Jason Falinski: The Libs should reconcile with the Nats. Just not yet
JF: I think that Peter Dutton performed really well, he kept the party together. He came up with some interesting policies. You know, we cannot underestimate the impact that Donald Trump had on the dynamics of Australian politics through 2025.
Fitz: Jason! I've sold you to my editors as 'a straight shooter'. I respectfully submit to you that saying Peter Dutton was a great choice, and he came up with great policies is not right. I mean, what were these great policies? I can name nuclear, which was a rolled-gold disaster, a cut in the fuel excise – which generated no fewer than 17 photo ops – and getting rid of working from home for the surviving public servants after they sacked 41,000 of them, both of which they caved in on.
JF: [ A little chastened. ] Yeah, look, [it did get tough] you're absolutely right. We ended up in a Mexican standoff with the ALP over who could give out more subsidies, and if you're talking about giving out subsidies, then the Labor Party is going to win that war every time, because they have more experience at it, and people believe that the Labor Party is going to do that much more than they believe we will. And so ultimately we got completely boxed in.
Fitz: OK, you now run a strategic advisory firm, whatever that is. We know you think the best advice you can give the Libs is they must say to the Nats, 'Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.' My advice would be to listen to their own Charlotte Mortlock who noted that the average Liberal Party member is a 70-year-old male, while the average Australian voter is a 36-year-old female. These days, you could probably make it into the Young Liberals as a 50-year-old, so long as you still went to Shore and wear a tie. It is obvious to me, that has to change. Surely their policy star from here, has to be what will bring in young women. Do you agree?
JF: Broadly. We've got to start reaching out, and bring more people of all kinds in. There's a great Reagan quote, along the lines of, 'We've got to stop talking to ourselves about ourselves, and go out there and tell the people that while we're fewer in numbers, we've got the values and principles you've been looking for.' And by the way, I don't think Charlotte's right, I think most Liberal Party meetings that I go to, it's actually probably 70-year-old women, and there are some older men, and to be fair they want younger people to come through.
Fitz: Indeed, a problem. The point has also been made that in the whole of NSW, the Liberal Party does not get a single harbour view, and along the entire NSW coast from Victoria to Queensland you have only one coastal view, in Scott Morrison's old seat of Cook, which has somehow held on!
JF: That's right, and that speaks to our challenge, and also speaks to why we must go our own way from the National Party.
Fitz: OK, so you think it shouldn't be a trial separation, it should be a divorce, with a custody battle over who must take Barnaby?
JF: [ Laughs. ] No. I do hope the couple can still get back together, but before they can, they need to deal with the fundamental issues that have driven those problems. And I don't think we should just reconcile with the Nats just because it looks better. I think we should reconcile only after we've dealt with the fundamental issues underlying the problems that we face. We Liberals now need to go and do the hard, arduous work of talking to and being in dialogue with the Australian people, so that in a year's time, when we start coming up with ideas, we have a far better understanding of what problems and what challenges they're facing. Then, and only then, should we come back together and talk to the Nationals to see what they've come up with. But I repeat: If we don't develop polices for our natural constituencies in the big cities, we will be completely lost.
Fitz: Aren't you already lost? Laura Tingle has said that, basically, the Liberal Party's manoeuvred itself to be little more than an observer in the current House of Reps and that's fair. Without the Nats, you're hobbling around on one leg, and can't really run a proper campaign in an election.
JF: I don't agree with you or Laura. We're still the official opposition party in the lower house and in the Senate regardless of whether we're with the National Party or not. What we need to do most of all now is look after our patch, and let the Nats go and look after theirs.
Fitz: Do you agree that, whatever happens, David Littleproud's crazy-brave insistence that nuclear must stay on the table is batshit crazy when you went to the polls with that as your major policy, only to come up – dot three, carry one, subtract heaps – 50 seats behind! Can you explain how it is even possible for the Libs to get back together with the Nats if they are stuck with that insane policy?
Loading
JF: Look I think it is batshit crazy to lock it in for another three years without actually undertaking a fundamental review of it. But there actually is an argument that as everything turns electric, the demand for electricity will be five times what it is now, and we will only be able to meet those demands in 2050 by having nuclear as part of it. You may be right that we can do all of this on renewable energy, but there is no one else in the world that is saying that. At the moment we're relying on coal to make up the difference, but it might have to be nuclear in the end. I don't think 'nuclear with government subsidies', but you could allow market forces to come into play.
Fitz: On the subject of coal, you were a strong voice against Matt Canavan's contention in 2021 that our future was coal, coal, coal. Yet I remember a recent controversy where the lobby group you are involved with, Australians For Prosperity, took $725,000 from coal interests?
JF: Sure. Coal Australia is a major supporter of mining in Australia, and they represent a lot of mining communities, and yeah, they did donate money to us to help us to stand up for economic policies that are about driving prosperity in the Australian community, and I don't think we've had a lot of that in the last generation, and it's something we've got to get back to. Our group was founded on the proposition that there's too much time spent in Australian politics talking about social and cultural issues, and how do we divide the cake? And no one – or very few people in Australian politics these days – talks about, how can we actually grow the cake so everyone gets a little bit more than they've got, or a lot more than they've got at the moment.
