Rita Panahi:
Joining me now is Institute of Public Affairs Research Fellow Colleen Harkin and PR Council Managing Director Kristy McSweeney. Colleen, I’ll start with you. The coalition’s primary vote was at record lows before the latest bout of this unity. We can’t just blame that. Hard to see how they can recover under the current leadership and current policy settings.
Colleen Harkin:
Well, I do laugh when I listen to what Jane Hume just said, because isn’t it us the punters who get to ask those questions or someone who’s been in parliament for a very long time, or to be able to succinctly tell us what it is that they stand for? I don’t think it’ll make much difference at all who the leader is. Sussan Ley’s reputation is clearly … It’s not sustainable where she is, but they’re looking for a messiah and it doesn’t matter who that person is. They’re not harnessed with the policies that voters need to hear. As you said, it’s not just the last couple of weeks that this has been an issue. It’s been for a few years where they have acquiesced to Labour Party policy. They’ve left space open and it’s no wonder that people are moving quickly and heavily towards One Nation.
So it won’t matter whether it’s Angus Taylor, whether it’s Sussan Ley, they have to get their act together. It’s like watching a slow train wreck with the Nationals joining back in without having resolved the major issues that they broke up over in the first place. The hate speech laws, energy policy, immigration, all of those things have not been addressed.
Rita Panahi:
They haven’t been addressed. And I’ve got to say, Jane Hume herself has been on the wrong side of so many of these arguments in the Senate, in her vote. She has refused to back any sort of transparency on trans policy, for example, when there’ve been votes to have an investigation, just to have an inquiry into what is happening in this country. So I think we need some self-reflection there as well. Now, the prospect of a new coalition that includes One Nation has been discussed, but it seems some Liberal MPs think that is beneath them. Listen here to Zoe McKenzie.
Chris Kenny:
That means One Nation ministers in your government. Would you be happy with that?
Zoe McKenzie:
At this point, no, I would not, because they’re a single issue party. I have no idea how they would vote in relation to important things like taxes in relation to corporations, law in relation to-
Chris Kenny:
Oh, come on. Come on. They’re not a single issue party.
Zoe McKenzie:
Their only point, you know they are-
Chris Kenny:
They’re focused on immigration. They’re focused on net zero and cheaper energy-
Zoe McKenzie:
And immigration and immigration and immigration.
Chris Kenny:
… and multiculturalism.
Zoe McKenzie:
Yeah, yeah.
Chris Kenny:
A lot on immigration.
Zoe McKenzie:
And Commonwealth is a broad, broad basket of tasks as you and I well know, my friend. What’s the view on trade, for example? We don’t know anything about them apart from the obvious ones in which they have been very loud, but they’re going to put candidates into every single seat in the South Australian election, so we’ll see what they have to say over there.
Rita Panahi:
Kristy, what do you make of that response? To me, it is so smug and condescending.
Kristy McSweeney:
Look, I think it raises some interesting points. One Nation have always been a fringe party operating with slogans and soundbites, and it’s really easy to grab people’s attention to operate with slogans and soundbites that obviously an increasingly number of Australians are wanting to hear, partly because the Liberal Party hasn’t come up with any policies or isn’t filling that vacuum and the Labour Party is ignoring it.
I think they’ve got a lot more professional over their 30-year history. I think they’ve got a much better architecture than they previously have had, but they don’t have a good track record of delivering policies and having policies costed in the sense that you can compete as a major party. But people are liking what they have to say in increasing numbers because both major parties are avoiding this.
Rita Panahi:
But isn’t it pretty smug and completely out of touch for a Liberal MP to plead ignorance, Colleen, about where One Nation stands on a range of policies. It’s not just immigration. One Nation had been far clearer on issues like climate change and energy policy than the Liberals have been who have been flip-flopping all over the place. On issues about free speech, they’ve been very clear. So this notion that they don’t have a policy platform, I think, is not an argument Liberal NPs can use. And when you’ve got their primary vote at One Nation sitting at 27% and the Liberals sitting at 15%, you kind of-
Colleen Harkin:
You got to take notice of that.
