Audio excerpt – Larissa Waters:

“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.”

MICHAEL:

Larissa 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.

Audio excerpt – Larissa Waters:

“I want to send all of my love as does our whole team to our former leader Adam Bandt. We miss him desperately and he was a wonderful leader for this party.”

MICHAEL:

Senator Waters’ 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.

Audio excerpt – Larissa Waters:

“People elected us to get shit done. And that’s what we intend to do… in the service of people and the planet.”

[Theme Music Starts]

MICHAEL:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Michael Williams. Filling in for Daniel and Ruby. This is 7am.

Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper Mike Seccombe on Larissa Waters: why she won, and whether she can rebuild the Greens.

It’s Monday, May 19.

[Theme Music Ends]

MICHAEL:

Mike, the greens have a new leader, Larissa Waters. So tell us who was she up against and how did they pick her?

MIKE:

Well, let's start with how they picked her. They picked her in a very Greens, 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 in a way than a papal conclave, because at least in a papal conclave there are votes. Often in case of Greens 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. The party room reached consensus that Larissa Waters was the one to lead. The two other assumed mooted candidates, Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi, pulled out. And subsequently, Faruqi 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 10 years before she went into the Senate working as a lawyer for the Queensland Environmental Defenders 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 suspects that she's underestimated and that we might be surprised at just how strong she can be once in the job.

MICHAEL:

Do you think Bob's right, Mike? I mean, you've reported on the Greens for a long time. What do you make of Larissa Waters?

MIKE:

Well, let me start by saying she's nice. She's certainly well-credentialed. She's got degrees in both science and the law, and the latter, the law degree with honours. She's dedicated to the Greens' 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 Plibersek. 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.

MICHAEL:

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 obstructionist, that they're angry and that that's this turnoff 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 right the ship?

MIKE:

Well, they know it's a problem, whether it's a fair characterisation or not is another matter, but they certainly know it is 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 how to vote cards.

Audio excerpt – Patricia Karvelas:

“My next question comes from Amaeze Enyi.”

Audio excerpt – Amaeze Enyi:

“So my question is to Senator Shoebridge.”

MIKE:

And you really got a sense of this, I think, on Monday night, where Q&A had David Shoebridge of the Greens on the panel. And one of the members of the audience stood up and asked a question.

Audio excerpt – Amaeze Enyi:

“The Greens have seen their support decrease during the previous term, particularly in electorates 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?”

MIKE:

Shoebridge, in response, talked about the need to work constructively.

Audio excerpt – David Shoebridge:

“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.”

MIKE:

He certainly didn't mention any names about pointing the finger at anyone for being obstructive.

But Labor's Ed Husic, who was also on 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 Husic and Shoebridge because Husic praised Shoebridge for being consultative in their dealings and then said, but there's a big difference between a David Shoebridge and a Max Chandler-Mather.

Audio excerpt – Ed Husic:

"David and I did have to work together and work together, I thought, constructively, on particular 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.”

MIKE:

Of course Mather was the rather hardline housing spokesman for the Greens in the last parliament and he lost his seat. After the election, of course, Anthony Albanese made a big point of calling him out for his, you know, quote unquote, offensive behaviour 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 booths. 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.

Audio excerpt – David Speers:

“How are the Greens gonna be different under your leadership compared with what it was like under Adam Bandt? Is there gonna be a bit of a change in direction, even a subtle one?”

Audio excerpt – Larissa Waters:

“Well, look, I'm a different person to Adam…”

MICHAEL:

Mike, both in her press conference and her first interviews as leader, Larissa Waters went out of her way to praise Adam Bandt, but then to also stress that she is, and I quote “a different person”...

Audio excerpt – Larissa Waters:

“But I am a different person and I bring a different style. I really wanna get outcomes. I really want to work with the current government, to try to improve…”

MICHAEL:

Why do you think she felt it was important to separate herself from Bandt and her leadership style from his?

