Latest / The Morning Edition / What One Nation’s WA win means, and Hanson’s incitement claim

Transcript

What One Nation’s WA win means, and Hanson’s incitement claim · The Morning Edition

0:01
S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and you're listening to Inside Politics from
0:04
S1: the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
0:07
S1: Today we're beaming in a very special guest from Western
0:10
S1: Australia to tell us all about the peculiarities of last
0:13
S1: weekend's state by election for the seat of Secret Harbour.
0:16
S1: The previously safe seat was, of course, won resoundingly by
0:19
S1: One Nation's Luke Hartigan. And thankfully we have Hamish Hastie,
0:22
S1: the state political reporter for WHA to explain the result
0:26
S1: to us. Welcome, Hamish.
0:28
S2: Hi. Thanks for having me.
0:29
S1: And of course, joining me as usual, we have our
0:32
S1: chief political correspondent Paul Circle in the Canberra studio. So
0:35
S1: hello to both.
0:36
S3: Morning guys. Good to have you Hamish.
0:38
S1: Yeah. Hamish, it's so lovely to have you here to
0:41
S1: translate wa politics for us. So basically to catch listeners up,
0:45
S1: Luke Hartigan won a primary vote of nearly 40% in
0:47
S1: the by election, which is a primary vote that the
0:50
S1: other major parties would absolutely kill for. And he beat
0:53
S1: the labor candidate, George Petrie, by about 3600 votes. Give
0:56
S1: or take. It's a rather spine tingling result for Labour
1:00
S1: and One Nation's way. Leader Rod Cadis declared that there
1:04
S1: were now no safe Labour seats in this state or
1:06
S1: in this country any more. Can you tell us, Hamish,
1:09
S1: a little bit about the seat? First of all, what
1:11
S1: is what what are the voters of Safe Harbour like?
1:14
S2: Yeah. This is, um, this is a classic outer suburban electorate.
1:18
S2: It's 50km south of Perth on the coast. High growth,
1:22
S2: firmly mortgage belt, lots of blue collar workers, very Anglo-Saxon. Uh,
1:26
S2: it's been held by labor and its various iterations since
1:29
S2: the 1980s. It's been one of Labor's safest seats as well. Um,
1:33
S2: before he resigned, the former MP there, Paul Papalia, held
1:37
S2: the seat comfortably with a 17% margin, uh, at the
1:41
S2: last election. And in the 2021 landslide election, his primary
1:45
S2: was 76%.
1:46
S1: Wow.
1:47
S2: The One Nation primary at the last election was 8%,
1:49
S2: which kind of shows you that there was a bit
1:50
S2: of resentment bubbling under the surface. Um, but this election,
1:54
S2: they were out loud and proud.
1:56
S1: Tell us about the Labour candidate, George Tree. Was she
1:59
S1: a good candidate to go up against the sort of
2:01
S1: anti-establishment figure?
2:03
S2: In short, no. And she was very Labour establishment former staffer. Um,
2:09
S2: it was a real misstep for the WA Labour Party,
2:12
S2: which in the past, particularly at a federal level, has
2:15
S2: picked pretty good candidates that reflect their, you know, the
2:19
S2: electorates that they're going for. She was a Woodside government
2:23
S2: relations or lobbyist. Lots has been made about that. I
2:26
S2: don't I don't think her connection to the resources sector
2:29
S2: was a hindrance in that electorate because it is a.
2:33
S2: There would have been a lot of Fifo workers, a
2:34
S2: lot of people in the resource industry or adjacent to that.
2:38
S2: I think the biggest issue that she faced was that
2:41
S2: she felt like a labor plant. You know, she was
2:45
S2: a former staffer. She grew up in the area. But, um,
2:49
S2: almost immediately after she was picked, it turned out and,
2:53
S2: you know, the liberals hammered this, that she lived in
2:56
S2: a city in a city, Perth in a $1.4 million house. Um.
