Albanese and the brave new world order

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

Christopher Scace, young, handsome, entrepreneur.

He finds epic success in the 80s.

He came with that cowboy energy.

He was doing big things.

Skace becomes a media mogul.

He outbid the legendary Rupert Murdoch.

His empire teeters, but he outfoxes them all.

I'm Mark Humphries.

Search for ABC Rewind and look for SCACE, Fall of a Tycoon on the ABC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in the 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 stare at 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.

Welcome to the party room.

I'm Brett Worthington joining you from Ngunnawal Country here in Canberra filling in for PK.

And I'm Mel Clark also in Parliament House next to you Brett.

It's great to be filling in for Fran Kelly and what a week to be filling in on.

Not only have we got events in Canberra but the global events and that Australia is taking part at the UN General Assembly.

It really is an extraordinary week, not just in federal politics, but in global politics that we're seeing play out this week.

I've never seen so much attention on an escalator in my life before, Mel.

Donald Trump, as we see, even when the UN's not meeting his ability to dominate our news cycle, he's an omnipresent figure, and we have seen that no more evident than this week, whether it's about Ukraine, whether it's about

the Middle East, whether it's about climate change, he has dominated this week.

But isn't that interesting?

Because as much as as we have seen so much of Donald Trump this week, some of the really big shifts and moves in global politics are coming from elsewhere.

They're not coming from the US.

We're seeing European leaders step up and change.

We're seeing more action from smaller countries working collectively together.

We're seeing the reaction to Donald Trump as much as we're seeing Donald Trump.

And we can see that in the recognition of Palestinian statehood by several countries at this special summit that we saw.

Let's make sure we talk about that because, of course, Australia had a very prominent role in that.

We've seen a shifting ground on how the US is approaching the conflict in Ukraine.

Of course, the big news from the Australian domestic political point of view is Anthony Albanese securing a meeting with Donald Trump, not this week, but in a month's time in October at the White House.

There's lots to talk about with that.

Of course, the coalition back here in Australia have been trying to inject themselves into this conversation.

Susan Lee, writing to congressional Republicans, debate back at home about Australia's position, particularly on Palestine.

And then, of course, it wouldn't be a week in federal politics at the moment without some internal ructions in the coalition about their future direction.

This time, Andrew Hastie at the centre of it all, him and a Ford.

We've got a lot to talk about, Brett.

Yeah, it's a week in which a lot of history is repeating in so many ways.

And no one better placed to put this moment into the broader scheme of things is Michelle Grattan.

She's the chief political correspondent at the Conversation.

She's a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and even better, she's sitting next to us here in the studio.

Welcome to the party room, Michelle.

Thank you very much.

Great to be here.

Look, I think we should start with the big picture.

Some of the shifts we're seeing in global politics.

We've got world leaders gathered for the General Assembly, but ahead of it, this Palestinian summit led by the French President and Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, the Arab League has played a big role in this push to try and change the grounds that we're seeing for the conflict in Gaza, to try and get some kind of shift in the stalemate, the continuation of violence we're seeing in the Gaza Strip.

Now, Australia has joined that effort with a number of other allies, the UK and Canada, several European countries, in recognising Palestinian statehood.

Yesterday, Australia recognised the state of Palestine.

Michelle, this was flagged a good month ago, maybe even longer, by Anthony Albanese, his intention to do this, but this was the formal moment that it happened.

How did you see Anthony Albanese's handling of this moment in New York?

I think from the Prime Minister's point of view, it was a moment that was long in the coming.

I think that he himself has favoured this position for a great period of time.

He's been a very strong supporter of Palestine for many, many years, since his youth indeed, and through his parliamentary career.

Do you think if we had a different Labor Prime Minister, this might not have happened?

That's hard to say because

there was a great deal of pressure within the Labor Party.

Again, that goes back a considerable time.

And I think among Labor supporters, the government was picking up the strong sentiment.

We've seen the marches,

the bridge etc.

