Rita Panahi:
Joining me now is deputy executive director at the Institute of Public Affairs, Daniel Wild. Dan, the comments from the PM really illustrate that he and the rest of that cabinet lack economic nous, they lack business experience, and they seem almost hostile to the small business sector.
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right. They don’t understand how the economy works. They are either hostile, or at best, callously indifferent towards business. As you rightly say, there are precious few people around the cabinet table in Labour who have ever run a business, ever been around a business, have ever had to make payroll, have ever thought about investing in the future, and so on. Similarly, those in Treasury, the bureaucrats that are advising on this, how much business experience do they have? So, look, I think it shows that they just don’t get it. And the other thing that’s come through is that it is apparent that Labour still believes in this zero-sum game, that if someone gets ahead, then that means that someone else has lost out. Now, that’s just not the case in a free enterprise economy. Everyone can get ahead if your economy is growing. So I think, as you say, that these changes, the tax hikes have revealed a lot of naivety on behalf of the government.
Rita Panahi:
Now, more on this conference, the Victorian Labour Party conference has been slammed by Jewish leaders after delegates passed a motion calling for the release of a convicted Palestinian terrorist in Israel. Marwan Barghouti was convicted in 2004 for his role in directing deadly attacks on Israeli civilians in 2000. The motion called for the ALP to support campaigns advocating for this terrorist’s release. Dan, party delegates also voted down an amendment condemning the Iranian regime’s human rights violation. So they refused to condemn the Iranian regime killing tens of thousands of innocent protestors, but they want a terrorist released.
Daniel Wild:
Well, this is the Labour Party. I mean, this is the Labour Party grassroots. This is what they really believe. And so it’s there for everybody to see just how radical the modern Labour Party is. I don’t think that someone like Bob Hawke would recognise what the Labour Party has become today. Of course, if we think about Bob Hawke’s famous bicentenary address in 1988 where hundreds of thousands of people gathered to hear him speak at Sydney Harbour and look at where the Labour Party is today, it’s the party of division, of nasty sectarian conflict and politics. And not only have they obviously found Jewish Australians, but more importantly, they have found the entire country by their inability to unite us. They are more interested in playing the politics of this than getting the country together. And I think that’s what this conference shows.
Rita Panahi:
Now, we have more footage of the treasurer floundering hopelessly. And he’s floundering, Dan, when asked really fairly simple, straightforward questions about his own budget.
Jim Chalmers:
9 in every 10 people under 35 have got shares. So that’s not a tiny number, but it’s not a big number.
Billi FitzSimons:
You said 9 in 10 people under 35 don’t have any shares. Where did you get that data from? Because when I looked at it, ASIC says that one in five people under the age of 28 do invest in shares. So is it possible that this is more prevalent than your numbers suggest?
Jim Chalmers:
Well, the numbers I got are the most recent numbers from the Treasury. I’d have to have a look at why there’s a discrepancy between your numbers and ours.
Billi FitzSimons:
Because ASIC is a government agency.
Jim Chalmers:
Yeah, it’s an independent regulator, but yeah, understood. So I’ll check that out.
Rita Panahi:
They can’t get even the fundamentals right, the basics. They want people to invest in shares and yet they’re discouraging that by hiking up capital gains tax. And the treasurer’s own figures seem to be just terribly wrong. I mean, how can that be? How can he not know? And so dramatically wrong. We’re not talking about 2 or 3% either way. Those figures were dramatically wrong.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah. Well, I think what’s happened here is just he’s asked for a line from the Treasury to get him out of this problem. So they’ve probably given him something that he’s asked for and probably technically speaking, I’m sure you’d be able to deduce the fact that they’ve done it correctly, but they would’ve fiddled with the number somehow to get in the line that he’s wanted. I suspect that’s what’s happened here. But the broader thing here is there’s always been a sort of a discrepancy between what the treasurer has said and what his budget papers show. So he has said, “Well, this is going to be an ambitious budget about reform and intergenerational equity.”
But when you look at the budget papers, they say that only, and this is the government’s own numbers, 7,500 extra Australians will be in their own home per year as a result of the changes. So 7,500 out of something like 13 million households is close to nothing. Now, we can debate whether the numbers are right or wrong, but I’m just saying, are these changes big or are they small? One day, the government says these are going to make a big difference. The next day, they play it down and say, “Oh, there’s nothing to see here. We’re consulting and we’re going to do some carve out.” So they’ve been caught out here. They didn’t expect this scrutiny or this pushback and they’re not up to the task of defending what they’ve put forward.
Rita Panahi:
Well, it is unusual for this level of discussion and debate to be happening three weeks after a budget. We typically move on after a couple of days, but this budget has just been so dramatically at odds with what’s best for the country, and the majority of people see it that way. Consecutive polls have shown us that, that of course, we’re going to keep talking about it because the renters, let’s talk about renters right now, because Sydney tenants are being told to brace for a nightmare with new analysis showing the Albanese government’s axing of negative gearing makes owning an established rental unit in Sydney vastly more expensive for new investors. A flat is going to cost, on average, $20,000 in annual out-of-pocket expenses while an established house will cost on average around $65,000 in annual out-of-pocket expenses even after accounting for rental income. Dan, looking at these figures, it’s hard to fathom how the treasurer can claim that rents are all only going to go up by $2 a week. I mean, how is that even possible?