3:00
S2: She said she planned to move back into the area
3:02
S2: if she won. But, you know, that just didn't win
3:05
S2: over voters. I think former Labour voters on the fence
3:09
S2: about voting one nation. That could have been a pretty
3:12
S2: deciding factor for them.
3:13
S1: Yeah. And what about Luke Herdegen? He's a local guy. Um,
3:17
S1: tell us a little bit about him.
3:18
S2: Yeah. He didn't live in the electorate either. Um, but
3:21
S2: he was pretty close. He's actually from New South Wales.
3:24
S2: He moved here in 2023. His main pitch to voters
3:28
S2: was that if you're fed up with labor at a
3:30
S2: state or federal level, particularly a federal level, um, vote
3:34
S2: for me. And that resonated.
3:38
S1: Yeah. He didn't really need to do much more than that.
3:40
S1: And you said before we went on air, you were
3:42
S1: talking about how the voters that you spoke to going
3:45
S1: into the polling booths were not sort of slinking in
3:47
S1: there and quietly marking One Nation on the ballot. They
3:50
S1: were really, really out and proud about being one nation
3:52
S1: and sticking it to federal labor or state labor.
3:55
S2: They were. Yeah, I was, I was, uh, I visited
3:58
S2: many booths on the day. Um, and, you know, there
4:01
S2: were lots of high fives, lots of clapping, lots of, um, yelling, go, Pauline. Uh,
4:06
S2: it was a very different, it was a very different
4:09
S2: experience to the 2020 election, which was only 17 months ago.
4:15
S2: And I had a, a labor minister tell me that
4:18
S2: they've never seen so many people take one nation how
4:20
S2: to vote cards.
4:21
S1: Yeah. Interesting. And what's the shakeout been from the result,
4:24
S1: which was so resounding? How worried are the labor figures
4:27
S1: that you're talking to in WA? Sort of all the
4:29
S1: way up to the Premier's office.
4:31
S2: Um I think the feeling is that there's a lot
4:33
S2: of water to go under the bridge to the 29
4:36
S2: state election. Um, so I don't the strategists here aren't
4:41
S2: too concerned. Um, I think there is a feeling among
4:44
S2: the party that it, you know, it was a classic
4:47
S2: by election protest vote. It just so happens that it
4:49
S2: was one nation this time instead of the liberals. Um,
4:53
S2: Roger Cook's job is safe. Um, but that that 8%
4:56
S2: primary figure for me in the 2025 election, that's the
5:01
S2: magic number. Um, for other state MPs that should be
5:05
S2: worried about, um, you know, any discontent turning into, uh,
5:10
S2: a surging One Nation vote at the 29 election? I
5:13
S2: think there's there are a few out of suburban Labour MPs, um,
5:17
S2: who are sweating. I think the real concern is what
5:20
S2: it means federally. So Anthony Albanese's presence loomed large over
5:24
S2: this election.
5:25
S1: Yeah. Paul, let me let me bring you in on that.
5:27
S1: How are people talking about the result in Canberra? Is
5:29
S1: it being seen as a little bit of a protest,
5:31
S1: sort of a straight up protest vote against the federal
5:34
S1: government and against Albanese? Or are people putting the result
5:37
S1: down to local factors? Because the scary thing for labor, surely,
5:40
S1: is that Luke Hartigan literally had no policies. He almost
5:44
S1: made a virtue out of that. He was like, we
5:45
S1: don't have a policy platform for WA One Nation. So
5:50
S1: it was just just vote for me because you want
5:53
S1: to send a message to the government.
5:54
S3: Well, as Hamish was pointing out, there was a feeling
5:58
S3: among Labour people that this was almost the perfect set
6:01
S3: of circumstances for One Nation. Uh, if there was to
6:04
S3: be a by election in almost all of Australia at
6:06
S3: the moment is a it's a seat time for a
6:10
S3: one nation surge, very high. British, South African, New Zealand
6:14
S3: born population in a state where of all states, WA
6:18
S3: is the furthest away from an election. As Hamish said
6:20
S3: in 29, the Liberal Party in WA hasn't even really
6:23
S3: started formulating a message to counter One Nation. In fact,
6:26
S3: their state leaders, Basil Zempilas, former football commentator, has been
6:30
S3: quite accommodating big state labor majority. So it was perfect
6:34
S3: for a protest vote and in that regard probably won't
6:37
S3: be remembered by the time of the 29 state election
6:40
S3: or the 28 federal election. But even though it may
6:43
S3: not have ongoing implications by election, is just like opinion
6:46
S3: polls do act as point in time litmus tests, and
6:51
S3: what this result shows is a nearly 40% primary vote.