Coupled with this is the international situation, other countries taking up this position of recognition and general frustration internationally that Israel is not responding to the pressure from

many, many countries in the world to

modify its approach to try and get a ceasefire settlement in Gaza.

Indeed, it's been doubling down.

Now, I must say, I do think that while the recognition by these countries and by Australia is understandable and one can appreciate it as a way of exerting pressure, there is a danger, not just that Hamas takes heart from it, which it has, but that Israel

just reacts in a way that worsens this conflict, prolongs this conflict, extends its territory, rather than

taking it as a sign that it has to pull back.

We've got this fascinating moment where you've got these world leaders that are playing a huge role out there.

People like Emmanuel Macron of France, people like Keir Starmer of the UK, who have no shortage of their own domestic issues, but very much putting a lot of their political capital on the world stage into trying to bring peace to the Middle East, in trying to defend Ukraine.

It's been fascinating, I think, watching the ways in which the Americans have been annoyed that the world is going on in a direction without it, without seeming to observe the fact that this has...

created a void on global leadership because Donald Trump has pulled back on that.

Have you been surprised of the extent to which the Europeans have been able to knit together a coalition of countries willing to go ahead with some of these issues without having the US?

I think in the situation,

given the terrible nature of this conflict in the Middle East, it is perhaps not surprising, but it is also important to recognise that it's the United States that can twist Israel's arm, not the other countries.

So, of course, as in so many other things, Donald Trump is central and unpredictable.

I think there are two things to pick up on here, Brett.

I find the question you raised really interesting about other leaders coming in to fill the void, and I think it's quite a complex picture because I think for some leaders, and I think you would put President Macron in this category, is they want a role on the world stage.

And for him, through much of his leadership, he has sought to inject France to be a global player.

And we saw that in his early time, particularly in Africa, looking to play a role in many francophone countries where there was conflict there.

He hasn't hesitated to inject France and himself often to great criticism as being this, you know, want to be Zubertarian leader.

So some of it comes down to, well, who are the personalities at play here?

Do you have someone like Macron who wants to be a global leader, who has taken or sought to take the mantle of European leadership once Angela Merkel?

departed from what

probably was that person

in Europe in the the past.

So some of it comes down to personalities being willing to step up.

And I think some of it also comes down to domestic politics.

And I think you would put Kia Starma and Anthony Albanese perhaps in a similar and different category, which is making decisions like this very much with one eye to a domestic audience that is looking for leaders to take action on something that they feel distressed about.

As you said, Michelle, the march across the bridge was something I think that was symbolic of a sentiment in Australia of, well, we need to do something and the governments need to be able to show they are hearing that message and responding to the will of the populace.

So the domestic pressures are really important as well when we have different leaders coming to this place.

But that means we find ourselves in this position, Michelle, where we have Australian foreign policy now in a really different position from American foreign policy.

Can you give us a bit of a sense of when we've seen this in the past historically?

Like how significant is it for Australia to have a really different position on not just the Middle East, but perhaps on Ukraine?

Although we've seen a bit of a shift on Ukraine from Donald Trump over the last week, his view seems to change.

But are we seeing a more assertive, sovereign approach to foreign policy?

Yes, I think we are.

And it is

hard to think of a parallel situation.

Of course, if you go right back to the early 70s, there were differences, significant differences between the Whitlam government and the American administration.

But the differences now are very sharp.

And of course, an area, not just the Middle East, but another area, is climate change, where we saw that extraordinary speech from the President at the United Nations

really saying that

it was all a joke.

Climate change was a con job.

The carbon footprint is a hoax, made up by people with evil intentions.

Meanwhile, of course, Anthony Albanese was talking up Australia's latest 2035 target and renewables.

Vast difference there.

But I guess the big question is how much will this difference matter?

That's what's important.

And I think certainly from the Australian Government's point of view, and with this meeting looming between the two leaders,

they'll want to put aside to the extent possible

those sorts of differences over climate, over the Middle East, because they know there's no coming together.

