinformation being used out there.

Absolutely.

But where was the government

in the months leading up to this?

I mean, Ruddick made a very good point.

And I remember when they were in power, he said, said, you know, they used to put out population projections

and they would explain the immigration program.

When they'd announced the permanent intake every year, they'd say, these are the skilled, these are the, you know, these people are skilled, this is family reunion, these are humanitarian intakes.

And people could understand who was coming in and why.

And to explain that, in this year, we didn't have those migration numbers until this week.

They normally announced

in the budget.

That didn't happen.

The numbers for this financial year that we're several months into were only, again, a fairly short,

sheepish statement.

These paragraphs came out.

A three-paragraph statement came out saying, actually, it's going to be exactly the same as last year.

No further details.

Just to give that clear.

And no sort of explanation.

The number that scares everyone is the net overseas migration, which is not...

The permanent number they announced, the 185, they're people living here already, mostly, just waiting for

permanent residency.

But the nom, as they call it, the net overseas, that's students and

full-term workers.

And that's the scary number because it went, I thought Paul Scar said it best.

Sorry, Patricia, just straight after COVID when the NOM went negative, but straight after COVID, there's this huge surge into the country of all students and everything again.

And so the NOM, that million-person figure here is a million people coming in under the NOM in a year.

And that was just basically a big adjustment post-COVID.

And that's distorted this whole debate.

And back to the sort of ruddock point, the government hasn't sort of been out there explaining this.

So these fears have taken hold.

And, you know, migration's being blamed for things maybe it's not completely blamable for.

Well it's not blameable for lots of things right and what I think is

really important to point out is that

I just don't believe

having analyzed pretty closely the sort of messages of those protest movements that they were somehow colorblind observations about the overall number.

This is a deeper thing that is

dangerous territory, Phil, right?

And I thought the intervention actually from Ed Husick, so the Prime Minister said to me on Monday, actually, in that interview I did with him, which really kicked off a bit of a backlash.

It might be in the minority, but it's happening in Labor, let me tell you.

About his language.

There were good people that went to the rally.

Now, why did he do that?

He did it for, I think, good reasons, but that doesn't mean

it's landed with everyone.

He's trying to kind of bring people into the tent who are close to becoming maybe hardened, you know, radicalised, and bring them in rather than sort of scapegoat them, call them racists, make them feel like crap about themselves, if I can be blunt.

Well, that's what he told Caucasus, don't push them down rabbit holes.

Don't, right?

Okay.

But then the former Labour minister, Ed Husick, you know, who's pretty outspoken, he rebuked Anthony Albanese's assertion that good people attended those rally, saying, I haven't seen a good fascist yet.

Now, you know, that was a pretty strong line again on afternoon briefing.

We've had a good week.

Can I say,

Phil, look, that is a view in the Labor Party, actually, that, you know, the Prime Minister also has to be careful.

Yeah, but that's what I mean.

This is the sort of where the Ann Arlees and the Pool Scars made those points.

I think

I don't agree with Ed because, I mean,

there were predominantly unsavoury types of those rallies, but not everyone there was.

It was like saying, I mean, Ed got his knickers in a twist when he got sort of labelled

the march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge because some clown had a picture of the Aatolla, and Ed got upset when he got sort of labelled with that sort of breed.

And not everyone, far from everyone who marched across the harbour bridge, is pro-Hamas.

There were people there who just so upset about what they're seeing on the TVs every night they wanted to make a statement.

I think there was sort of less of that on the weekend with immigration rallies.

But I suspect too, Anthony Albanese is talking to a sentiment that there's probably a lot of people who

would sort of agree with, you know, they've got fears or concerns about migration, but they wouldn't want to go near one of those marches because of you being associated with

the Nazis and everyone else who's there.

And so I think Albanese is sort of being a bit broader, he's saying, look, there's a sentiment out there, and

they're not all radicals and extremists.

