Peta Credlin:
Let’s get into the other issues. I’ve got a panel now joining me, News 24 contributor Karalee Katsambanis and deputy director at the Institute of Public Affairs, Dan Wild, welcome to you both. Karalee, I want to start with Question Time today, they pushed really hard on the prime minister, who is still refusing to apologise for the crude and sexist gestures about the Japanese prime minister. Have a listen.
Angus Taylor:
Why won’t the prime minister stop treating us like fools, man up and say sorry to the prime minister of Japan?
Ted O’Brien:
Can the prime minister assure the House that neither his office nor his department leaked official and private correspondence from the government of Japan? The prime minister has now been asked three times why he will not apologise to the prime minister of Japan for his appalling behaviour on the Bush Deep podcast.
Peta Credlin:
All right. We all know what we saw, I think out there in the real world, people know exactly what they saw. And this defence by the prime minister digging in the defence by all these women in this front bench, saying it’s all been misinterpreted, I don’t think this is going to help him at all. This is not when Rudd went to the Scores nightclub, the strip club in New York, this is coming after a female counterpart world leader, it’s a very, very different thing, Karalee.
Karalee Katsambanis:
It shows a lack of respect to the Japanese prime minister, and it also shows a lot of arrogance and hubris midway through the second term. The thing is you can’t change what you don’t acknowledge, and the bottom line is, if Anthony Albanese doesn’t think that what he said and did is offensive, doesn’t matter how many times people try and point that out, he won’t accept it because there is no class to the man, and he is not a leader. The interesting thing to me is, Tanya Plibersek, as we know, seen as a long-term rival from the same left faction as him, she was left on morning television having to defend him. And we know that that’s a poison chalice, isn’t it? Because he dumped her originally from education, put her in environment, then dumped her from that, put her to water, put her to social services.
So, he’s got her right where he wants her. You’ve then got Katy Gallagher, the finance, who came out as well. Well, you know the alleged allegations before as being one of the mean girls. He’s got these women trying to defend him who in their own right have their own issues in the public eye as well. And I just think it is incredibly rude, because as we know with the prime minister, he has a history of this. That touchy press conference where he said, “Oh, for the 50th time, we’re not going to change to capital gains tax or negative gearing,” and he did. We’ve had the $275 energy bill credit, that didn’t come out. We’ve had the falling off the stage, “I stepped off the stage.” We’ve had the promise of him going to the Northern Territory to the Garma Festival, he hasn’t done that. And then poor Diddams.
He hasn’t had a day off in a year, so he went to take leave. I just think the fact that he’s not acknowledging this shows that he has something to hide. And regardless of what he says, he seems to dine out on the eyes of the world around Australia. Well, he needs to wake up and realise that our standing in the world, this is headlining around the world still. And the fact that he’s refusing to apologise is just disgraceful because he did say it, he did do it, the vision is there, and what can you say? He’s an embarrassment to Australia.
Peta Credlin:
Yeah, I’m calling him elbow sleazy, Dan, I think that’s one part of the problem, the other is this ridiculous defence by these women. I mean, I would not get out there and defend the indefensible. Wouldn’t matter what a prime minister’s office wanted to threaten me with, I just wouldn’t have that against my name. So, [inaudible 00:03:50] them and they are weak to do that. But I guess my biggest issue really with the whole thing is it’s the trust deficit. This bloke is a pathological liar, it’s now part of the narrative, Dan, about him. And this I think is really rich territory for the opposition heading into an election, because if you can’t trust anything this bloke says, how on earth can he be reelected?
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right. And I think also the point that you’ve made tonight and the other night was the hypocrisy of this all. I mean, just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if this was a centre right political leader, imagine this was Angus Taylor or Matt Canavan who made comments like this. You can imagine the reaction would be apocalyptic from the media and from Labour and from the Green. So, the hypocrisy is something that frustrates me and frustrates many Australians, in addition to the obvious gaslighting. I mean, this is what’s so annoying. We are constantly told by our political leaders, “Don’t believe your own eyes.” Whether it’s to do with immigration, “Don’t believe your own eyes.” Whether it’s to do with living standards going backwards, “Don’t believe your own eyes.” Or whether it’s to do with the actual words and the actions that the prime minister said, and the prime minister performed. Everybody knows what he was gesturing, everybody know what he meant.
Peta Credlin:
Of course they do.
Daniel Wild:
Just fess up and apologise and move on. And the fact that he won’t do that, for me, is the most frustrating and demeaning part of this whole episode.
Peta Credlin:
I know you’ve watched, Dan, very closely, all the numbers coming in from the ABS about migration. We’ve got a whole set of targets out there. Today, we got one in part from the coalition, from the housing shadow, Andrew Bragg, announcing net migration targets of around 180,000 people per year on average. Have a listen.