What's very significant is whether there'll be big differences on defence spending and the regional posture, and there's no escape if those differences emerge significantly.

So, we don't seem to have any suggestion from Donald Trump that he's particularly frustrated by these divergences in policy.

At least, nothing he's said so far suggests that.

A very grinning photograph of the two of them, the selfie that Anthony Albanese is.

The meeting that everyone was playing down the importance of, and suddenly, as soon as it happens, it's quick, have you seen the photo?

We've got them smiling together with us.

We've got a photo.

They both look very happy in this photograph they have met.

But look, we haven't heard anything from Donald Trump that suggests that he's particularly aggrieved at Australia's position more than any other country.

But we have had some congressional Republicans,

you know, before

Anthony Albanese made his speech at the Palestinian summit, write to him and say there might be punitive measures, registering their objection with Australian foreign policy.

We had the opposition leader Susan Lee write back to them to give assurances that a coalition government would reverse that decision if they were in government.

I wanted to make the point that this is not a bipartisan position held in Australia.

So is there a risk, even if Donald Trump isn't personally expressing differences here, that we start to cleave a gap between senior people at the top levels of Congress or in the administration and Australia?

Is there something at a lower level that could happen?

Well, it probably does complicate the relationship and

make for

more difficult rapport in the relationship, and maybe that extends through the administration, but it's a very chaotic administration, so it's really hard to gauge.

It also seems very responsive to Donald Trump.

You know, if Donald Trump gave a nod that, oh, absolutely.

He's an Anthony Albanese guy, we like him, you'd think most in the administration would pretty quickly fall in line.

But remember that while while it might be a bit frustrating to the Americans that we take this stand on the Middle East, we don't matter in the Middle East.

We're not really a player for all the talk.

How surprising then in that, because that's the pitch that Anthony Albanese will make, that we are a middle player and we are trying to move with allies, particularly around the Middle East, but that the Israeli Foreign Minister would reach out to Susan Lee, and keen to have that conversation at a time when Anthony Albanese is pledging that Australia would recognise Palestine and also then Susan Lee to then take the step of contacting the Republicans herself.

Which was pretty unusual and I think overreach.

And as for the Israelis, well,

it's mischief-making in the domestic scene, is it not?

And do you think it was a mistake then for Susan Lee to insert herself in the way of writing to the Republicans and really kind of having a domestic debate on a world stage, essentially?

I think it was a mistake.

There's an old saying that the fight over foreign policy stops at the water's edge.

Now, some people reject that and say that in a globalised world, that's too old-fashioned.

But I think

it has some common sense about it, and

it was an unnecessary move and not going to be a particularly productive one.

I just want to briefly focus on two national speeches to the General Assembly, the opportunity for leaders to speak to their fellow colleagues, their other world leaders,

before the UN General Assembly.

We've had Donald Trump's fairly extraordinary speech when Fennelli announced.

Type 15, wasn't it?

That was what it was meant to be.

Not a man for deadlines.

Exactly.

I'm not sure how he'd survive in the media industry.

But we also have Anthony Albanese, of course, giving his speech as well.

He didn't go to the UN General Assembly in his first term as Prime Minister, so this is the first time as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is addressing.

So let's start with Donald Trump.

We talked about it briefly before when we mentioned some of the extraordinary remarks there.

It was really a rebuke of the UN.

It was a rebuke of European leaders.

It was complaints about globalism.

It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders.

You have to end it now.

I can tell you.

I'm really good at this stuff.

Your countries are going to hell.

It was complaints about the building that the UN is in itself.

I bid on the renovation and rebuilding of this very United Nations complex.

But they decided to go in another direction, which was much more expensive at the time.

It was borderline rally-esque, right?

The teleprompter went down and he would have had no qualms hitting the great hits.

But I think that what's been fascinating for as much as there was that performative element, seeing the ways in which world leaders like Emmanuel Macron and they're complaining about traffic.