There are genuine concerns and fears that migration is, you know, having an impact on housing, on your amenity of life, and this sort of thing.

And we've got to be mindful of that.

You can't just label everyone who's got migration concerns.

Oh, my God.

That's a nut job.

And

I think that's wise.

But equally, you need to call out anything that's race-based, right?

And the other controversy that's now unfolding is

some issues inside the coalition about their language and the way they've handled this.

Now, Jacinta Numberjiba Price spoke to me on an afternoon briefing.

She made comments that she then had to walk back.

And of course, there is a focus from this government to be getting them from particular countries over others.

Isn't it a non-discriminatory policy?

Well,

I mean, you know,

I think Labor like to be able to ensure that they're they're going to allow those in that would ultimately support their policies, their views and vote for them.

Now she's doubled down again actually in relation to the Indian community and you know the idea that Labor basically brings large numbers of people in to vote Labor was the assertion.

I contested it because obviously it's not based on in fact.

I mean there's no evidence to suggest this.

But there are so many people in the coalition really concerned that

some of the people

over the Chinese community.

I mean

That's cost them 10 seats,

five in Victoria, five in Sydney.

I mean, this is just independent.

I don't think it's

being approved from on high.

No, I think it's a bit of sky after dark.

Others in the Liberal Party have been very quick to try and mop that up.

And I'm not surprised when you consider that

the Liberal Party that's having its own issues with its membership base, one of the few areas it does have growth in its membership base is the Indian community.

And you only need to look at that when you see candidates who are willing to put their hand up to be pre-selected for

very safe Labour seats in elections.

There are plenty of Indian faces that are putting their hand up to contribute to liberal politics.

So that would be a real slap here.

Wild left problems is ridiculous.

But look, you know, I think if we sort of step back here,

this is happening in every OECD country.

Like migration is just, it's a big issue.

And our problems are nothing compared to what's going on in the UK or the US, where they've done nothing about the flow of illegals for years.

And, you know, John Howard used to say, control your borders, you get support for your immigration program.

If you lose control of your borders, you lose support for immigration.

And we saw...

You know, remember he stopped the boats and we all thought how terrible it was and

when they did the Pacific Solution, but he then proceeded to bring in a record number of immigrants.

Yes, he did.

And no one even noticed because

if people think the government's controlling who's coming in then they're quite happy and but also the economy was going well I think that's a good thing that's true yeah well that's this is the other thing Patricia you know depressed economic times everyone's looking for someone to blame and exactly you know history has shown the migrants are always the first ones to cop it every time so so the levels of sort of anarchy and the Nazis and the anti-Semitism and all else and you know social uncohesion is strongest where the economic depression is is the worst but you know you go back to you know I remember Julia Gillard when they lost control of the borders Remember, and she had to go to Western Sydney and bash foreigners because they were going to lose so many seats out there because everyone thought

every foreigner had come by boat

because they'd so lost control of the borders.

And she gave that infamous speech out at the University of Western Sydney in 2011 or 12.

She said foreigners go to the back of the queue.

So

this is the trouble you get yourself in when you lose control of the borders.

And one of the things I was thinking this week is we haven't lost control of our...

No, we have not.

You know, to just go back to those, we're talking about the the Nauru thing, how sort of vigilant labor is, if you like, but even so,

it's starting to bubble up as an issue.

Uh, and that's, I think, you know, the internet's got a lot to blame because people, you know, global problems, you know, problems somewhere else become a problem here, even though they don't exist.

And you've got, you know, fascist groups here sharing, you know, swapping notes of fascist groups overseas and from the UK and the US, where that is filtering into importing tactics and ideology and stuff.

And so, rape replacement theory, all of that stuff, yeah, proliferation.

It's getting harder politically to handle.

