Oh look. Thank you so much everyone and appreciate you waiting out here in the cold. I am just so thrilled to have had the support of my colleagues to be the leader of the Australian Greens.
The risk of Waters is the new leader of the Australian Greens. She takes over as the party reels from a wipeout at the last election, losing three of their four seats in the House of Representatives, including their leader.
And I want to send all of my love, as does our whole team to our former leader, Adam Bant. We miss him desperately and he was a wonderful leader for this party.
Senator Waters's job now is to mend the image of the Australian Greens, as the perception cultivated by Labor that the party is obstructionist and militant arguably cost them votes.
People elected us to get shit done and that's what we intend to do in the service of people on the plant.
From Schwartz Media, I'm Michael Williams filling in for Daniel and Ruby. This is seven am Today, National correspondent for the Saturday Paper. Mike's second on Larissa Waters, why she won and whether she can rebuild the Greens. It's Monday, May nineteenth, Mike. The Greens have a new leader, Larissa Waters. So tell us who was she up against and how did they pick her?
Well, let's start with how they picked her. They picked her in a very Green's sort of very secretive way. In fact, the Greens leadership selection process bears some resemblance to a papal conclave. In fact, it's even more inscrutable because at least in a papal conclave there are votes. Often, in the case of Green's leadership ballots, there is no formal vote taken. The party just talks about it until it reaches a consensus on who should be the leader
or the deputy leader or whatever. And that's what happened with the leadership on Thursday. You know, the party room reached consensus that Larissa Wards was the one to lead. The two other assumed mooted candidates, Sarah Hanson Young and Marine Ferruki, pulled out and subsequently Ferruki was reconfirmed as deputy so to Larissa the ultimate winner. She is the most low profile of the three. I think you would
say she's interesting. She's got an environmental background, she spent ten years before she went into the Senate working as a lawyer for the Queensland Environmental Defender's Office. I'm told by party sources that she is absolutely loved by the members. She really presents well. I guess the question is whether she's tough enough. You know, she's nice, but one source described her to me as kind of the vanilla option
among the three. The former party leader, though and icon, Bob Brown, told me he suspect that she's underestimated and that we might be surprised at just how strong she can be once in the job.
Do you think Bob's right, Mike, I mean, you've reported on the Greens for a long time. What do you make of Larisa Waters?
Well, let me start by saying she's nice. She's certainly well credentialed. She's got degrees in both science and the law. The latter the lawd agree with honors. She's dedicated to the Green's original cause. She's diligent, she has a strong track record of work in Senate committees. There's a list as long as your arm on the Parliamentary website. And she's enduring. You know, she has shared the deputy position with three different co deputies under two leaders over seven years,
so she's experienced. She's performed in a number of different portfolios, notably the portfolio of Women's Affairs, and has had some good runs on the board there. But I come back to the fact that she seems nice, and I don't say that glibly, but because she has something about her of the sort of Tanya plebasec. She connects with people, and given the party's current circumstance, it may well be that that's as important as anything, is that she seems nice and reasonable and not overly aggressive.
Well, that makes a lot of sense. I mean you've reported widely, Mike about that perception that seems to have taken hold in the community, that the Greens have become obstructionists, that they're angry, and that that's this turn off for voters. What sense do you have of whether the Greens are hearing that message and whether the pick of Senator Waters might suggest they're trying to write the ship.
Well, they know it's a problem. You know, whether it's a fair characterization or not is another matter, but they certainly know it's a problem, and they know also that it's a perception that Labor has assiduously cultivated over the past few years, and it landed pretty successfully in the media, particularly the right wing media. Greens Party members, including some in the party room, tell me they were picking it up at polling places as they handed out their Heart of Vote cards.
My next question comes from Amazon.
And you.
So my question to Senator Schubridge.
And you've really got a sense of this. I think on Monday night where Q and A had David Chubridge if the Greens on the panel, and one of the members of the audience stood up and asked a question.
The Greens have seeing their support decrease during the previous term, particularly in electates where members held seats. Given the reduced support from members who are directly associated with moves to block legislation in the Senate, is now the time for the Greens to truly uphold their promise to work constructively with the government or will you continue to obstruct in the Senate and attack the government in the press.
Chubridge, in response, talked about the need to work constructively.
And there is now no excuse for us not having the kind of relationship with labor where we can just sit down and talk through the issues and hopefully put forward some of that incredibly important legislation and policy that we're going to need.