Guess what?

I'm awaiting the street because everything is pleasant for you.

But in the back end of that call with Trump, making clear he wants to get Trump together with the Qataris to talk about Gaza.

Trump's quite keen of the Qataris and whether there is ways of using people who are influential to Donald Trump to get him to a position where the other world leaders want him to get to is fascinating because this is a bloke who was rolling out the red carpet for the Russian leader not that long ago and now with an about face coming out of a sit-down interview and then saying that Ukraine could win back a lot of its territory.

I don't know how any world leader prepares or braces for Donald Trump given it can change on a dime.

But it does show how leaders

play international realism, doesn't it?

Because if you think back to the Trump visit to the United Kingdom a few days ago and the way

everything was thrown out to try and make him happy, play up to him and even the royal family used to the hilt in a political sense.

Leaders know they have to deal with this guy and they make the adjustments.

You've got to do what it takes.

Look very briefly, what about Anthony Albanese's speech to the General Assembly?

From my point of view, I thought it was a very safe speech.

I think he ticked a lot of boxes in there, making reference to some of the current global events and where Australia's position is in that.

He made the case for Australia's long historical engagement in the UN and sort of a promise to continue that middle power role.

None of this means setting our national interests or our people's values aside.

It means working to fulfil them.

The United Nations is much more than an arena for the great powers to veto each other's ambitions.

Hit a few points of domestic policy he wants to bring attention to,

the climate change targets and the social media policy that he wants to spruke while he's at the UN.

But I thought it was a pretty safe speech.

What did you think, Michelle?

Yes, I thought he ticked all the boxes, as you say, and hit every constituency.

I thought it was a very well-written speech.

It would be interesting to know who actually crafted it or was the major crafter of it.

But it was also a speech that really did not contain any one new idea, any one new point.

So in that sense, it's not a speech that you'd remember in a year's year's time, but it was certainly a very

well-crafted speech for the occasion and presumably fitted into the deadline.

It feels a bit of, it's such a stark contrast to Trump's.

It felt like a yes-to-year speech in that regard.

Like, it's a different world environment

with which he's talking to you.

But it also goes to the core of the Anthony Albanese approach to foreign policy, doesn't it?

He's trying to keep his head down.

He's trying to work with allies, but really not wanting to stand out and go it alone on many issues issues besides, I guess, in this last week, the ways in which they've tried to put the social media laws up in lights as a way of Australia world leading.

But otherwise, we are in the pack and we're moving with the pack.

All right.

I want to talk about the meeting.

The meeting that will now happen.

It's going to happen on October 20.

It seems that the Prime Minister has known for a few weeks that the work was going on behind the scenes to arrange for a more formal state visit at the Oval Office of the White House that will come in a month's time.

It wasn't going to be something that was tacked onto this meeting.

Michelle, is that a good outcome?

Given if there had been a meeting here, we might be back in the G7 situation where Donald Trump just wants to leave early and it gets cut off.

Is this a better outcome for Anthony Albanese?

I think we'll have to leave the judgment as to whether this is a good outcome until after we see the outcome.

Because what we see with the Trump meetings is that they can go very well or they can go very badly, and it's almost impossible to predict with any certainty which way

they'll end up.

But I would imagine that the betting will be on this going pretty well.

I think that the Australians will prepare very carefully.

The interesting thing is whether we'll throw out any more defence announcements to smooth the way beforehand.

But

you couldn't see really

any great obstacles to a smooth meeting, given that we've said that these contentious issues will be pushed aside either because they're not particularly relevant or certainly the Australians don't want to get into a fight about them.

So I'd be on the positive side for this meeting.

And it might stick a dagger in the heart of Labor-true believers, but if you were the Prime Minister, you might be tempted to remind Donald Trump about the hardline border policy that both sides of politics have in this country.

Just so soon after Donald Trump was there ridiculing the Europeans for borders, the Australian policy, the Labour position, is not that dissimilar from what the Republican position under Donald Trump has been here.

