Luke Grant:
Now on weekends, the Sunday Suite. Looking at the stories of the week. And today I’m joined by the Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, a very good man, Daniel Wild. Good day, Daniel. Happy new year to you. If it’s not too late to wish you that.
Daniel Wild:
No, good day, Louie. Happy New Year to you too. Great to be back on with you.
Luke Grant:
And great news today in a poll, IPA research. I think this is wonderful because, mate, you’ll give us the numbers, but there’s a trend here. And a lot of us look at Australia Day and go, “Oh, wow. Why have so many people thinking this is something to be ashamed of?” But tell us about the research today, which for fans of Australia Day and think it comes with good and bad, we know that. But a lot of people are saying leave it the hell where it is, aren’t they?
Daniel Wild:
Well, they are. Yeah. Great news from this survey we released this morning, which asked Australians, “Do you believe that Australia Day should be celebrated on the 26th of January?” And you can agree, disagree to that question. And 76%, over three quarters have said that they want to keep it on the 26th. Only 10% have said they don’t want it and the rest are undecided. So this is very significant for a couple of reasons. One is that for a number of years, the support for Australia Day was trending down into the low 60%. And I was actually worried that we might lose it.
Or that a government might seek to change the date because there was a strong push for that. But over the last two or three years, we’ve seen support growing. And what’s so interesting is it’s really the youngest age cohort that’s been driving this. So the 18 to 24 year olds, 83%, 83 have said they want to keep the date on the 26th of January. So their support for this has skyrocketed over the last few years. And so exactly as you say, Australians just want to keep the date on the 26th of January because that is when modern Australia was settled.
Luke Grant:
So what are they doing? They’re rejecting the idea that if it’s Australian, you’ve got to feel bad about it because there’s something wrong about it. And those younger people are fresh out of or are still in the education system where you might imagine there’s just a little bit of Australia hate going on.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah. Yeah, you’re right. And this is why it’s so interesting. And we’ve actually seen this across a lot of surveys, whether it’s support for our national flag, our national anthem, the pushback against the ubiquitous use of Welcome to Country ceremonies, for example, which is the youngest age cohort, are the ones that are leading the charge. And I think a part of that reason is, as you identify, the education system is very biassed, particularly schools where they have a one-sided negative view of Australia and our history. But what we’ve seen with the proliferation of social media and digital content is there’s so much access to alternative information.
And so younger people are able to look at that different information and say, “Well, hang on a minute. What I’ve been told by the mainstream media or what I’ve been told by school, what I’ve been told at university isn’t actually the truth.” And so we are seeing this really sharp pushback against political correctness and this anti-Australianism. I think it’s just incredibly positive and welcome to be welcomed.
Luke Grant:
Yeah, I agree. It is very good. Now, the hate speech laws, Albo’s second capitulation yesterday, it was all about politics, Daniel, wasn’t it? Let’s take one big bill to the parliament, that’ll really upset the nationals. The other mob will look like they don’t know what we’re doing.and the government mishandled appallingly the aftermath to December 14, but it’s backfired spectacularly, hasn’t it?
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, look, it has. And this has been an abysmal period of time for this government and for our nation. After what happened at Bondi, we needed political leaders who would unite the country and who would actually be serious with the Australian public about what the problems are. Instead, this government played politics. They said, “We’re going to confiscate your guns,” because they know that people living in the country don’t vote Labour, they vote National, so they don’t care about them.
And then they said, “We’re going to do these so called hate speech laws.” But when you look at these laws, which they’ve now said they’re going to pull, at least for the time being, but it was just absolutely gobsmacking at the overreach and what this would have meant for our democracy. Basically, it would have allowed the government to shut down opinions that they disagreed with on the basis that it could cause, quote unquote, harm to an individual.
What does harm mean? Harm has been redefined to me in almost anything. It could mean your feelings. It could mean that someone said something you don’t like. And I think one of the most shocking parts about this legislation is it would have actually allowed the Home Affairs minister to disband certain groups if they were considered to be engaging in, quote unquote, hate crime.
But then again, when you look at the definition of hate crime, it goes back to a definition of causing serious harm to a person. So this means that the government could disband its political opponents. They could say, for example, “We don’t like Pauline Hanson, she did her burqa stand, that was causing harm to Islamic Australians, so therefore one nation can’t exist anymore.” Really, and I’m not exaggerating, you can look at the bill, that’s section 1148.3, just absolutely mind-blowing.
And we’ve seen what’s happened in the UK where the police come around, knock knock at your door, “How can I help you, sir?” “Well, you’ve put this thing on social media that’s causing someone’s hurt feelings, come and have a chat with us in the police station. Thank you very much.” I thank heavens they’ve pulled the bill, but I don’t think we can rest easy while this government’s in Canberra.
Luke Grant:
No, you’re absolutely correct there. And I do encourage my listeners to do that research and have a look at what happened in the United Kingdom. And what’s got me the whole period of time since December 14, I’ve been on air for nearly all of that time, is this was the deliberate targeting of Australian Jews at one of their religious observations at Hanukkah. And you and I have talked about this before, mate. For two years plus, antisemitism was tolerated and it wasn’t called out. The problem here was the antisemitic behaviour, the talk, and then radical Islam being involved in. Please aim at that and leave everything else for now the hell alone. But they tried to fix every problem. And again, they just haven’t focused on Jewish people, which I think is appalling.
Daniel Wild:
That’s right. And they haven’t focused on Jewish people and they also haven’t focused on mainstream Australians. And this, I don’t like calling it a tragedy because tragedy implies an element of-
Luke Grant:
Bad luck?
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, bad luck, but it wasn’t bad like. It was cold-blooded premeditated murder of 15 Australians based on their religious beliefs. And that happened in our country at Bondi, which is an international symbol of everything it means to be an Australian. Bondi and the Sydney Opera House are two identifiable symbols of our country and they’ve been sullied now, unfortunately, forever. The issue is not so much what people are saying, but that they believe these things. This is what the government hasn’t grappled with. We have thousands and thousands of people in our country who believe the things that they’re saying about Jewish people or about other people.
And the only way you can deal with that is to not have those people in this country. Now I’m not saying that’s going to solve all the problems. But just as one of your listeners said before, getting rid of the guns won’t stop drive by shootings, that’s right. And having hate crime laws isn’t going to stop people believing hate, preaching hate, and acting on it.
Luke Grant:
Yeah, that’s right. That’s exactly right. You can’t say, “Oh, you shouldn’t say that.” You should actually do something that indicates, you know what? They’re fair dinkum, this mob, and we never seem to get around to that. Look, I’ve got a problem with time. Can I ask you in 60 seconds or less, should Donald Trump be the President of Greenland?
Daniel Wild:
I’m not sure that he needs to be the President of Greenland. The US already has pretty extensive military rights over Greenland. It hasn’t been made clear by Trump as to why they need to take possession of Greenland to give effect to the concerns that is outlined. And I think the concerns is outlined fair enough. We don’t want China or Russia encroaching upon that land. Yep, I agree with that, but do you really need to take it or not? I’m open to it, but I’m not sure that that case has been made. And look, a part of this also, we have to understand, is a part of Donald Trump wanting to secure a legacy. In his own eyes, if he’s able to extend the US land mass, whether it’s in South America or whether it’s in Greenland, then he would probably see that-
This transcript with Daniel Wild talking on The Sunday Sweep Weekend – Mornings with Luke Grant 2GB from 18 January 2025 has been edited for clarity.
