Rita Panahi:
Joining me now for more on this is NewsCorp senior writer, Patrick Carlyon and Institute of Public Affairs research fellow, Colleen Harkin. Patrick, we’re talking here about higher rents, less opportunity for everyday Australians to get ahead through investing in property. Why would the government want to make the property sector less attractive for investors given they need investment to boost construction? This is a supply issue. This is something the treasurer has acknowledged, the prime minister has acknowledged, and yet they seem to be taking measures or contemplating taking measures that are going to affect supply in a negative way.
Patrick Carlyon:
Well, you’ve got to wonder whether this is just a brazen cash grab ultimately. It’s about raising more federal revenue. We keep hearing the word intergenerational banded around as though somehow old people have sort of hoarded all the money and this is unfair on young people. This is in part probably because voters are getting younger and younger and old people will die as they do. I think the devil is definitely in the detail on this. Whether it’s grandfather or not is critical, it would be wickedly unfair on those investors who bought in thinking these are the rules. And we do have that broken election promise, sort of overhanging all of it.
Rita Panahi:
Absolutely.
Patrick Carlyon:
The devil is definitely in the detail on this at the moment.
Rita Panahi:
Colleen, yeah, the argument there that this government has no mandate to be doing this because not only did they not take it to the election when they were asked about it, they ruled it out. But on a broader level, the bottom line is we need more homes. So why have policies that are going to mean possibly less homes, less investment in property?
Colleen Harkin:
And it is interesting when he sort of says it’s building trust and it’s like, how do you build trust by breaking trust? It’s quite Orwellian. But I mean, this is a scenario where give or take about 20% of mom and dad investors have one property as their nest egg. They’ve worked hard to get it. We should be encouraging that level of independence and investment in yourself and your future. It makes no sense to make it harder for people to not be dependent on the government. And the real challenge here is to what happens when those people don’t invest or they leave the market. It’s the institutionalisation of that sector of the market that the government takes it over. And so that aspirational ladder step into have a small investment, have a nest egg gets taken away from you. The other thing is, if you look back in the 80s when they did quarantine negative gearing for a period of time, it did result in, particularly in Sydney, for example, 20% increases in rent.
So we need to look back into history about what has happened in the past. There is evidence to say that this doesn’t work. It’s not going to solve the problem that they think it will. And it will only generate… I mean, money’s important, but it’ll only generate two or three billion dollars. So in the scheme of things, when we spend $50 billion on the NDIS, it’s not really going to change the dial. The dial that it is going to change is at the lower end of the investment component for people to become independent and the cost of rentals.
Rita Panahi:
It is, but it’s all about ideology, I think, with this government as well. I don’t think it is just a cash grab. They keep talking about intergenerational inequity and all these notions that are all centred around the politics of envy. And I’m interested on your take on what Home Affairs and Immigration Minister Tony Burke has had to say about housing policy. He did take a break from helping to repatriate ISIS brides to talk up his government’s immigration policies. And he argues that high rates of immigration actually improve Australia’s housing crisis. Try to work this out. The minister said, “We can’t build the houses we need without immigration. Economically, we need immigration. We need the skills. We need the people. About a quarter of the tradespeople that we need are born overseas.” Well, there you go, Colleen. Bringing in record numbers of migrants during a housing crisis is actually going to improve the housing crisis.
Colleen Harkin:
It’s insane, isn’t it?
Rita Panahi:
I love it when the immigration minister weighs in on housing.
Colleen Harkin:
Yeah. I like the fact that at least they’re being honest about their level of intelligence being applied to these issues. But the other component here is that IPA research will show that 54% of people don’t recognise Australia anymore. They don’t recognise the country that they grew up in. And 78% of migrants want less migrants in. They want captured about 100,000 year, which is what it was give or take 20 years ago. So the population is not supportive of his view and his comments to say that he disagrees with assimilation. I mean, it’s outrageous to say that the reason people come here is to continue the culture that they had at home. It’s not why they came. They came here because of what we offer, our shared values, our rule of law, all of those things that we bandy on about, but they’re the things that really do make Australia different. And that’s what people come here for.
Rita Panahi:
It was a really absurd position to take, Patrick, to say that he is against the term assimilation. People should be who they want to be. He said he’s also against the term melting pot.
Patrick Carlyon:
Yes.
Rita Panahi:
I don’t know how you could be against that. I don’t know how you could be against people from all sorts of backgrounds, all religions, races coming together and creating a new society that’s blended. I mean, does he want everyone… Because there are cultures that are not equal to ours. We don’t want people here who think female genital mutilation is a great idea or marrying off children is a great idea. Surely you should be able to say, if you come here, you should adopt Australian values.
Patrick Carlyon:
Look, I think at best what he said there is disingenuous because he’s basically saying, and he said Australia, assimilation means the complete loss of identity for the migrant. No Australians want that for the migrants. They want migrants who embrace our values of freedom, who believe that men and women are equal, who believe that it’s a secular society, and that religion and religious laws have no place here. That’s what we want as Australia. And to actually suggest, oh yeah, we want people to give up who they are is not what anyone wants at all.