Daniel Wild:
Yeah. Well, I mean, that’s what I mean. When you’ve got, as I said before, those figures, that’s what they say in the budget, the $2 a week or when they talk about price growth, I think they said price growth will be 2% lower than it otherwise would have been. So is this meant to be a big change or a little change? Like, if they’re saying it’s only $2, because this budget was meant to be about ownership, right? It was all meant to get more Australians into a house, but if rents are only going to change by $2 a week, then that would suggest it’s not going to have much of an impact. But what we know is actually happening on the ground is that this is actually having a big impact.
So it’s quite funny. On the one hand, they’ve said not a big impact. They’ve said it’s going to be a big impact, then they said it’s not going to be a big impact. And now, what the community is saying is, yes, it’s a big impact, but in the opposite direction of what we’ve been told. So it’s kind of gone a complete 180 right there.
Rita Panahi:
This is why we keep talking about this budget because so much of it is counterproductive, even to what the government is claiming it wants to achieve, whether it’s tackling intergenerational inequity, whether it’s about making homeownership easier for first home buyers. How can something that impacts supply negatively, with supply as the number one issue with housing, be good for homeownership, be good for allowing first home buyers to enter the market. And when you take investors out of the market, you impact supply negatively. This is economics 101. I don’t know what they’re not understanding here, but to me, I think it’s more ideological. It’s not economic policy they’re applying here, it’s ideology. And we know labour is ruled by its socialist left faction and it shows. Now, let’s go to Victoria, and this is a warning for the good people of Bendigo. Jacinta Allan has been spotted going door to door in her electorate as polls show the Victorian premier could lose her own seat at the next state election.
Paul Dowsley:
It looks like a door to door saleswoman. And in a way, it is. It’s in fact the Victorian premier, Jacinta Allan, here in her seat, Bendigo East, knocking on doors more than six months before the Victorian state election, trying to secure votes, as internal polling reportedly shows she risks losing her seat at the election, a seat she has held since 1999. Is it a sign of desperation or dedication?
Rita Panahi:
Dedication. I wonder how often she did that in previous elections when the polls weren’t showing she was possibly about to lose that seat. It is desperate times, Dan, and people in regional Victoria in particular are angry.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, that’s right. I mean, I’ve got to admit maybe this is the cynic in me, but when you’re door knocking, one of the things you want is for everybody else to know that you’re door knocking. And so what better way to do that than get it on the nightly news. So I’ve got to admit, when I first saw this, I thought that Jacinta Allan herself or her office had actually given this to Channel 7 to put out there. So maybe I’m just too cynical about these things, I don’t know. But you are 100% right when it comes to the anger in regional Victoria.
And I think the big thing here is the net-zero transmission lines. This has been the single biggest issue in the regions, which has been, and you’ve had these people on your programme who are actually in regional Victoria who are landowners that are just being absolutely steamrolled by putting up these poles and wires and so called easements on their land. They have no rights at all. I mean, their rights have been taken from them. Some of them may end up going to jail over refusing entry to the bureaucrats that are trying to get on their land. So I think there’s absolute white-hot anger towards Jacinta Allan in her electorate.
Rita Panahi:
Now, before you go, let’s have a look at the latest episode of Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain series. Here, the prime minister tries to get Senator Charlotte Walker to help him sell the budget to young people.
Anthony Albanese:
I need to help to convince young people that this budget’s really good for them.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because they don’t believe it. They think we’re lying.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because we’re lying.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because we’re lying. Plus they figured out that negative gearing was actually a very powerful investment incentive that was just taken away from them. And then they figured out that getting rid of the capital gains discount had nothing to do with helping them get a house. And it was just a way for us to tax shares in crypto and business ventures as well.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because we need the money, Charlotte. We can’t stop spending.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because we’re bad economic managers and we’ve got no idea what we’re doing. Your Uncle Jim shouldn’t be the treasurer, he should be on the NDIS.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because he’s borderline retarded. He’s not even a doctor. He got his PhD in Paul Keating.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because universities are a scam. They’re just another vehicle for funnelling in more migrants with student visas. We can’t stop mass migration now.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because then, we won’t be able to hide that the economy’s completely stuffed.
Charlotte Walker:
Why?
Anthony Albanese:
Because I’m the worst prime minister this country’s ever had, okay?
Rita Panahi:
You can see why One Nation are winning the social media wars. They are in a different stratosphere to the Labour and the Libs. And Charlotte Walker there, of course, the 22-year-old. She just turned 22, Labour Senator. And Dan, the polling is going to be alarming both Labour and the Liberals. The latest from Redbridge shows that One Nation would win upwards of 59 seats in the Lower House if an election were held today.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, that’s right. I mean, even if those numbers aren’t exactly right, they’re definitely directionally true. And we’ve seen the South Australian election, where they can win seats and obviously, Farrer. The interesting thing is also, I remember the same people that put this poll out was saying that don’t worry, One Nation’s not taking any Labour votes. Well, yeah, so much for that, they are, and they’re taking lots of Labour votes. We saw that again in South Australia where you had a lot of outer suburban Labour seats went from 70/30 Labour Liberal to 55/45 Labour One Nation. So both sides of politics have something to worry about. We’ve seen this in the UK. This is almost exactly the same where Nigel Farage firstly took all the conservative votes and then he took the Labour votes. So this is not necessarily surprising, but I think the magnitude of the potential number of seats they could win now puts One Nation in a completely different category to what they were even just a few months ago.
Rita Panahi:
Dan Wild, thank you so much for your time.
This transcript of Daniel Wild talking on The Rita Panahi Show Sky News Australia from 25 May 2026 has been edited for clarity.
