Rita Panahi:
Let’s bring in Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, Daniel Wild. Dan, it’s bad news for Labour, except for the fact that they still lead in the two-party-preferred figures, which is really what matters in the end. And until we have a firm conservative coalition, that centre-right vote is going to be fractured and Labour are going to win on a pitiful primary vote.
Daniel Wild:
Well, that looks to be the case at the moment, but there’s obviously a long time to go before the next federal election. So I think there’s a couple of things here. I mean, clearly One Nation’s not going to go away. They’re going to go up and down in the polls like everybody does, but the issues that One Nation are talking about, in particular immigration, which, as what you outlined, is the number one issue facing our country right now. And voters believe that One Nation is best placed to deal with that.
And look, the government tells us they’re cutting the numbers, but they’re cutting numbers from extraordinarily high levels, and they’re doing nothing whatsoever about the social discontent and the division that exists in our society. So immigration is going to stay as the number one issue for, I think, the lead up to the next federal election. So One Nation’s obviously shaking up the system, and I think that’s going to be with us now for quite some time.
Rita Panahi:
But they’re not just a one-issue party, are they? I think they’ve been dismissed as a party of grievance, as a party that really doesn’t have any standing or political philosophy, but it seems like the voters see it very differently to the political class.
Daniel Wild:
Well, I think what a lot of people who are backing One Nation want to do is to use them as a cudgel against the political system, which has largely failed Australia for the last decade or so. And so if you want to have change, then a lot of people are saying, “Well, you’ve got to get someone else in there.”
And you’re right, I think they’re broader than just one issue. Certainly if you’re concerned about woke, One Nation’s not woke, that’s for sure. And you mentioned the, I think, crime and policing and safety as an issue that voters trust them with. And I think one of the reasons they probably trust them with that is because you’re not going to get any DEI hires in the police if One Nation’s got anything to do with it. So you’re going to get some real policing happening, I suspect, under One Nation, which, of course, is a more of a state-level issue than a federal issue.
So it’ll be interesting to see in Victoria. Obviously, that’s one of the top issues in Victoria as we head to the state election. And that was mentioned today at the press conference. Senator Hansen talked about that. So that’s going to be front of mind for voters as well.
Rita Panahi:
And they’re very clear on their energy policy. Labor’s clear on their energy policy, and so is One Nation. I would argue it’s the coalition that seems a little bit confused where they have walked away from net-zero, but they’re still signed up to Paris, they’re still talking about emissions. And they’re not really clear on the fact that we need to get back to providing cheap, reliable forms of energy for Australians rather than destroying the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines.
Now, let’s talk about the ABC. They’re facing even more criticism for the disgusting fantasy filth they broadcast about raping and murdering Gina Rinehart. That’s what it was. Health Minister Mark Butler branded the segment on the Race Around the World programme revolting.
And Australian swimming legend, Dawn Fraser, has taken an aim at the Prime Minister for staying silent on the video. Dawn Fraser wrote, “I am sick to my stomach to think we have a government funded network, ABC, showing vile pieces to air about one of Australia’s greatest supporters, Gina Rinehart, and our vile prime minister has not come out and condemned the content. You are a spineless imbecile, Albanese, and you get more disgusting as the days go on. To let this vile crap on ABC go to air and not come out and say anything against it shows the incipient little degenerate you are.”
Dan, she did not mince her words there. She was very clear. And I’ve got to say, I think a lot of Australians would agree with her. I personally have a very high tolerance for dark humour, but humour has to be funny. If you’re not funny, and that material was not remotely funny or clever, it was grotesque trash, sick, violent fantasy. And there’s really no defence on of it. There is absolutely no defence of it.
Daniel Wild:
You’re right, there is no defence at all. And I think really the ABC has done itself in here. And in a way, them publishing this shows their true colours. And the fact that they’re not willing to apologise and correct the record on it just further reinforces that it’s a biassed organisation.
I mean, I’m in favour of free speech, and that also means that we’re free to criticise the ABC, point number one. Point number two is that it’s a public broadcaster. It is funded by every single Australian taxpayer, and so therefore it’s held to a different standard as a public broadcaster. There’s no way this should have gone to air.
But like I say, this is only going to further damage and erode the ABC’s already low levels of trust and credibility. We all know about the political bias in their reporting and their news segments as it relates to key issues, but clearly they’ve got an agenda.