But I think the thing that is just sort of ticking away in the back of my mind, this meeting is October 20.

Joe Courtney, the U.S.

Congressman,

we were talking to him on the radio this morning.

He was suggesting they expect the orchestra review to come down in October.

My goodness, if Anthony Albanese found himself

with an announcement with Donald Trump about AUKUS

in support of, and all the tea leaves seem to suggest it is heading in that direction, it would be quite the rebuff to the allegations that come from the coalition that the relationship is being cut adrift and that the Prime Minister hasn't done enough to get in front of Donald Trump.

I think that timing is really interesting because we've spoken to a lot of people over the last couple of weeks about the meeting that had that was it going to happen, was it not going to happen, would it be good to happen, should you try and avoid it happening?

There's been really different views, particularly when it comes to AUKUS and what role the leaders should play in this review.

And we've heard from Arthur Sinodinus in a couple of interviews this week on our breakfast and afternoon briefing say it would have been good for Anthony Albanese to be able to meet with Donald Trump earlier, to be able to influence Donald Trump while this AUKUS review is underway by the Pentagon, and that would have been really valuable.

On the flip side, we've also heard from Kim Beasley, former Defence Minister, former ambassador to the US, former Labor leader.

His view was, actually, Anthony Albanese, it would be best if he didn't meet Donald Trump until afterwards.

I rather think it would be a good idea for the Prime Minister not to meet Donald Trump, at least until we've got the AUKUS thing sorted, and it's not yet sorted.

Leave it with the lower-level officials.

Donald Trump is the one who's mercurial, who's a bit capricious, who could bring an element of volatility to it.

There's really strong support for AUKUS throughout the Pentagon, throughout Congress.

Let the officials at the lower levels get on with the review.

We don't need to be worried about it.

Leave the volatile part out of it, and the leaders can have their meeting once it's done and dusted and over.

So there's been really different views.

What do you make of those, Michelle?

Well, I think there's a case on both sides, but I do think that it would have been better if the Prime Minister had been able to have this meeting earlier, not just on discussions on AUKUS, but for a whole range of reasons.

Obviously, Donald Trump works in a very

personal way, and therefore, the sooner that a leader can establish a rapport,

the better, I think, because the more opportunity for dealing with issues as they come up.

Michelle, before we move on from this meeting, I'd be fascinated to get your take.

Kevin Rudd has been a figure who parts of the Republican movement have been keen keen to prod, and we've seen the coalition really put up in lights whether or not Kevin Rudd is proving an effective ambassador in the U.S.

Now, getting a meeting, probably rebuffing that.

Was it smart of him to hug Gavin Newsom, the Californian governor, a person who

Donald Trump can't stand?

Well, Kevin Rudd often doesn't do what's smart.

And fewer hugs are probably better,

at least with people to whom you're not related.

I think that Kevin Rudd has been hyper-active, from what I understand,

especially over these last few weeks, making sure this meeting happens.

He must be incredibly frustrated when, from time to time, the media replays his remarks about Trump because they were

in Kevin Rudd fashion, direct, forceful, and pretty expressive.

But I think the fact that the meeting is happening is

preserving Kevin Rudd's position and the argument of those who say that he is,

despite limitations and difficulties, an effective ambassador.

Is there anything before we move back to politics back home, back here on Australian soil, is there any final thoughts on either the government's efforts to try and secure COP31 or the spruking of the social media policy.

How do we think those issues haven't been the most prominent, but they've been an important part of Anthony Albanese's agenda.

Brett, what's jumped out to you?

Yeah, I think the COP one, certainly not going anywhere near as well as the government might have hoped.

Whether or not they can land a deal this week with the Turkish leadership, I think is very much yet to be seen.

Chris Bowen getting in with President Erdogan's wife at a meeting.

She's understood to be very passionate about getting to host this.

She's quite the environmentalist.