You mentioned before the circumstances in Victoria being economically depressed and recent events, particularly during COVID, playing into sentiment there, which I think is a really good way to get about, to get into one of the other big issues this week, which is seeing former Victorian Premier Dan Andrews attend

80th anniversary celebrations or commemorations and a big Shanghai cooperation dialogue, discussions, seeing Dan Andrews and Bob Carr amongst those taking part in those events and particularly Dan Andrews as he was involved in the meetings alongside Vladimir Putin.

I stand with Vlad.

I stand with Vlad.

Well,

this is some of the commentary that we're getting.

What do you make of Dan Andrews' presence there?

Well, look, am I surprised?

No.

Look, I was very critical of him during COVID

and a lot of us were, and we got smashed up for it, but nothing I said about him then, nothing he's done since then has changed my mind.

That picture of him shaking hands with Xi yesterday will just be worth a fortune for him.

So you see this in commercial terms.

So this was a commercial term.

I'm not accusing him of that, but that is obviously a consequence.

But

it's clear the government didn't want him to go, right?

They didn't sort of...

Well, yes, let's be clear about why.

They say a private individual went and we were not informed.

Like all of the sort of stuff you say, we're making it pretty clear you're not happy.

Yeah and

but the fact that we didn't even our China our ambassador in Beijing didn't attend that event we sent the military attaché and and some other flunky from the embassy that was that was the official sort of recognition that was the extent of the official recognition we were prepared to give that event.

So for him to go there that that

that sort of contradicts the message that our government was trying to send in terms of its approval of that event.

It hands a propaganda victory to the not just to the the Chinese, but everyone else he stood up there with, because he obviously has status as a former political leader.

That would be used to make that point.

What do you make then of Bob Carr's approach to this former foreign minister?

But he took a slightly different approach from

his

commemorative event, but making it clear he wasn't willing to stand by while there was the military parade taking place.

Do you think that's a more nuanced position?

It is, but I mean, you know, look, at least Bob sort of said something and explained why he did what he did.

But, you know, I mean,

I think everyone in the Federal Labor Party wishes neither of them went.

Yeah.

Well, that's, well, yes, because they've had to kind of, it's been messy.

Now, of course, they are our strongest trading partner, but this is seen by our government as distinctively different because of the show of military strength, the alliance of some very unsavoury characters who, of course, and a new axis of power

trying to challenge the West.

They were sending a message very strongly there yesterday.

And I know the Prime Minister said, oh, yeah, but 10 years ago, when they had the 70th anniversary, Tony Abbott sent Michael Ronaldson, who was then the Veterans Affairs Minister.

But.

It was a different world back then.

Well, you know, A, the Koreans weren't there.

Putin hadn't invaded the Ukraine, and the relationship with China was a bit more benign than it is now.

So

different circumstances.

So, you know, the government took a decision, you know,

in the national interest just to send a couple of diplomats diplomats from the embassy.

And so, for Carr and Andrews to accept the invitation, knowing they were

subverting that thing, it was, I think it just speaks for itself.

Look, Phil, I just want to move to just a couple of issues that, you know, the coalition has, I think, had a difficult week on migration issues.

They've landed a few blows perhaps on this China stuff, but nothing diabolical.

But the thing that they've had the most success on, which can I say, out of all the issues we've talked about, definitely materially affects people who are waiting to get, for instance, their elderly parents

into packages where they could stay at home but have had to wait.

This issue has been bubbling.

The whole parliament really unified in many ways to push Labor on this issue.

It's been a bit of a victory also for the coalition too, that you'd have to say, for Susan Lee, the first one she's had.

Yeah,

we're conceived of this idea, and it's a genuine not idea, but of this notion that Labor's power is just so paramount because of the size of its victory and what that this week showed on aged care that there is still a capacity to challenge the government and to bring it to Hill if if everyone in the Senate works work works as a unit and we you know it was a rare sort of unity Greens coalition Pocock, the rest of them.

I mean for the listeners, the government reformed the aged care system last year.

It was a good piece of work done with the coalition.