Fitz: Traditionally, that is the argument made by the Liberal Party. To finish though, is it possible that the Coalition is just … done? You know, that all of the debate, all the manoeuvres of the next three years is no more than a 'bouncing of the rubble', because the whole thing has collapsed in on itself?
JF: [ Long pause. ] It's possible, but improbable. For now, we need to re-engage with our people, and listen to them – and let the Nats do the same. Then and only then should we even contemplate re-forming the Coalition. Regardless of what happens, a lot of people in this country want the government to promote fairness and stand up for the right and freedoms of individuals. If we want to survive and thrive, that is what we need to do.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
5 hours ago
- West Australian
Mark Riley: Families of teen victims call for tougher laws as government focuses on age, not algorithms
Some people we meet look into our eyes, and we see them. Others do it in a way that allows us to see right into the very heart of them. Robb Evans, Emma Mason and Mia Bannister did that on Wednesday morning as they sat in the Prime Minister's suite at Parliament House, waiting to take part in an announcement they hoped would prevent the eyes of other parents from becoming windows to the boundless agony of losing a child. Robb Evans carried that pain with him as he cradled an urn containing the ashes of his daughter, Liv. She died of anorexia in April 2023. She was 15. It was important to Robb that Liv was there at that moment. Emma Mason's daughter, Tilly, and Mia Bannister's son, Ollie, were there in spirit, too. Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells could see them in their mothers' eyes. Tilly and Ollie both took their own lives. Tilly died in February 2022. She, like Liv, was 15. Ollie died in January 2024. He was just 14. All three teenagers had suffered through years of online torment and abuse. For those of us huddled against the Canberra cold in the Prime Minister's courtyard that morning, their presence could be felt as the next phase of the Government's social media ban for under-16s was laid out. It is far from perfect. Its impact will be real. But it will be limited. Kids, being kids, will get around it. But it tells social media giants that Australian legislators are determined to force them to accept responsibility for the vile, misleading and downright dangerous content their algorithms spew before susceptible young minds. Most of the companies say the right things. But they appear to do little. That's principally because governments have not yet found a way to hold them legally responsible for the treacherous rubbish their sites publish and broadcast. Scott Morrison tried. He proposed anti-trolling laws in 2021, partially as a response to the supercharged torrent of online abuse that flooded social media during COVID. Despite attracting the in-principle support of world leaders at various international forums, his domestic push failed. The intention was laudable. The legislation, though, was deeply flawed. Lawyers warned it would undermine existing defamation laws, human rights advocates said it would impinge on individual freedoms and eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant cautioned that it would be impossible to 'arrest or regulate our way out of online abuse'. So, legislators went back to the drawing board and came up with the under-16s ban. It is hailed as a world-first piece of legislation. The fact that the social giants dislike it so much probably tells us that it will have some impact. And it brings some relief to the hearts of grieving parents. 'Ollie, Tilly and Liv. Their lives mattered,' Mia Bannister declared. It was a deeply touching moment. But I and others were struck by the penetrating feeling that Ollie, Tilly and Liv deserved something more. This reform only treats one side of the issue. The ban is on children, not the content. The legislation threatens the media giants with fines of up to $50 million if they allow under-16s to operate accounts. The objective is to let kids access social media only in a logged-off state so the algorithms can't curate a dangerous diet of content based on their profiles. But it doesn't stop that content from being published or broadcast in the first place. Nor does it stop the kids from finding it without having to log in. We stop 15-year-olds from using assault rifles by banning the kids and the guns. But we don't do that online, where words are too often used as weapons. Any mainstream media outlet that published or broadcast such dangerous content would be put straight up before the regulators and the courts and face having its operating license ripped up. Quite rightly. But social media sites publish and broadcast this dangerous rubbish every second with apparent impunity. I asked Anika Wells when governments would stop the platforms from allowing this stuff to be posted in the first place. She said that question was 'ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer'. But it's not. It is for governments. And until governments find that answer, ministers and prime ministers and the rest of us will continue to look through the eyes of shattered parents and into the misery of broken hearts that will never mend. Mark Riley is the Seven Network's political editor
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Endless debate' rages on in parliament over net zero
Sky News host Paul Murray discusses the 'endless debate' raging on in Australian parliament over net zero. 'The endless debate as people are ripping themselves in half about net zero, do we keep it, do we get rid of it? It is a little bit of a Goldilocks question for some in parliament right now,' Mr Murray said. 'We have people who are, of course, pushing said policies who, when asked about the benefits of them, won't answer.'
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Explosion in humiliation': Albanese and Rudd avoiding Oval Office meeting with Trump
Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger discusses Australian tariff rates as the United States President proposes to hike baseline rates by up to ten per cent. 'What I know for certain is this, Albanese will not appear in the Oval Office with Donald Trump,' Mr Kroger told Sky News host Rita Panahi. 'The Australian government will not allow Kevin Rudd to be in the same room as President Trump, given what Rudd has said about Trump. 'It would be potentially an explosion in humiliation, a lesson in humiliation if JD Vance or Rubio says to Kevin Rudd in the meeting, 'aren't you the bloke who called President Trump here a threat to democracy'.'