6:53
S3: That's nothing to be sniffed at. Similar to the fairer result,
6:57
S3: most federal liberals probably thought Farrah was going to be
7:00
S3: around a high point, and perhaps one nation would have faded.
7:03
S3: Well they haven't. There is some signs of a federal
7:06
S3: fade off in Victoria. There is a fade off, but
7:08
S3: there's that. That 40% vote shows that there is a
7:12
S3: strong sentiment, a negative sentiment towards the kind of cosmopolitan,
7:17
S3: professional political elite. People want to send a message. Whether
7:21
S3: or not that fades off is a, you know, a
7:23
S3: question that will remain will go unanswered for a while.
7:26
S3: And Victoria will be the first big, real test of
7:28
S3: One Nation's support. But the by election was was a
7:31
S3: stunning result.
7:33
S1: Hamish, there's a substantial overlap between the seat of the
7:36
S1: state seat of Secret Harbour and the federal seat of Canning,
7:38
S1: which of course is held by Liberal Frontbencher. And I
7:41
S1: think we could probably say Liberal sort of leadership aspirant
7:45
S1: Andrew Hastie. And we know that hasty is a particular
7:48
S1: sort of hate figure for One Nation and for One
7:50
S1: Nation backer Gina Rinehart, mostly because of his involvement in
7:53
S1: the case against Ben Roberts-Smith. Hastie must be pretty worried.
7:58
S1: Are you hearing anything about that?
8:00
S2: Yeah, and I have to point out that I am
8:02
S2: no relation to Andrew. Um, uh, but.
8:05
S3: It's important.
8:06
S1: That you're aware of that you're aware.
8:08
S2: Of maybe way back. Um, he's absolutely worried, uh, and
8:12
S2: has caused plenty of friction within the liberal establishment here, um,
8:17
S2: because of the threat that One Nation poses to his job.
8:20
S2: And as Paul mentioned, um, you know, Basil Zempilas kind
8:24
S2: of accommodating one nation during this by election by preferencing them, um,
8:29
S2: quite highly on their how to votes, you know, he
8:33
S2: Hastie called that out. He, he accused the zempilas and
8:37
S2: the wa party of waving the white flag and he
8:40
S2: took um a personal offence at um zempilas declaring that
8:45
S2: any loss for labor is a win for the state
8:49
S2: and the conservative side of politics. So he wants his
8:53
S2: party to, you know, consider one nation as the biggest
8:57
S2: enemy right now.
8:58
S3: Just to add to that, I was in WA earlier
9:00
S3: last week with the Prime Minister's people who were over
9:03
S3: there for a quick trip, and I was talking to
9:05
S3: some Liberal strategists down there who you probably talk to
9:07
S3: lots more than me, Hamish, but they were saying that
9:10
S3: on the doors as they've been door knocking through Secret Harbour,
9:12
S3: quite a substantial proportion. I wouldn't say I'm not saying
9:15
S3: a majority, but a substantial number of people who have
9:18
S3: defected from the coalition to One Nation proactively raise Andrew Hastie.
9:22
S3: They've been caught up in the debate over Ben Roberts-Smith.
9:26
S3: The West Australian media is obviously significantly pro Ben Roberts-Smith
9:29
S3: and Kerry Stokes and Gina Rinehart, and this is filtered
9:32
S3: down to a local level. So even more reason to
9:35
S3: be worried for Hastie there. He feels like he's on
9:37
S3: the right side of the moral argument, and perhaps many
9:39
S3: on the East Coast would agree. Certainly our media company
9:42
S3: would probably agree, given our role in that story. But
9:45
S3: it's turned into a problem for conservatives.