There's no escaping the Australian.

Right.

It's a full court press from Boward to Rudd to Albanese on every issue.

New Yorkers, look out.

Yeah, half the cabinet is there, so it is good to see they're working away at it.

I think on the social media front, it is again another sign of the ways in which Australia and Europe in particular are working closely.

The Europeans are very closely watching this.

Whether or not you are forward-sizzling something that is yet to come into force

elevates the stakes of whether or not this can work, I guess.

It was rather interesting, I think, that the Communications Minister Annika Wells

did dash to New York despite the ongoing Optus crisis and the fallout from that.

Just on the COP meeting, I would make the point that while every effort is being made to get it, there are quite a few people around in the government who won't be brokenhearted if we don't get it.

And why do you think that is?

Well, I think because it's a huge thing to organise.

It would be held in Adelaide and

it's held around November, right?

So there'd only be about a bit over a year to do that organisation.

It would be held in conjunction with Pacific countries, liaison with them, raises all sorts of challenges.

People just starting to say, do we really need this?

I don't think Germany wants to hold it though, and they're the default if it doesn't happen.

And no one seems to want Turkie to hold it.

Let's come back to Australia where we have the latest dramas within the coalition that is searching for its future direction.

It has a lot of policy reviews underway but in the meantime we just have these niggling moments and the latest has come from Andrew Hastie and it all kicked off with a social media post.

We used to make complex things in this country.

In fact with cars we used to say, race them on a Sunday, sell them on a Monday.

It wasn't just a slogan, it was a way of life.

Competition drove innovation.

So showing him with an old Ford, I think it was a Ford.

I'm not a car expert, Brett.

Are you able to help me out?

I don't know the answer to that.

I am.

I'm part of the problem.

I have no idea.

My father is going to be so disappointed with me right now that I can't tell you what car it is.

But he pulled out a beautiful vintage car, making the point that he wants Australia to be a country that makes things again, talked about that sort of manufacturing sovereign capability.

We want to be able to build complex things.

It then followed with some criticism from some colleagues, some anonymously in the newspaper, saying, what is he doing?

Why is he running his own agenda?

Why isn't he playing for the team rather than seeming to promote himself?

That then had Andrew Hastie responds on social media calling some of those anonymous colleagues Muppets.

It's a tough hit on Kermit and Miss Pikki, isn't it?

And we've seen another social media post from Andrew Hastie since then, raising his concerns about migration, using some phrasing that has really raised some eyebrows, suggesting that people aren't recognising themselves in their country anymore or feel like they're strangers in their country, which does echo back to some language of a very prominent speech by a British white nationalist many decades ago.

So we've had a leg ruspender questioning,

is he aware that he's sort of echoing that language, or is he ignorant of the fact that a lot of that phrasing comes from events decades ago?

There's a lot to dig in here.

Michelle, can you tell us what Andrew Hastie's doing here?

No, I can't because I can't understand it.

I think it's a very, very strange behaviour.

Now, he's been very blunt about the fact he wants to be leader, although he says not quite now, because he's got a young family

and all those excuses people give when they want to put things off a bit or prevaricate.

But he is...

being quite destructive.

Even colleagues who think he has a future as a potential leader are surprised by his current behaviour.

It seems to be driven by some sort of frustration, but it's certainly causing trouble.

I note that Arthur Sinodinus was saying that Hastie and Senator Price should really be team players at this stage.

Now, a lot of people are frustrated that the opposition doesn't have policies.

I do think that

this is

really perhaps an unfair criticism given it so soon after the election.

On the other hand, I do think that they need to have a policy on the whole net zero question, ASAP,

before Christmas, certainly.

That's one area that

really requires to be settled.

And of course Andrew Hastie says that if they kept net zero, that commitment, he'd be off the front bench.

But as to Hastie himself, given that the alternative leaders to Lee are Hastie

and Angus Taylor, I note that Angus Taylor has been playing a longer game, has been quiet, has been dissipated.