Because you certainly didn't mention any names about, you know, pointing the finger at anyone for being obstructive. But Labour's Ed Husick, who was also in the panel, piped up at that point and he did name some names, and there was a slight mutual admiration thing going on, I think between Husick and Schuebridge, because Husick praised Chubridge for being consultative in their dealings and then said, but there's a big difference between a David Schubridge and a Max Chandler.
Masa, David and I did have to work together and work together, I thought constructively on particularly issues around tech, where you don't agree with everything, but you reach common ground. That wasn't always the case though, and the most frustrating thing for us was around housing.
Of course. Matha was the rather hardline housing spokesman for the Greens in the last parliament and he lost his seat and after the election, of course, Anthony Alberanezi made a big point of calling him out for his quote unquote offensive behavior in the parliament. And it's not only Labor of course that is pointing this out, and it's not only people at the polling boost. You know Drew Hutton who helped found the party with Bob Brown all
those years ago. He's no longer actively involved, but he was quoted in the nine media this week complaining of a quote hyper militant approach by the party over the past three years and also accusing them of having a terrible way. He put it, of expressing their moral superiority, and he said they needed to get out and talk meaningfully with ordinary Australians.
How are the Greens going to be different under your leadership compared with what it was like under Adam Band? Is there going to be a bit of a change in direction, even a subtle one.
Well, look, Mike. Both in her press conference and in her first interviews as leader, Larissa Waters went out of her way to praise Adam Band, but also to stress the sheers and a quote a different person.
But I am a different person and I bring a different style. I really want to get outcomes. I really want to work with the current government to try to improve.
Why do you think she felt it was so important to separate herself from Band and to distinguish her own leadership style from his.
Well, there's a few factors. I spoke to a number of people in the party room in the lead up to the leadership change. You know, they spoke obviously on the condition of anonymity, But under bands leadership, I was told by a couple the Greens sort of long standing process of collective decision making became more of a top down model. One person actually called it command and control
was the way they put it. And to some extent they told me this was a matter of circumstance because at the last election the Greens inherited four new and inexperienced senators and three new House members, so that's almost half the party room. So obviously, you know, they were learning their way, and maybe that gives some excuse for
the leadership group to have a bit more influence. But the way it was put to me, and I'm quoting someone here, there was a definite A team and a B team, and you know, the A team made the cause. I should note here, incidentally, that the A team included all three of the mooted candidates for the leadership, you know,
Hans and Young Feruki and Waters. So to some extent that was a criticism of them, I think as well as ban but I get the impression and that the party roumors made this known to Larisa Wards, that they want it to be a bit more consultative, and I think she's going to be. The people I spoke to also felt that under band the party focused too much on trying to expand its numbers in the House of Representatives and as part of that, on attacking Peter Dutton
rather than articulating a positive agenda. It probably looked like a good idea a few months back when it looked like it might be a tight run race in the House, but obviously it didn't work out.
That way.
After the break. Why Labour needs the Greens, whether or not they'd like to admit it, Mike, I've been fascinated to read in your reporting the ways in which other factors may have contributed to the greens poor showing, and one of them in particular that you've singled out was the idea that less emphasis on climate and the environment was causing damage to their brand. How well placed will Larissa Wards be to refocus the party's attention on this area.
Well, First, you're absolutely right that has been a criticism, and I understand that that was raised not in the party room meeting that elected the new leader, but there was one a couple of days beforehand to sort of look at the direction of the party, and that was
definitely one of the themes of it. And it's certainly also true that compared with Band and particularly Chandler Matha, she comes more out of that stream in the party, you know, from an environmental background, as obvious from her history. I guess so I suspect that we're going to see Larissa Waters chart a slightly new course in the Parliament. That doesn't mean that the party will drop issues like
housing and gaza. You know, social justice has always been one of the Green's pillars, but I suspect we'll see a change in emphasis, and to some extent that will be due to the new leader. And to some extent also it's kind of dictated by the election outcome. Right, while the Greens failed in the House of Reps, they're actually much more powerful in the Senate than they were.
And you know, these two factors say to me that the Greens will you know, be focusing very heavily on what they can do in the Senate and first and foremost in the Senate, I would suggest, you know, we'll be getting better environmental laws, you know, working with Labor who were going to reintroduce what they call their Nature Positive suite of legislation that they failed to get through in the last parliament.