9:47
S1: Yeah. And there's also a sort of bigger fight, I suppose,
9:50
S1: a more existential fight at the federal liberal level, which
9:53
S1: is how do we take on One Nation? And Andrew
9:55
S1: Hastie has very, very specific views about that, that it
9:57
S1: should be a sharp attack. And as we saw in
10:00
S1: the WA election, the Liberal leader there had a much
10:03
S1: softer approach and it didn't didn't work. So that's an
10:06
S1: interesting one that will keep abreast of Hamish. Thank you
10:09
S1: so much for joining us and for sort of translating
10:12
S1: the West to us. You're a long way away, but
10:14
S1: it's really good to have you on the podcast and
10:16
S1: we hope to have you back.
10:17
S2: Thanks for having me. It's nice to not talk about
10:19
S2: GST for once.
10:22
S1: We yeah, we don't talk about GST on this podcast.
10:25
S3: Are you satisfied? Have you guys got enough tattooed arms
10:28
S3: now do you believe the prime Minister Hamish.
10:30
S2: Uh, I think we do. Yeah. Yeah. We like our
10:34
S2: roads without potholes.
10:36
S1: Yeah. Yeah. Don't we all.
10:37
S3: Well enjoy in Victoria.
10:39
S1: Enjoy our largesse over there in the Western States.
10:42
S2: We shall.
10:43
S3: Thanks, Hamish. Thank you.
10:53
S1: Paul, I want to talk about the Labour versus One
10:55
S1: Nation match up more generally because on Sunday, Anthony Albanese
10:59
S1: spoke to the Queensland Labor Conference and he made a
11:02
S1: very sharp attack on One Nation. He said that across
11:04
S1: the world, hard right populists are on the march peddling politics.
11:07
S1: That's dangerous, divisive and downright dishonest. It's a lot of
11:10
S1: alliteration there, and specifically about One Nation. He said that,
11:14
S1: you know, they think Australians are lazy and overpaid, that
11:17
S1: people working from home are bludging, that domestic violence is
11:20
S1: sometimes a woman's fault. And it's obvious that one nation
11:23
S1: is not on the side of working people. And then
11:26
S1: Pauline Hanson came out and attacked Albanese for that rhetoric.
11:30
S1: Can you tell us what she said exactly?
11:33
S3: Yeah. So as you said, the Prime Minister, the day
11:35
S3: after the sacred harbour by election was in Queensland, and
11:37
S3: he started to expand upon and build on his one nation, uh,
11:43
S3: negative message that he'll, uh, use for the campaign. And really,
11:47
S3: it was similar language to the language he used against
11:50
S3: Peter Dutton. He called Peter Dutton divisive and echoing or
11:54
S3: bringing dark forces into Australian politics repeatedly. He's used the
11:58
S3: exact same set of words about the Greens as well,
12:00
S3: particularly Adam Bandt at points last term over the Gaza issue.
12:03
S3: And people can go and look at the public record
12:05
S3: to see that those same terms were repeatedly used. But
12:08
S3: Hansen was in a very, uh, clever manner. People would
12:12
S3: say underhanded, but very cleverly turned this around on the
12:16
S3: Prime Minister and said, your sharp rhetoric is fueling violence
12:20
S3: towards me. She cited the fact that her personal protection
12:23
S3: had been increased, not as a result of Albanese's rhetoric
12:27
S3: on Sunday, but just generally over recent months. Uh, people
12:30
S3: in one nation were very concerned by the murder of
12:35
S3: Ann Widdecombe, who was a reform UK spokesman. So part
12:38
S3: of the Nigel Farage right wing populist party there. She's
12:41
S3: an older woman as well, so that caused a bit
12:44
S3: of a tremor inside One Nation, and Hanson decided to
12:47
S3: use this moment to make a claim which has been
12:50
S3: heavily contested and will be debated, and people have strong
12:53
S3: views as to whether she was being legitimate or not.