So it's an interesting contrast there.

But at the moment, people say that Susan Lee not only has the numbers, which she only had narrowly, of course, when she was elected, but they've somewhat improved since that election.

And I think there is a feeling: either give her a go for reasons of fairness and

justice or give her a go, this is within the party, because tearing down a woman quickly would be a pretty bad look.

And also, an election is so far away that...

you know, you sort of hold your fire and make decisions about changing leaders much closer than we are now.

He's really brought a literal sense to the home affairs portfolio, Andrew Hasty, this week.

It's typically not in the direction that that portfolio looks into, but really linking migration with the housing crisis, really trying to hark back using mid-century nostalgic photos,

the Sydney Harbour Bridge being built.

There are two parts that kind of I can't quite square.

One, how as someone who's positioning to lead a party could find himself in the best part of the last week describing himself as being in the minority of one of the biggest issues that they're going to reckon with in terms of net zero and then openly calling your colleagues Muppets.

These are people that you want to lead.

So, how you win over those people is unclear to me.

Now, yes, broader positioning so that maybe you're the Conservative candidate if and when a leadership battle ultimately comes on, and the ways in which Jacinta Ngampa Gimpa Price, who not that long ago was

there with Angus Taylor as the deputy, whether or she's changing tack and heading towards Andrew Hastie, I think is we're still very much yet to be seen there.

But

why would you want the job right now?

Polling in recent weeks, so we're four months from an election, a primary at 27%.

You've got the government is not having a dream run at the moment in terms of an issue that the government has to contend with is this 2035 target and how you turn a target into reality and a time in which scrutiny could be so fiercely on the government, the ways in which the Pacific is creating issues for the Prime Minister.

Susan Lee's efforts to be more assertive and to get into the news are being undercut because the party is constantly talking about themselves.

And Arthur Sinodina, sure, he is definitely a more moderate type figure within the party, but he knows how to win.

And he spent a lot of time with John Howard and his comments this morning about what is the agenda.

And secondly, going to the middle isn't labor-light, it's finding a way to get back to the government benches.

I think for anyone who thought the Liberal Party had hit rock bottom at the election, might find they're not quite there just yet.

Look, I do just want to clarify: the car that Andrew Hastie was next to was a 1969 Ford Falcon GT.

Thank you very much to our producers who are clearly more car-savvy than I am.

And it's got grit and quite a loud engine.

I think that was the point of that message.

Not these pesky, quiet EVs, as Andrew Hastie was taking aim at.

I think it's a red-blooded men was kind of the

under message within it.

And, you know.

That'll help win back female Vs.

Exactly.

Look, we've covered a lot of ground.

I want to give a very big thank you to our guest, Michelle Grattan.

We love having you on the podcast.

I know our listeners love hearing from you too.

So thank you very much for your thoughts and insights.

Great to be here.

Questions without notice, are there any questions?

Members on my raise.

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 Prime Minister.

Well, Mel, the bells are ringing, and that means it's time for question time.

This week's question comes from Nick.

My name is Nick, a Nausi living in the Aloha state of Hawaii.

My question relates to the contentious issue of the recognition of a Palestinian state by the Albanese government.

The coalition has come out and said that if elected in the the next election, they would reverse the action taken by the Albanese government.

My question is: why would a coalition make such a policy decision so far out from an election that they would be held account to in three years?

What if attitudes change in the coalition or more broadly across the nation?

What's the strategic political goal of making that decision now?

Always listening from Hawaii.

Thanks, Nick.

Mel, one of the things that really surprised me about this week, and given how historic this moment is in recognising a state of Palestine, it's just how simply it comes about.

There's no, I don't know what I imagine, whether you'd sign something or there'd be a declaration.

Did you think there was a scroll that would be unfurled at the UN and you add your name?

Yeah, you just stick your photo alongside all the other the nations that are there and essentially it does make it easier for a future coalition government that could just tear up that piece of paper and say well we no longer recognize a state of Palestine.