Rita Panahi:
No, not at all. And to characterise the word assimilation in those terms, I think is, again, pretty false. Now, one nation is using former SAS commander Ben Robert Smith for its campaign in the Farah bi-election. The party has plastered his face on pre-poll booth posters alongside the message. “He fought for us. One nation stands with him.” One Nation spokesman said they were the only party, which has expressed support for Ben Robert Smith. And we’re making sure voters in Farah, where many veterans live, know it. Patrick, this is a risky strategy if you ask me. I mean, the media campaign against Ben Robert Smith has been enormous. He’s facing the most severe charges you can face. What do you make of this strategy by One Nation?
Patrick Carlyon:
Look, I think it is very risky myself. Look, you’ve had a defamation case that went for years. You have Ben Robert Smith, who is, at this moment, a defendant in a murder case. That’s what-
Rita Panahi:
It is by council.
Patrick Carlyon:
It’s a judicial process. It’s not a popularity contest. I think the manner of his arrest in public probably galvanised a lot of support for him. He was arrested in front of his children. I’m not sure that putting his face on polling booths during a bi election is actually a smart thing to do because you would know yourself as a journalist. Everyone asks you all the time, “What do you know about this that we haven’t been told? What do you think about it?” And everybody has a strident view. And some people are supporters and some people are not.
Rita Panahi:
The people who are veterans though, Colleen, seem to have a far deeper knowledge of this case, the investigation, how it all came about. So I guess One Nation accounting on that demographic, I don’t know how big that is in that particular electorate. But on the bi election, did the coalition expect to hold that seat? They have held it since its inception, but it doesn’t look like they’re going to be holding onto it after-
Colleen Harkin:
No. And on the Ben Roberts Smith scenario, there’s some great podcasts out there about the veterans speaking about what they know about it, which is quite interesting. And of course, it’s in the courts. So it is a risky move for One Nation to sort of present themselves so strongly on one side of making a decision when it is innocence until proven guilty, but none of that has been proven one way or the other yet. But look, I think it’ll be close. I don’t know. The liberals have held that seat for a very long time. There is, in bi elections, the opportunity for people to voice, what do you call it?
Rita Panahi:
Ejection.
Colleen Harkin:
Thank you. Ejection.
Rita Panahi:
And we normally do that against the sitting government of the time.
Colleen Harkin:
Correct. Yeah, not so much [inaudible 00:09:14].
Rita Panahi:
The coalition can’t blame that.
Colleen Harkin:
Correct. Yeah. And if you look at the [inaudible 00:09:16] bi election in Victoria just on the weekend, the party had a 10% swing against, which is significant. Even though they held the seat is still a significant message to the major party.
Rita Panahi:
That’s extraordinary in [inaudible 00:09:29], I think, to have a 10% swing against a seat where Labour didn’t even run a candidate.
Colleen Harkin:
Correct. Yes.
Rita Panahi:
I know they were all out there celebrating and this was the dawn of a new age. Labour weren’t even running. Blue ribbon seat. You had a massive swing against you. I don’t know what you celebrate.
Colleen Harkin:
There’s a low voter turnout as well. So that will change again come November when there’s a higher representation of people and the preference flow will change again. So there’s a lot to unfold yet in the next couple of months.
Rita Panahi:
Now let’s look at a poll where parents are calling for the government to invest more in child health saying they should be prioritising it over infrastructure projects. A Redbridge poll found 65% of parents believe the government places too little priority on children’s health. 70% of parents also believe children today are less healthy than previous generations, Colleen. Is this, I don’t know, some sort of a captain obvious research or push polling? What did you make of this starter?
Colleen Harkin:
Look, I mean, everybody wants children to be well, right? But when you sort of say kids aren’t as healthy as they used to be, to me, most of that lies with parents.
Rita Panahi:
Exactly.
Colleen Harkin:
Get them off the phones, feed them well, get them outside playing. It’s not something that a government should get involved with at all. From a financial point of view, I don’t know that we need to be raiding one can to pay for another. Infrastructure, for example, has been cited in that research and I don’t know that it’s necessary. There’s plenty of money. It’s just how it’s being spent. The government does waste a lot of money. Just quickly when you run the numbers on $50 billion in NDIS, the renewables transition, the suburban rail loop here in Melbourne, there’s a lot of money that is spent on things that are not great returns on investment, but the overriding attitude that I have to this research report is that most of it lies with the parents and the parents being able to do what they think is the right thing for their own child. Government doesn’t need to be involved in that.
Rita Panahi:
No. Patrick, the polling also found 55% of Australians, 65% of parents say that would be more likely to support a government that increases funding for children’s health research. Again, such a broad sort of statement. What is children’s health research? Exactly what? We’re going to put more stars and warnings on packaging. I mean, that’s worked so beautifully well, hasn’t it? I mean, the whole health pyramid that they sold to us was bogus, telling us not to have protein and have all these oats and carbs. Then we wonder why everyone’s so fat.
Patrick Carlyon:
Look, one of the case studies I brought up in this research was asthma and the fact that I think 11% of kids get asthma. There haven’t been any great sort of new research developments in the treatment of asthma. Perhaps governments should be doing more to sort of promote things like that, that are common problems that can be managed better. I think certainly here in Victoria, I think we’re all sick of seeing politicians at big infrastructure projects wearing hard hats and high vis and saying, “Here’s our monument to you.” But perhaps I tend to agree with Colleen a bit, taking from one to give to another. And they’re not mutually exclusive, are they?
Rita Panahi:
Patrick Carylon, Colleen Harkin, thank you so much for your time.
This transcript of Colleen Harkin on The Rita Panahi Show Sky News Australia from 5 May 2026 has been edited for clarity.