12:56
S3: She used she used that moment to say that, you know,
12:59
S3: left wingers who are casting her as divisive and evil
13:03
S3: are fomenting violence towards her in Australia.
13:07
S1: Yeah, she said it's she said that she has to
13:09
S1: have police protection wherever she goes. And he's caused this.
13:13
S1: I don't want it. I want to feel safe in
13:14
S1: my own country. And then we had, you know, um,
13:18
S1: Michelle Rowland, the attorney general, come out on radio. I
13:22
S1: think we can assume at the behest or at the
13:26
S1: sort of the nudge of the Prime Minister's office to
13:28
S1: sort of clap back. And she said that Senator Hanson
13:31
S1: should examine what her party and her ideology and her
13:34
S1: behaviour is doing, and whether or not she's encouraging that.
13:38
S1: And then Hanson Hanson came back and said that Roland
13:40
S1: was victim blaming, which I note is very much a
13:43
S1: sort of terminology of the left that that Hanson is
13:46
S1: now taking for herself. Paul, what do we make of
13:48
S1: all this? Do we believe that Anthony Albaneses rhetoric is
13:52
S1: somehow fueling attacks or safety concerns for Pauline Hanson, or
13:56
S1: is this just all a bit of a confected fight
13:58
S1: that's strategically helpful for Pauline Hanson?
14:01
S3: Well, it's important to say at the outset, and all
14:04
S3: all reasonable minded people would say it shouldn't be dismissed.
14:08
S3: When politicians talk about the prospect of of violence, violent
14:12
S3: threats are increasing to politicians across the board. And there
14:15
S3: is there is a view among right wingers that people
14:18
S3: on the left are not as accepting of the violent
14:21
S3: threats towards right wingers as they are on people on
14:23
S3: their own side. So that's a latent sentiment. But on
14:26
S3: the actual detail of of this one, as I said,
14:29
S3: the Prime Minister and Labor people believe this was a
14:31
S3: really clever diversion from Hanson to distract people from the
14:35
S3: debate Labour wanted to have and her her her unit
14:38
S3: behind her are very canny at shifting the debate and
14:42
S3: placing her in a position of looking like an outsider
14:45
S3: who the establishment are trying to attack with misleading or
14:52
S3: unfair attacks. Michelle Rowland got into trouble for her comments
14:56
S3: because the suggestion from Hanson was that Rowland was legitimising, uh,
15:02
S3: the the violent attitudes in the community towards Hanson. Rowland
15:06
S3: probably could have picked her words better. I think her
15:09
S3: words left it open to interpretation that she was legitimising
15:13
S3: violent attitudes. What what I think she was trying to do,
15:16
S3: and I'm not here to be a spokesperson, but what
15:18
S3: I think she was trying to do was to display
15:21
S3: Hanson's links with, uh, for example, the March for Australia group,
15:25
S3: which have links to neo-Nazis. And whereas um, have, uh,
15:30
S3: you know, National Socialist Network figures involved in its organization.
15:33
S3: Her link to Tommy Robinson, who has had a background
15:37
S3: in fascism.
15:38
S1: And he's a convicted criminal.
15:39
S3: And he's a convicted criminal. Her meeting with Rupert Low,
15:43
S3: the restore UK leader who has said openly that he's
15:46
S3: happy to have former neo-Nazis in his party so long
15:49
S3: as they've moved on from that background. So she was
15:51
S3: trying to highlight the division, uh, and the form of
15:55
S3: politics that Hanson is bringing into Australian society, which Labour
15:58
S3: would argue is a totally fair point here. None of
16:02
S3: which is to legitimise actual violence.
16:04
S1: No, I don't think anyone on this podcast saw anyone.
16:06
S1: As you say, any reasonable person is legitimising violence or threats.
16:09
S1: Absolutely not. But I think it's fair to say that
16:12
S1: Pauline Hanson has positioned herself as a battler, as a
16:15
S1: victim against establishment forces, and this very much plays into
16:17
S1: that narrative. And I suppose what Michelle Rowland was trying
16:20
S1: to get across was that Pauline Hanson does not come
16:23
S1: to this with clean hands, as you say. She's associated
16:26
S1: herself with very, very extreme figures, 1 or 2 of
16:29
S1: them criminals. We know that one Nation does harbor extremists.