So there are ways in which you can walk these things back rather simply.

It's whether or not, you know, over the coming years you see the establishment of embassies and it does become much more complicated as a state is set up and then you see embassies and officials coming hither and everywhere.

But what I've been unable to square, particularly even this week, with Susan Lee then writing to those Republicans, as we're talking about with Michelle, and really inserting herself into that discourse, kind of...

Is it about framing the coalition or is it also about framing her own leadership within the party?

Now, it's a pretty extreme way to contact Republicans to shore up that in your own sense.

But Susan Lee faces criticism by some in the party that she's not staunch enough in support of Israel.

So to what extent are you judging these interventions?

Yeah, that's interesting.

I think, Nick, that I don't think the coalition is too worried about

wanting to give itself wriggle room on this policy position, because to be honest, I think the party's pretty firm.

You know, for the coalition that has a lot of divisions on a lot of topics, this isn't really one of them.

The party has long held that they support a two-state solution, but that recognition of a Palestinian state comes at the end of that process, not part way through.

And I'd be very surprised if things changed over the course of the next three years that meant that they would waver on that, particularly given how firm the language has been from many in the leadership.

And you're right, Brett, to point to the fact that Susan Lee was prior to being party leader, one of the few who perhaps expressed a more sympathetic view of the Palestinian cause, of which she has

fully transformed.

I think it's fair to say that.

And she would say that is October 7 is a clear point in her mind in which the thinking changes.

And when she has appointed Michaelia Cash, who is perhaps one of the most vocal and most strident supporters of Israel in the coalition, they are clearly and firmly standing by both their long-held position, but a position that has been further entrenched by the events of October 7.

So I don't think they want to leave themselves wriggle room, is sort of my basic answer to Nick's question.

I guess the question of what if the mood of the nation in three years' time is such that it would seem foolish to try and undo that.

Look, to be honest, politicians change their positions all the time.

I don't think that's necessarily an impediment these days.

You know, you could have Susan Lee or a future Liberal leader say, at the time we were fervently opposed to it, but the world has moved on and we we acknowledge the world as we find it.

So we won't focus on changing that now.

We'll focus on something else.

I think that's certainly something they could do if they found themselves facing a very strong public opinion to the contrary in the future.

But I also think, and Brett, I know you spoke about this at length with Raf Epstein on the podcast earlier.

I urge anyone to go back who wants to go into this in more detail.

But the electoral politics of this issue in Australia is there are some people who are fairly fervently entrenched with their views on this issue and they're unlikely to change their mind on it regardless of what happens from this point.

And then there is a huge swathe of the voting public who are not invested in what happens in the Gaza Strip or in the Middle East more broadly, might want to

vocalise their concern for humanitarian disaster, but it's not a vote-changing issue.

And I think that does give the coalition room to change its position in the future if it wanted to.

I just can't see it wanting to.

And I think both the media and the political class have been for too many years too focused on, you said this, no, you're not saying that, and not allowing for that space in between.

And I think when you have that space to make a point and to take the nation along with you and saying, yes, we did say that, but now we see it differently, it's not necessarily a backflip so much as it is, sure, but times have changed.

Whether or not any politicians are willing to articulate that now, or if the media frankly is allowed, is willing the space to do that, I think, is very separate from the question that Nick's asking.

All right, Nick, thank you.

That was a great question.

We do love getting these questions for question time on the podcast, so please send them in.

We really love the voice notes too, so you can email those to thepartyroom at abc.net.au.

And you can follow Politics Now on the ABC Listen app so you never miss an episode.

But Fernando, that is it for the party room this week.

We're going to have insiders on background in your feeds Saturday.

So make sure you listen to that one.

And of course, you can catch back up on your Politics Politics Now episodes from earlier in the week.

Brett, just go to that feed in the ABC Listen app.

I know it helps keep me up to date.

See you, Mel.

See you, Brett.