MIKE:

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. They spoke, obviously, on the condition of anonymity. But under Bandt's 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, 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 the A team made the calls. I should note here, Incidentally, that the A Team included all three of the mooted candidates for the leadership, you know, Hanson-Young, Faruqui and Waters. So to some extent, that was the criticism of them, I think, as well as Bandt.

But I get the impression that the party room has made this known to Larissa Waters, 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 Bandt, 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.

MICHAEL:

After the break – why Labor needs the Greens… whether or not they’d like to admit it.

[Advertisement]

MICHAEL:

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 band. How well-placed will Larissa Waters be to refocus the party's attention on this area?

MIKE:

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 Bandt, and particularly Chandler-Mather, she comes more out of that stream in the party from an environmental background, as obvious from our 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. Social justice has always been one of the Greens' 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. While the Greens failed in the House of Reps, they’re actually much more powerful in the Senate than they were. These two factors say to me that the Greens will be focusing very heavily on what they can do in the senate, and first and foremost in the senate I would suggest will be getting better environmental laws, working with Labor who are going to reintroduce what they call their nature-positive suite of legislation that they failed to get through in the last parliament.

MICHAEL:

I'm glad you mentioned the nature-positive laws because, you know, famously that negotiation was going well and was kiboshed 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 Watt and Waters.

MIKE:

You're right. In the previous parliament, Sarah Hanson-Young and Tanya Plibersek, 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 largely at the behest, or at the claimed behest of the WA Premier. He literally claimed responsibility for it. So going to the new parliament, Murray Watt, the new minister, is seen by the Greens as much more pro-development and potentially pro-mining and 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 Watt is a torpedo into the hopes of environmentalists right around Australia. It's confrontational by Albanese. So that's his view, and I suspect if he's reading it that way, so is the Greens' party room. Bottom line here is Waters is going to have a tough job.

MICHAEL:

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?

MIKE:

Well, they're 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 broad view seems to be that they need to change their tone, not their policies. I spoke with another former leader, Richard Di Natale, who led the party before Adam Bandt. 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 ones that they'd took to the election before that. So he said things like reforming capital gains tax and negative gearing, 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. It's really just a question of tone. And he made what I thought was a very good point. You know, he says 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 the 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 the Tampa, the same people were out there trying to smash him. It was the same criticism, you know, that the Greens were too hard-line, that they were too inflexible.

So, Di Natale actually sees this election as a bit of a glitch, the way he interprets it and the way he says some people had explained it to him. Was that people were so scared of a Dutton prime ministership that they chose to vote Labor. And Bob Brown, he made the point to me that Labor actually only received 34 per cent 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 particular on climate and the environment than Labor is.

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 of the next election, some of the shine will have come off the Albanese government. And some of those rep seats that the Greens either lost or narrowly missed out on, could very well be back in play.

But, you know, in the meantime... I just think that they've probably made a wise choice in Larissa Waters, because it's going to be very hard for Labor, for Anthony Albanese, to portray the Greens as angry, as people are looking at the open, friendly face of Larissa Waters.

MICHAEL:

Well, it's been a pleasure looking at your open, friendly face today, Mike Seccombe. Thanks for joining us.

MIKE:

Anytime, cheers.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

MICHAEL:

Also in the news…

Anthony Albanese has joined other world leaders, royals and pilgrims at the inaugural mass of Pope Leo the 14th at St Peter’s Square in Rome.

Pope Leo is the first American pontiff in history. Born in Chicago, the 69 year old was elected after a conclave that lasted just over 24 hours.

AND

The Liberal Party is divided over climate, according to senior frontbencher Anne Ruston.

Speaking on Insiders, Ruston said it’s “no secret” people in the party don’t agree on net zero.

Leader Sussan Ley has committed to review the Liberal Party’s entire agenda, as rightwing members intensify their push to scrap the target.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has blamed net zero for causing the cost-of-living crisis, meanwhile senator Alex Antic said the target should be abandoned in order to appeal to the electorate.

Dumping the target would end bipartisan political support.

I’m Michael Williams, this is 7am. Daniel James will be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.

[Theme Music Ends]