16:32
S1: We know that because she told you on this podcast
16:35
S1: her very self. And she you know her in terms
16:38
S1: of her rhetoric. She exists right out on the edge
16:40
S1: of political speech. She demonizes Muslim people, says there are
16:43
S1: no good Muslims. She's demonized Aboriginal people her entire political career.
16:46
S1: She told Greens Senator Maureen Farooqi to, quote, piss off
16:50
S1: back to Pakistan. This is all pretty hate filled rhetoric.
16:53
S1: I mean, isn't it false equivalence to say, you know,
16:56
S1: I'm in danger because, you know, the Prime Minister has
16:59
S1: dealt out some honestly, some pretty run of the mill
17:02
S1: political rhetoric against my party. Meanwhile, the stuff that she
17:07
S1: does is quite ad hominem, ad hominem, and she also
17:11
S1: associates with pretty extreme figures sometimes.
17:14
S3: Yeah. And this is all part of the One Nation
17:17
S3: playbook at the moment, which has been very effective. This
17:19
S3: effectively in the minds of coalition and labor people. This
17:23
S3: thrust from Hanson on Monday was a stunt to gain attention.
17:27
S3: Any response from a labor or coalition person on. After
17:31
S3: Hanson's remark would have created a. Would have added to
17:35
S3: the news cycle. If a labor person said there are
17:38
S3: no violent threats towards Hanson, that would have been seen
17:41
S3: as improper because it would have been. Delegitimizing her point
17:44
S3: if a labor person tried to make the point that
17:46
S3: Roland did, and I acknowledge that Roland probably picked her
17:49
S3: words wrong in a in a way that she'd regret.
17:52
S3: That person would be accused of legitimizing this alleged violent
17:57
S3: attitude in the community. And Hanson plays by a different
18:01
S3: set of rules. There is no way that Angus Taylor
18:04
S3: would have made a claim like this to suggest the
18:06
S3: Prime Minister is inciting violence. And for that reason, because
18:10
S3: One Nation plays by different rules. In a new world where,
18:14
S3: you know, civility and old norms are being thrown out
18:18
S3: the window to the benefit of canny political operators and
18:21
S3: new political movements. She's, you know, unique in her ability
18:26
S3: to set up arguments like this which benefit her and
18:29
S3: keep her in the headlines.
18:30
S1: Yeah, and this goes to the sort of success of
18:32
S1: One Nation, in a way, at the moment in the
18:35
S1: political cycle, because they are such a difficult opponent to
18:37
S1: wrestle for the major parties who are conventional in what
18:40
S1: they do. And I would argue those conventions should be
18:43
S1: respected for very good reasons. But they're a slippery opponent because,
18:48
S1: as you say, if you engage with Pauline Hanson saying that,
18:50
S1: you know, Albanese is inciting violence against me, then you
18:53
S1: add to the narrative that she is, in fact, a
18:55
S1: victim and, you know, an anti-establishment figure, which is entirely
18:59
S1: in her sort of political interests.
19:01
S3: Exactly. And and, you know, there's been a bunch of
19:04
S3: different commentary from really esteemed press gallery people, David Speers
19:08
S3: and Michelle Grattan, this week suggesting that this was a
19:11
S3: bit of a stunt from One Nation. However, it is
19:13
S3: important to note as well, if you look at some
19:15
S3: of the rhetoric towards Hanson out in the community, I mean,
19:18
S3: there were some videos of young school kids at the
19:22
S3: march against Hanson across the country who were saying genuinely
19:25
S3: violent things like she should. She should be killed. Um,
19:28
S3: if you saw her, what would you do? People were
19:30
S3: answering all kinds of horrendous things, so I wouldn't discount
19:34
S3: that this exists. But the idea that the Prime Minister
19:36
S3: is inciting it is, is, is another step altogether.