Rita Panahi:
You’ve got to tone down the smugness. How are you smug in that facing polling like that?
Colleen Harkin:
Yeah. And the One Nation is a 30-year overnight success. They’ve held the same position and championed the same causes for a long time. So people are very clear about what it is that they stand for. And the Teals and the Greens have been able to become quite successful without having the full kit of policies. There’s no reason why One Nation can’t hold that space as well.
Rita Panahi:
And we’re talking there about, she was asked about having a coalition with One Nation. So you’ve got a centre right coalition with the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation. If they don’t seriously contemplate that, they’re going to be in opposition indefinitely because Labour with their one in three primary vote are just going to romp it in.
Now, this poll should concern the Albanese government. Indeed, really anyone who claims to care about Australians. A new Gallup poll has found Australians are more worried about affording food and shelter than people in Zimbabwe and Nigeria. Kristy, 29% of Aussies named food and shelter affordability as the biggest issue facing the country compared to just 22% in Zimbabwe. I mean, for a first world nation, that’s not great.
Kristy McSweeney:
Look, it’s apples and oranges, isn’t it? But I actually think a lot of Australians, that 29% that you talked about aren’t looking at, is this a problem for us today? And it is, but they’re also answering those questions with a view down the track. Is it a problem in 10 years’ time? Is it a problem for my retirement if you’re my age? Is it a problem for when I want to have a family, if you’re a younger person? And they’re saying, “Yes, it is a problem.” And I think that’s compounding this view. Things just aren’t looking like they’re going to get better.
Rita Panahi:
No, it’s getting worse, not better, certainly. Now, Colleen, I wanted to get your thoughts on this next story. The University of Canberra has launched a postgraduate course focused on LGBTQIA+ policy and advocacy. According to its website, the course supports its students to challenge structural barriers and lead the design of inclusive equitable systems. Colleen, students will also analyse how policy impacts LGBTQIA+ communities and design inclusive reforms rooted in intersectionality and equity. Another name for communism equity, because we’re not talking about equality there.
I was shocked to see this was real. I saw that poster and I thought it was a bit of parody. I thought it was a meme. I actually went and looked it up and no, it’s all there on the University of Canberra website. It does exist and great detail about what you can learn. And this is a postgraduate degree.
Colleen Harkin:
Yeah. And it’s not the only university offering that type of course. RMIT has one, Sturt has one. And it goes to show you the level of activism that is being promoted in our community because these people, where they’re going to end up is probably in government jobs.
Rita Panahi:
Exactly.
Colleen Harkin:
And so this sort of circle that exists of self-servingness, and don’t forget that we’re paying for this. The taxpayer pays for this infrastructure as well, and this is what we’re producing, and they’ll be well sourced because they come out of a school system. It is also an activist agenda. So it’s not a surprise that these things are being promoted, but it is entirely unnecessary. We don’t need it. We don’t need this environment where people push this stuff through.
Rita Panahi:
If anything, we need the reverse.
Colleen Harkin:
Yeah, correct.
Rita Panahi:
We need to reverse engineer all this craziness in the workforce. So we need courses to how you sort of rid a workplace of all these DEI policies that only set you back. Now, let’s talk about this story out of Victoria, the Herald Sun revealing the co-chairs of the Victorian Indigenous Assembly will earn almost $350,000 a year. Elections for the state’s new indigenous entity called Geelong Wall will kick off in April with 33 members to be chosen to form the assembly. The general members will take home $197,000 a year. Those on high duties will receive an extra $29,000 and the co-chairs will earn $348,000. For reference, MPs elected to the Victorian Parliament currently received 211,000. Colleen, it’s not clear if the elected members who take positions will even be working full-time here.