I'm glad you mentioned the Nature Positive laws because you know famously that negotiation was going well and was kibosh by the PM at the last minute. But we have a new environment minister as well, in Murray Watt. How do you think the nature Positive laws negotiations are likely to go between what and waters?
You're right, in the previous parliament, Sarah Hanson Young and Tanya Plebisek, the then Labor Environment Minister, formed a pretty good working relationship. They did actually make progress and reach agreement on aspects of the Nature Positive laws, and then they went to the Prime Minister's office and he kiboshed them, you know, largely at the behest or at the claimed behest of the w a premier. He literally claimed responsibility
for it. So going to the new parliament, Murray what the new minister is seen by the Greens as much more pro development and potentially pro mining an a fixer for the government. I mean, he's a deal maker. I spoke to Bob Brown about this and I'll quote him. He said, the appointment of Murray, what is a torpedo into the hopes of environmentalists right around Australia. It's confrontational by alban easy. So that's his view and I suspect if he's reading it that way, so's the Greens party room.
Bottom line here is Waters is going to have a tough job.
All right. So the big question Mike ultimately has to be can the Greens do this rebrand? Can they change tone without backing down from what they believe in? Is the inevitable product of a brand change a softer, less effective presence in the Parliament.
Well, there's certainly not painting it that way right. What they're saying is that they're here to deal with the government and they're here to be cooperative, but they're not walking away from the issues they care about. The broadview seems to be that they need to change their tone, not their policies. I spoke with another former leader, Richard de Natalie, who led the party before Adam Bann, and
the way he put it was that in terms of substance. Actually, the platform that they took to this election, which wasn't so successful, was the same as the one that they took to the previous election, at which they were very successful, and essentially the same as the one that they took to the election before that. So, you know, he said things like reforming capital gains tax and the negative gearing, you know, things that they've been banging on about for
ten years. About housing, he said, they're still going to be banging on about. It's really just a question of tone. And he made what I thought was a very good point. You know, he said that he keeps reading about how the Greens today are not the party of Bob Brown anymore. But he went back and pointed out that when it was the party of Bob Brown, he said, they fucking hated us just as much. That's a quote I should add.
That's not my obscenity, you know, he said, when Bob stood up and took on George Bush in the Parliament, remember famously, when he was a lone voice protesting against the way we treated the refugees on Tampa, the same people were out there trying to smash him. It was the same criticism, you know, that the Greens were too hard lined, that they were too inflexible. So Dina Tali actually sees this election as a bit of a glitch.
The way he interprets it and the way he said some people had explained it to him was that people were so scared of a Dutton prime ministership that they chose to vote Labor, you know, and Bob Brown, he made the point to me that Labour actually only received thirty four percent of the first preference vote and that its huge majority was built very much on the preferences from Greens and from Teals, all of whom are far more progressive in particularly on climate and the environment than Laborers.
So the government Labor needs the Greens. As much as they might hate the fact that they do, they still need the Greens. And I would also make the point that, you know, what goes up must come down in politics as in everything else, and governments inevitably disappoint. So it's entirely possible that by the time time of the next election some of the shine will have come off the Albanesi government and some of those rep seats the Greens either lost or narrowly missed out On could very well
be back in play. But in the meantime, I just think that they've probably made a wise choice in Larisa Waters, because it's going to be very hard for Labor for Anthony Alberanzi to portray the Greens as angry, you know, as people are looking at the open, friendly face of Larisa Waters.
Well, it's been a pleasure looking at your open friendly faces today. Thanks mate, Thanks for joining us anytime.
Cheers.
Also in the news, Anthony Alberanzi has joined other world leaders, royals and pilgrims at the inaugural mass of Pope Leo the fourteenth at Saint Peter's Square in Rome. Pope Leo is the first American pontiff in the history. Born in Chicago, the sixty nine year old was elected after a conclave that lasted just over twenty four hours. And the Liberal Party is divided over climate, according to senior front bencher Anne Ruston. Speaking on Insiders, Ruston said it's no secret
people in the party don't agree on net zero. Leader Susan Lee has committed to review the Liberal Party's entire agenda as right wing members intensify their push to scrap the target. Senator Jacinta nampenjimper Price has blamed that zero for causing the cost of living crisis. Meanwhile, Senator Alexantik said the target should be abandoned in order to appeal to the electorate. Dumping the target would end bipartisan political support. Are Michael Williams, This is seven Am. Daniel James will
be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
At one