The reforms were meant to start on July 1 this year, but because timing issues with the industry, they had to delay it by four months to November, and that meant a delay in these new home care packages being rolled out.

And so there's all this...

There was already a long wait list, and the delay of the new ones coming meant the wait list was another four months.

Even further.

Yeah, so they were giving them a hard time and question time and stuff.

And then this...

coalition of everybody joined forces in the Senate and said, well, we're not going to pass this legislation this week, which had to be passed if these reforms were going to start on November 1.

So they essentially held a gun to the government's head and they had no choice but to yield and bring forward these packages.

So it was a demonstration.

I think it was a good, healthy demonstration of

democracy working.

And, you know, and I, amongst others, have expressed fears, again, without wanting to bag Victoria, but when you don't have an opposition, an effective opposition, governments can pretty quickly go pretty bad.

And

I think it's a good sort of sign that there is still

an element of opposition in federal parliament.

And

with everyone prepared to sort of you know

put the government hold the government's feet to the fire and just remind them it's not all one way.

Yeah, I think you're quite right to focus on the upper house because there was a lot of attention on the lower house.

majority.

But in many ways the real dynamics always come in the Senate.

And we've already seen, even though Parliament hasn't been sitting for very long, we've seen the government can at times take advantage of the Senate composition.

It can pass, you know, legislation on industrial relations with the Greens and not have to compromise at all because it can do it with just the Greens and not have to worry about the coalition.

And likewise it can pass legislation on immigration and national security issues with the coalition and not have to worry about compromising with the Greens.

But there is power if the two opposing sides, if the left and the right can

work together collaboratively to hold the government to account.

And I think that's a good sign about the state of democracy because I think there'd be plenty of other countries where you would not get that sort of cooperation.

And we're going to rely increasingly on that sort of cooperation to hold the government to account.

I mean, I can't see the Greens and the Libs doing it a lot.

But yeah, no, no, I thought it was significant.

It was a bit of a problem.

The reason they could do this, I think it was also notable that a lot of this was initiated by David Pocock, who as an independent, is something that's a little more palatable for the coalition to come on board with than if it had been driven purely by the Greens.

Having that mix of the composition of the Senate does mean there are different political avenues that make it easier for them to work together.

I think it's fair to say.

So, yeah, that's good.

A bit of a contest.

Yeah, absolutely.

Hey, Phil, you have been a good contest too today for us.

I like to use the word of the day, contest.

And

both of us, actually all three of us, really, if we're going to be realistic from immigrant backgrounds, and here we are, you know, overachieving.

Let me tell you a story about my grandfather.

Tell me.

So he was from lebanon my mum's dad and he and you're not afraid to talk about it like uh bob gallery i'm not going to punch anyone

this is a good story he came out in 1918 as an 18 year old straight after world war one and started a business got married or whatever and my auntie's in possession of this letter that when he applied for citizenship because he was from the middle east and he had olive skin he sort of fell between the cracks on the white australia policy so he had to get he had to get references and uh there's this letter from this,

it's like a business chamber or something like that, because he ran a dry cleaner's.

And I'll just paraphrase it, said, Albert Curry is married, he's hardworking, he pays his taxes, he's raising a family, he employs people, he's an upstanding citizen, he is, in all effects, a white man.

That letter was sent.

That was a reference to the department that got him his citizenship.

So there you go.

So we're not back there.

That's a good thing.

That is a good thing.

As bleak as some things may seem, you know,

as a fellow olive-skinned person, I say to you, may the olive-skinned people prosper and all the others too.

May our country thrive with all of us all together living our best lives.

Phil, thank you so much.

Good stuff, Sega.

Thanks, Phil.

Questions without notice.

Are there any questions?

Members on my route.

The Prime Minister has the call.

Thanks very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, then I give the call to the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

My question is to the the Prime Minister.

The bells are ringing, that means it's time for our question time.

This week's question comes from Tracy.