Colleen Harkin:
Look, this Geelong Wall shouldn’t exist at all, right? It is an attack on everything that we have, the rule of law that has provided us with all of our foundations. But if I put that aside for a moment and just look at the shared dollars in this, we have seven million Victorians that are serviced by 88 MPs who get give or take 300 grand. There are 45,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Victoria, which means that each of those representatives are getting paid 300 grand to represent about … Was it like 4,000 people who voted, each representative-
Rita Panahi:
If they vote, because in previous votes, the participation rate has been-
Colleen Harkin:
Was really low.
Rita Panahi:
… so low.
Colleen Harkin:
4,000 people who are activated, which means that each of those Geelong Wall representatives is actually representing 130 people for the 300 grand that they’re getting paid. So our MPs represent about 75,000 people per MP. And so this disproportionate, like entirely disproportionate scenario, what they’re getting paid and how many people they’re representing.
Rita Panahi:
But more importantly, Kristy, is Victorians voted no. We said we did not want a third chamber. We were going to know to the voice. This is far more advanced than that. The Victorian government has just gone ahead with a state-based voice and a state-based treaty. And we’ve got this third chamber now with elected members earning quite significant salaries.
Kristy McSweeney:
Indeed, the Victorian government saw the overwhelming no vote in the voice and decided we’re going to forge ahead anyway. So far, they have spent hundreds and hundreds of millions establishing the framework and treaty just in administrative cost. And on top of that, we learned today from our colleagues at the Herald Sun, these extraordinary salaries. People voted no to the voice in Victoria and across the country because it represented the opportunity to send an elite group of people to Canberra, just like this will do to make decisions for the indigenous population, and wouldn’t those salaries be better off going into funding? The Victorian foster care system, for example, which is grossly underfunded in terms of looking after indigenous children. That money better deployed to actually help indigenous people.
Rita Panahi:
Well, yes, this is going to be helping the activist class.
Kristy McSweeney:
Of course.
Rita Panahi:
We’re going to become a lot more powerful and a lot richer.
Kristy McSweeney:
Of course.
Rita Panahi:
Let’s go to Japan and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has swept to a historic election win. Her coalition had a landslide victory on Sunday, but have her listen to this report from Sky News UK.
Journalist:
She has a very high personal approval rating. She’s got 2.6 million followers on X and the handbag she carries. Well, there’s now a year’s long waiting list to get one. But the flip side is that she’s also ultra conservative and ultra hawkish. She’s anti-gay marriage. She’s pro a patriarchal setup within the home, and she says that Margaret Thatcher is a key role model for her.
Rita Panahi:
The flip side really is silly British journalists doesn’t seem to understand why she is so popular, Kristy. It seems just incredible to her that an ultra-conservative politician could also be hugely popular. I have millions of followers and people wanting her handbag.
Kristy McSweeney:
Silly British journalists doesn’t understand why Margaret Thatcher would be a role model. And to so many people in Britain and Japan, obviously, and silly young journalists mentions handbag in the editorial when silly young journalists probably also writes several editorial talking about feminism and how women shouldn’t be spoken about in public life for what they’re wearing. I don’t understand that, Rita.
Rita Panahi:
No, never do I, Colleen. Takaichi is unapologetically conservative. She’s campaigned on freezing consumption taxes for two years. She wants to crack down on illegal immigration, dramatically increased defence spending. She is a big fan of the Trump administration.
Colleen Harkin:
Great.
Rita Panahi:
All of this is very triggering for the left.
Colleen Harkin:
Yeah, correct. I mean, we’re seeing this all around the world in Western countries and now Japan’s another example of where ordinary people want to see their country secured. They want to see family, conservative values, the reestablishment of who the cultural identity is. It’s a worldwide movement that’s happening and there’s a realignment and I think people are clapping their hands and saying it’s about time.
Rita Panahi:
Colleen Harkin, and Kristy McSweeney, thanks for your time.
Kristy McSweeney:
Thank you.
This transcript with Colleen Harkin on The Rita Panahi Show Sky News Australia has been edited for clarity.