19:39
S1: No. And everyone's got to keep their own side of
19:41
S1: the street clean. I guess that's what maybe what Pauline,
19:43
S1: what Michelle Rowland was trying to say, like before you
19:46
S1: sort of, um, examine someone else's political rhetoric, maybe look
19:49
S1: at your own. But as you say, Pauline Hanson doesn't
19:51
S1: doesn't play by anybody else's rules. I wonder if this
19:54
S1: is a particular difficult, particularly difficult problem for the Prime
19:57
S1: Minister who is a man and shall we just say,
20:00
S1: because of that silly podcast he did, he's had some
20:02
S1: woman trouble recently. So Pauline Hanson's a woman. There is,
20:06
S1: as you say, this rhetoric, this sort of narrative on
20:09
S1: the right, that left wing people don't take threats against
20:13
S1: right wing women so seriously, even though they're supposed to
20:16
S1: be feminists who stand up for all women. So, you know,
20:19
S1: when you've got a male prime minister attacking a female leader,
20:24
S1: and that's his primary opponent at the moment. It might
20:27
S1: look like a bit of an uneven match up, or
20:30
S1: the Prime Minister has to be a little bit careful
20:31
S1: about the rhetoric he uses and what he says. Right?
20:34
S3: Yeah, it's an interesting one. I've never really thought about
20:36
S3: this dynamic between a man and a woman with Hanson
20:39
S3: and Albanese, because as a, you know, hardcore conservative, Hanson
20:42
S3: is not someone who's ever invoked group rights as in
20:46
S3: rights of certain individual groups based on race or gender
20:48
S3: or sexuality or whatever else. But for the first time
20:51
S3: that I can recall, as you mentioned before, there was
20:54
S3: this line from Hanson around, um.
20:57
S1: Victim blaming.
20:58
S3: Yeah. Victim blaming. Exactly. Which is a term, obviously of
21:01
S3: the left. And she also used an argument around, um,
21:05
S3: there being boundaries to free speech. That free speech is
21:07
S3: obviously integral in her mind, but there are limits, limits
21:11
S3: and boundaries. When speech goes beyond being hateful and becomes
21:16
S3: hate speech. Now, hate speech is famously a hard to
21:19
S3: define concept and something that the left is very interested
21:22
S3: in curbing through internet censorship and all kinds of things
21:25
S3: that the right fights, including a teensy. Well, she.
21:28
S1: Just got done for it. She just got done for
21:30
S1: it in the courts with.
21:31
S3: With trying.
21:31
S1: To.
21:32
S3: She's trying to fight in the High court. So I
21:34
S3: don't suspect the gender dynamic will will form too much
21:38
S3: of a part of the Albanese Hansen match up, in
21:42
S3: part because Hansen very rarely invokes these things. But I think,
21:45
S3: you know, James Ashby, who runs a lot of Hanson's
21:48
S3: political strategy in in using those lines like victim blaming
21:51
S3: and talking about hate speech, I imagine quite a bit
21:54
S3: of that is part of the Ashby, uh, obsession with
21:58
S3: kind of just trolling the left. He's, uh, at the
22:01
S3: end of the day, someone who just wants to own
22:03
S3: the left. So I suspect this was part of that.
22:05
S1: Okay. And Paul, let's just talk quickly about the housing market.
22:10
S1: Have Albo and Jim Chalmers crashed it?
22:14
S3: Well, as each as each week. Are you worried about
22:16
S3: your house price, Jack? AM I sensing some?
22:20
S1: No, because I just think what will be, will be.
22:23
S1: I mean, if you unless you're looking to sell, unless
22:26
S1: you're looking to sell, you have to sell. It's kind
22:28
S1: of like these things come and go. But I mean,
22:31
S1: the data is very, very clear. Commbank says it expects
22:34
S1: Sydney house prices to fall 11% this year. Melbourne to
22:37
S1: drop by 10% capacity. Figures showed housing down, housing values
22:42
S1: down for the fifth consecutive month. Every day we have
22:44
S1: a new bank or a new sort of outfit come
22:47
S1: and tell us how bad the sort of correction is
22:50
S1: going to be. How is this playing out in Canberra
22:52
S1: and in the Treasurer's office?