Hi, Mel and PK.

It's Tracy here from beautiful Canberra, where you spend a fair bit of your time.

I wanted to ask you: how does the government's whopping majority impact how you do your job as political journalists?

Do you feel like you need to go harder on smaller things so you'll seem to be holding the government to account?

Does it make the job harder or easier?

Or maybe no difference at all?

Be really interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

Mel?

Well, I think I'm probably in the latter category there of I don't think it makes much difference at all.

Regardless of the size of a majority a government has, a government needs to be held to account.

So do oppositions and minor parties and independents and individuals and their size

doesn't necessarily negate that.

The opposition being smaller doesn't mean they're deserving deserving of less scrutiny and the government being bigger doesn't mean they're deserving of more scrutiny.

I think we need to scrutinise regardless of size.

I don't know.

What do you think, PK?

Does it look?

Yes, after this is a broader answer from me.

After every single election, your job changes a bit and I'll explain in this is how I see it at Elise Mel because the parliament's different.

And so you need to form

new relationships, work out who's where, like things change.

And in this one, the whopping majority point you make, there is an enormous Labor Party.

When I sit in question time, I love going to question time.

Even if I'm busy and I've got a lot on, I always make sure I go even for 10, 15 minutes and just watch.

I'm always

just like overwhelmed by the number of Labor people.

Well, there's lots of new people to meet.

That's definitely a challenge.

You know, Mel, I want this app to be made.

If you're listening in APH, like they should make an app where you just put your phone over the face and it kind of brings all the material, who the person is, birth year, election.

You need some Google glasses or something to that's what I mean, like that sort of thing.

Anyway, everyone's like, ooh, it's called chat chip.

No, I don't want that.

Like, because then I have to kind of still work things out.

I mean like

face recognition technology I want to use on these people.

Anyway, my point is, because there are so many working out, well, how do they feel on Gaza?

Or, you know, are those people passionate about, I don't know, industrial relations or whatever?

And how

they might be pushing the government internally on different policies.

That does make your job a bit trickier.

Like, there's a lot of them.

How are they all feeling?

I actually think sometimes, you know, I'm finding the coalition actually probably easier to cover because there are fewer of them.

I know that sounds silly.

But like, you know, it's just, it's not overwhelming.

Like, I kind of know a lot of them.

There's not a lot of new ones.

So that stuff does make a bit of a difference.

There's a different dynamic at the moment in the government that I don't think we've all got a full grasp of because of all the new members and how different people are positioning on things, different power structures, the way the factions brought new people in, got rid of others, people like Mark Dreyfus dumped, Ed Husick dumped.

So there is differences.

But your big question is, does it make the job harder or easier?

So I want to be honest, tiny bit harder because it's kind of,

you know, like bigger and therefore you've got to think about it more at the moment at this part of the political cycle.

Your other part of your question is, do you need to go harder harder on smaller things?

Well, no.

No, no, I don't think that.

I don't believe in false balance

just for the sake of it.

You've got to go, you've got to follow the story.

You've got to follow where you think the public interest is.

You've got to follow what you think the public's saying.

Like, for instance, this week, aged care.

The public clearly is concerned about aged care issues because they're dealing with it every day.

We must cover it.

Migration, you know, I'm not covering lots of migration stories because I think, oh, I better put scrutiny on the government and its numbers.

Not at all.

It's because I think it reflects, you know, some sentiments in the community that we must be covering.

So

fair?

I think that's fair, although I still think

it's a different thing.

It's just different.

I just think it's, I think it's different, but I don't think it's

harder because,

sure, there might be a different dynamic, but there's always a different dynamic.

And it's always constantly changing.

So whether it's...

It's different after every election.

And this one is quite different because the numbers are quite different.

Sure, but you can't.

But this is about the whopping majority.

You could have a change in an election and there's very small changes in numbers, but there's always going to be a dynamic change that you need to get your head around.