And don’t forget, look, this is taking place in the context of an increase in left-wing violence across the world. We saw the murder of Charlie Kirk, the attempts on Donald Trump’s life. And I’m not trying to exaggerate this. I’m not trying to say the ABC’s calling for that. I don’t want to be misheard here, but you have to be aware of the broader context that this is taking place. And we have seen an escalation in left-wing violence across the world. This kind of stuff from the ABC is just totally out of line with Australian expectations.
Rita Panahi:
How it ever managed to make it to air without anybody, at least one writer, producer, performer, somebody taking issue with the material is remarkable in itself and just shows you what sort of an echo chamber exists there because this wasn’t live TV, this wasn’t something off colour that was said on live TV, this was a produced segment.
Now, Australia has entered a fourth straight month of falling house prices. National home prices dipped by 0.3% in July, with Sydney and Melbourne suffering the most, according to the latest data from PropTrack. In Sydney, home values are now 4% off their peak, while Melbourne is down by 4.4%.
And according to the expert analysis, the price drop has been caused by a combination of the budget’s negative gearing and CGT changes, high interest rates, and falling confidence.
Dan, that’s bad news. And I think it’s particularly green for Melbourne, which has had around seven years of practically no growth whilst other capital cities were powering ahead. So for Melbourne to continue to drop in that climate is really quite grim news for homeowners. For most Australians, their home is their biggest asset, and the values dropping is not good news.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, this can become a pretty big problem in the sense of if prices keep going down… I mean, this is true of any asset. If prices keep going down, people aren’t going to invest in it because they don’t know where the bottom is. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is, I think, what you’ve seen in Melbourne, although Melbourne is a special case of economic decline in Australia.
I don’t think prices coming down a bit is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we’ve seen crazy price increases over the last couple of decades, particularly in Sydney, and it’s spread everywhere now. But what you want to see is sort of a steady increase to house prices, maybe 2, 3, 4% per year, but you want wages to be keeping up with that. The problem is that house prices have grown way faster than wages, so young people can’t get into the market. So that’s a genuine issue.
But as you’ve rightly identified, when you have this combination of factors, that really signals a lack of confidence in the economy. So this could spell problems, bigger problems for the country if they keep going backwards at this rate.
Rita Panahi:
And you’ve got people who’ve borrowed enormous amounts to enter the property market, perhaps taking advantage of the Albanese government’s 5% deposit scheme. And now their asset is worth less than what they owe the bank. I mean, that is just a disastrous situation for people.
Before you go, I have to talk to you about this First Nations ambassador. The Albanese government has finally unveiled a written strategy for this role. The strategy outlines four main aims for Justin Mohamed, including deepening Australia’s partnership in the Pacific, elevating First Nations rights, diplomacy, and interests globally. What? Expanding First Nations trade and investment, and strengthening DFAT’s capability to promote First Nations perspectives internationally.
And that final goal, there’s also a goal, cultural safety, which according to a DFAT guidance note, includes ensuring that any engagement is free from unconscious bias, racism, and discrimination, and that it supports the autonomy and dignity of First Nations communities. Dan, kindly unpack all that for me and the audience.
Daniel Wild:
I don’t know if I can kindly unpack it, but I’ll do my best. I think, look, I mean, the first thing to point out here is total hypocrisy. I mean, how can you talk about cultural safety and unconscious bias and racism? I mean, this is the government that did the Voice to Parliament, for heaven’s sake. I mean, this was the epitome of dividing Australians by race. So if you want an example of division and unconscious bias, if you like, then just look no further than that.
But the other point is, well, why do we have a First Nations ambassador at all? We should have ambassadors for the whole country to represent our interests abroad. Are we going to go down the path of having different ambassadors for different racial groups to represent their interests? Is it his interests, or is it Australia’s interests? I mean, this is terribly confusing as to what exactly this role is supposed to do. So I think it’s just another example of a government that is obsessed with this nasty, divisive, sectarian politics that they keep playing.
Rita Panahi:
This role needs to be abolished. It should have never been created. I don’t think there’s anything else like it anywhere in the world. It is such an absurdity to have one group represented separately to the rest of Australia globally.
I mean, it’s confusing for those who are dealing with this office to begin with. Does this person represent Australia or just a small percentage of the country? And what if there’s a conflict between the goals? How does this make any sense at all or is in any way useful is, frankly, beyond me. Daniel Wild, thank you so much for your time.
This transcript of Daniel Wild speaking on News24 3 August 2026 has been edited for clarity.