22:54
S3: Well, Treasurer Jim Chalmers had a press conference on Wednesday
22:57
S3: where he was grilled on the Treasury forecast in the
23:00
S3: May budget, which feels like an eternity ago. But it
23:02
S3: was only a few months ago. And that forecast when
23:04
S3: they released this housing package was that over the next
23:08
S3: couple of years, house prices would continue to grow, but
23:11
S3: by about two percentage points less. So if house prices
23:14
S3: were to grow by 8%, they'd grow by 6 or 4%.
23:16
S3: They'd grow by two. In just the space of a
23:19
S3: few months. It looks like that forecast is wildly optimistic.
23:22
S3: And part of the reason for that is because in
23:24
S3: previous housing downturns, uh, firstly, when previous housing downturns have occurred,
23:29
S3: it's usually been because interest rates were going up. There
23:31
S3: haven't been tax settings that have come on top of
23:34
S3: the interest rate hikes that have further deteriorated sentiment. So
23:38
S3: on top of interest rates being hiked, which we've had
23:40
S3: already and have had since the start of the year,
23:42
S3: we've had these tax settings which have just caused people
23:44
S3: to back out of the housing market, at least for
23:46
S3: the short or medium term. But the additional problem is
23:50
S3: that previous housing downturns have been able to be turned
23:54
S3: around to some extent, or at least put a had
23:57
S3: a floor put under them by the RBA's ability to
24:00
S3: lower rates, to get people feeling a bit more positive
24:03
S3: and make borrowing a bit cheaper. But because we're in
24:06
S3: an ongoing hiking cycle and inflation is so sticky, the
24:10
S3: RBA moves are probably going to be up. Markets are
24:13
S3: pricing in, I think a 70% chance of one next
24:15
S3: time and then potentially another at the end of the year.
24:18
S3: So this downturn might be more severe than anyone thought.
24:21
S1: Yeah. I mean, I suppose in terms of the way
24:25
S1: the economic management looks, you don't mind so much if
24:28
S1: the value of your house, the fictional or notional value
24:30
S1: of your house is going down if interest rates are
24:32
S1: also coming down. But if you have the combo of
24:34
S1: interest rates going up, more expensive debt and less expensive asset,
24:40
S1: it's not very comforting.
24:42
S3: For.
24:43
S1: You know, for voters. We'll keep an eye on that
24:45
S1: and we'll keep an eye on everything. Paul, I will
24:48
S1: not see you for five weeks because I'm going on.
24:51
S1: I'm going on leave.
24:52
S3: For.
24:53
S1: An extended period.
24:54
S3: Unlike my World Cup trip, which I just dropped on
24:57
S3: to you on this.
24:58
S1: Pod, this is a long planned period of leave. So
25:00
S1: I'm going to leave the podcast in the very capable
25:02
S1: hands of Paul Satchel and our fill in host, Stephanie Peatling.
25:06
S1: You guys have fun while I'm away, but not too
25:08
S1: much fun. You're here.
25:09
S3: Can you tease your book? Just just a small tease.
25:13
S1: I really wish I could, but I can't because I
25:16
S1: need to really write it first. So that's what.
25:18
S3: I'm. Because you're just winging it. You don't even know
25:20
S3: what it's about yet. You're just gonna come up with
25:21
S3: it next week.
25:22
S1: My publisher might be listening to this podcast, so I
25:25
S1: couldn't possibly say. Anyway, all will be revealed in due course.
25:30
S3: Thanks so much. Good luck with the leave. Have a
25:31
S3: nice break.
25:32
S1: Thanks, Paul. Bye.
25:33
S3: Okay, bye.
25:37
S1: You can read all of our political news on our website,
25:40
S1: theage.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong
25:46
S1: with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills,
25:49
S1: and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick.
25:54
S1: Before you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review
25:56
S1: for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank
26:00
S1: you for listening.