Maybe it's because the factional balance of a party has changed and the nexus of power changed, or maybe it's because the balance on the crossbench has changed and suddenly someone's got a bit more of a Trump card in negotiations.

So I just think you're always having to make those calibrations.

Having a whopping majority is but one of many different variations of changes that we need to respond to or deal with the flow-on consequences of as we look at, you know, it always comes down to how power is exercised.

This now, this government with a whopping majority has a few ways it can approach things differently with a whopping majority.

We pay attention and pay heed to that as we look to keep that to account.

But we would be doing exactly the same thing in a different composition.

It's just where that power lies might be somewhere different.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that fair?

Yeah.

I think we're going to be able to do that.

I think that we're effectively saying the same thing.

We are slightly different words.

Again, my favourite word of like the decade, it's nuance, right?

That's where we're going to be.

There's different nuances.

Yeah, I mean, I suppose I'm just saying there's a whole lot of new people that I'm trying to learn about.

That's really what I'm saying.

And that takes some time.

That's definitely a challenge.

It's definitely a challenge.

You know what makes it harder?

We used to have, I'm definitely going down.

a very niche road here, but it used to be tradition that when parliamentarians would come into Parliament House first thing in the morning, they'd come in through the doors and there'd be journalists waiting for them and cameras waiting for them.

And that'd be the real learning point.

That'd be the real life flashcard of trying to learn who the new members are.

If you were one of the journalists who would stand outside the building waiting to try and throw a question at a journalist as they scooted from their car into the building, but that doesn't really happen anymore.

It's a bit of a practice at Parliament House that has faded from existence.

Why has that happened?

I think it was a COVID.

I think COVID put an end to it because there was a point at which we couldn't gather around in that fashion.

So there were alternatives set up where media companies would set up a microphone in a certain place at Parliament House where media and politicians are allowed to mingle.

And

then it became, well, if a politician chose to speak to the media, they could go to this place where they knew a microphone and cameras were set up.

And then it just all became a bit stage managed and sort of faded into existence.

And we lost that old process of being able to jump on politicians, whether they wanted to speak or not, to get in the building, they had to come past us.

So, I think COVID's got a bit to blame about changing some of the practices there.

Good point.

I didn't realize that would be

such a vibe.

Mel, fountain of wisdom.

Now, can I say I'm the one for your obscure niche knowledge about Parliament House?

Glad I could help.

Mel, did you know next week is our last party room together before I take a month off to go to my parents' homeland?

You're going to be on afternoon briefing as well.

This is sad for me, but wonderful for you, PK.

I'm going to miss you.

But anyway, we've got one more, so I've got to stop being so dramatic.

This podcast is going to be very good, though.

It's going to keep me informed while I'm away.

I am going to listen to it.

Keep sending your questions in because we love getting them.

We especially are fond of the voice notes.

So we can hear you as we did today.

The partyroom at abc.net.au.

And remember to follow politics now on the ABC Listen At.

PK, I hope you've done that so that you can keep tuned in while you're...

Actually, no, don't.

Just switch off, enjoy.

But everyone else, subscribe to the ABC Listener.

I am going to listen because I don't like to come back and then not know what's happened because that's weird.

Like I've got to know what's happened.

Maybe not every last two minutes, but certainly a podcast that gives you an overview, which is why I love the podcast.

That's it for the party room this week.

We'll have our colleague David Spears in the feed on Saturday with Insiders on Background.

He's going to be speaking to Bob Carr.

So, very if you're interested in that curious move by Bob Carr and Dan Andrews to attend some of those events in China this week, make sure you listen into that one.

It's going to be really interesting.

And PK, you're going to be back in the feed on Monday.

I am going to be back in the feed

because

Jacob likes to hang out with me on Mondays and I just don't want to disappoint him.

I also see you Monday.

I can't disappoint you.

It is.

That's right.

See you, Mel.

See you, PK.