Andrew Bragg:
The shortfall between number of houses built and the number of people coming in is 350 to 400,000, about that, and so you need to have a norm somewhere around 180,000 to bridge that gap over the forward estimates period. That’s just the range.
Peta Credlin:
Okay. So, the non-slides in at that number, it’s 45,000 less than Labour in the short term forecast, and let’s not forget, they’ve never met any of their forecasts. And it’s 120,000 below what we saw in the actuals last year. Dan, bitter meat on the bones here finally from the coalition, what do you make of it?
Daniel Wild:
Well, that number’s way too high. 180,000 is way too high. We’ve had 1.5 million over the last few years, this is not good. And I don’t know why Andrew Bragg is announcing policy that doesn’t have approval. I mean, I interpreted this as a direct threat, a direct challenge to Angus Taylor’s leadership authority. Really, I think this is the first salvo in the next leadership spill against Angus Taylor. Why hasn’t Angus Taylor clarified this? Why hasn’t he slapped this down? Why isn’t Andrew Bragg being sent to the back bench for this? I mean, this is insane. Who’s running the party? Is Angus Taylor in charge or Andrew Bragg? I mean, Andrew Bragg himself said that this is not party policy, and that no one else supports the number. So, why is he putting a number out? Now, I get that his housing shadow, and yes, there’s a nexus between housing and migration.
And what Andrew Bragg said about housing was spot on, about cutting the red tape, about making sure we don’t gold plate and so forth. But I don’t understand why these numbers are being put out there if they’re not official Liberal Party policy. It seems bizarre to me. So, really I think that Angus Taylor needs to get in control of this. Because if they’re going to the next election with 180,000, and with a policy of multiculturalism, I can tell you what, people are going to be taking off their blue shirts and putting orange shirts on pretty soon, because those numbers aren’t going to cut it. We’re not in the 1990s anymore, we’re not living in the Howard era, we need a dramatic urgent corrective action. Immigration is a national emergency, it’s not just another policy. So, I just think the Liberal Party needs to get in front of this, otherwise it’s going to get away from them.
Peta Credlin:
Well, I’ve got Angus Taylor coming up, I’ll ask him pretty much all of those questions you just put out there right now. Let’s go to other issues. Work from home, of course, it’s big everywhere, it’s hitting office accommodation, Karalee, of course, in Melbourne, we’re told the equivalent of five MCGs will be left empty by public servants in Victoria. Money paid for them though, the rents paid on these buildings, and we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on empty public service offices and desks, when people aren’t even there. But it’s pretty bad federally too. The Department of Home Affairs, some 36% of them work from home, and in the health department, 61% of that workforce work two or three or more days a week it is from home. Karalee, any wonder the taxpayers are cranky?
Karalee Katsambanis:
Well, and so they should be. I mean, work flexibility, regardless of what your view may be on it, the fact that taxpayers are forking out for the Department of Home Affairs, 36%, as you said, are working from home, that’s about three days a week, the taxpayer is forking out $115 million in the last financial year. And at the Department of Home Affairs… Sorry, Home Affairs is 36%, I’m sorry, of working from home, that’s $115 million, but also at Department of Health, it’s 61% working from home, and that’s $54 million a year. Regardless of whether it’s 10 extra dollars or 100, that is an enormous amount of money that taxpayers are just shelling out for these empty offices, and the money could be better spent in other areas as well. And it’s not good. As I said, we’ve got in Victoria here, the premier Ben Carroll, he has got a lot of arrogance saying he’s going to pause his work from home legislation until July next year.
He’s not on track to win this state election in November. But all this working from home, you can’t have both. You can’t have the taxpayers shelling out for these empty offices when people want the work flexibility, because every taxpayer dollar spent has to be accounted for responsibly, and it’s not being.
Peta Credlin:
Dan, just quickly, the reform to the upper House voting ticket in Victoria, it’s been a long time coming. This is a really good thing.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah. Look, it could be, it depends on how it plays out. I mean, I’m always a bit concerned about something that could potentially limit the ability of other parties to get into the system. We know there’s a lot of frustration with the two major parties as it is. So, something that can limit the ability of third parties or independents to get in, I think should be treated pretty seriously, and with a bit of scepticism.
Peta Credlin:
Yeah, some of these have got… Sorry, we’ve got a bit of a delay, it’s hard to just jump in on that point. But we’re talking about some really microparties with one or 200 votes.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, that is true, and there is an issue with the never ending ballot, and how many people are on it, but I’d hate to think… I mean, we’ve got some good people in there, like David Limbrick, I’d hate to think that someone like him might get rubbed out or not get reelected because of this. So, I don’t know, I’m a little bit sceptical of when the major parties support changes of this nature.
Peta Credlin:
Oh, I like it, I like to see some of the rat bags sent to Coventry, but we’ll agree to disagree on that one. Thank you to you both.
This transcript of Daniel Wild speaking on News24 12 August 2026 has been edited for clarity
