The last time I covered the Australian ABC’s execrable Q&A program was almost ten years ago when Peter Hitchens was a guest. Time has not been kind to this show which has changed hosts a number of times but is essentially the same as it began. It would have been cancelled on any network that is not funded by (but not accountable to), taxpaying Australians. I was linked to a recent episode where the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was answering questions which is not surprising given it is an election year. This is an occasional variation the show has when they have one particularly special guest instead of many but the host remains to moderate.
I didn’t actually watch the show below because I simply can’t stomach it and this will be referring to the transcript as well as skipping through parts of the video. I also checked through the questions that were asked and how much time was spent on the topics they introduced. The video is available below for anyone who needs help with their bowel movements. I can’t resist pointing out that it is hosted and streamed on YouTube which costs nothing; something that should throw into question the budget the ABC receives. As should the wide variety of shows available that have equal or better production values for a fraction of what the ABC receives.
The first question is asked around one minute in:
I’m a migrant woman… Pardon me. My nerves are getting the better of me. I’m a migrant woman to Australia and a single mother, having moved to Melbourne 15 years ago. I’m also a survivor of family violence, and live with a disability as a result. As a child of a single-parent household yourself, and the leader of the ruling party, what policies will you change so other citizens like me don’t have to choose between meeting the needs of their children or themselves?
So already we have someone who only moved here fifteen years ago and is already a burden on the taxpayer; if not from the day she arrived. One can presume from what she stated that she has subsidised housing, a disability pension, child support and probably doesn’t have to pay for schooling or healthcare. She’s also obese and so isn’t struggling to put food in her mouth. I’m sure she’s had some hardship but I don’t see why solving this should be Australia’s problem. The Prime Minister responds warmly to her and calls her brave and this exchange takes around three minutes.
The next question is more relevant:
The Medicare proposal by PM Albanese has already been matched by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. The cost of living, crime in our society, interest rates, housing crisis, climate change and immigration are all major issues that the public is concerned with. Election promises must be evaluated with the thoughts in mind of the question of, why hasn’t this already been done?
I have bolded the genuinely important issues that have been brought up in this question. Climate change is not a real problem and only ranks as such because of all the worthless green schemes scams we’re forced to subsidise in its name. I don’t want to get side-tracked on this one though. This question is interesting if only because most of these problems are largely a result of one which is immigration. The open-ended way the question is asked makes it easy for Albanese to respond with political bafflegarble and he only addresses the part about Medicare. He spends about five minutes on this.
Thankfully we next we get the big question but it is combined with two more in succession and Albanese quite deliberately leaves the first to last:
Why is Australia continuing to maintain record high immigration levels during the worst housing crisis in the nation’s history? Hardworking Australians are being pushed into homelessness.
I note the person asking the question would have immigrated or been from a family that immigrated within the last century but good question. Why?
Sorry, these are the other two:
The President of North America seems to think that Australian aluminium and iron ore are too cheap and deserve a 25% tariff. Wouldn’t it be better for Australia to apply a targeted resource rent tax? It would seem like a win-win. He gets to pay what he considers a fair price, and the Australian taxpayer gets the benefit of the extra 25%.
And:
I’m a proud Nyamal woman and was the NT coordinator for Yes23. On election night, you committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. Does an Albanese Labor government still back this commitment?
In answering the first he simply points out that Australia resoundingly voted No. As I’ve observed many times before, this is not the end of the matter but partial credit for his pointing out that Australians have already decided the matter. Of course, this is all undermined in the same response with him signalling another “direction” which just means getting their way another way.
He briefly responds to the question about tariffs and then discusses immigration mostly blaming it on “student visa” abuse which is certainly a problem but far from the only one. If Australia could kick full-fee paying students out of the country the day they graduate, that would probably be an overall benefit. But then if we did that, they mostly wouldn’t come at all. They’re coming for the permanent residency and not a very expensive and sub-par education.
There is also something about the numbers being under what was projected from 2019 as if that is any better. This is not a yearly harvest where yields vary but something that is totally under the government’s control.
Lastly, he bizarrely talks about prioritising people with skills in construction. I’m not counting but quite a number of large construction companies have collapsed over the last few years which would leave plenty of people who have those skills out of a job who are already in Australia. And where will all these skilled cheaper construction workers live exactly? Are they going to bring their own houses before starting to solve the shortage or immediately add to it? All of this means is he’s simply going to make the major issue affecting Australians right now deliberately worse or increasing the problem to solve the problem.
These three questions got five minutes or so.
The next question:
As a Jewish mother of 4 boys when will it be safe to openly identify as Jews?
This question gets more than seven minutes of time which is by far the most for the entire show. First, this question is itself a contradiction as she identifies herself as a Jew on national television which means it is very safe to identify as Jewish. Second, Jews are less than half a percent of the population and have more political, social and economic power than any group in Australia. Why are they entitled to so much of the prime minister’s attention? To ask is to answer it.
The woman who asks the question was also twice allowed to state:
new citizens should have to sign a declaration saying if they commit any racism or anti-Semitism, their Australian citizenship should be revoked.
What about other Australians? Should I be deported from the country of my birth for the same reason? You can find ample evidence to convict me on this blog alone. Are we all subject to this? She would likely want it this way and the prime minister disturbingly only replies with “Yeah” both times this is stated. He then brags about his illiberal banning of “Nazi” symbols and the insidiously malleable abstraction called “hate speech”.
Next, the main source of the previous questioner’s problem gets their turn:
Thank you. Good evening, Prime Minister. I always love Australia as a multicultural and diverse country where everyone can, you know, live with respect to each other. But as a Muslim country living in northern suburbs, I never felt unsafe or insecure during the last 20 years of my life in Australia. However, that sense of security and safety has been stripped away after the hate attacks on two Muslim women in Epping Plaza recently. What the Prime Minister can do to restore that sense of safety and security and confidence in the government, to protect the society, and make us, me and my family, feel safe in Australia?
It seems both Muslims and Jews don’t feel safe in Australia which is largely a result of the antagonism the two groups have for each other. Perhaps both groups would feel safer in the Levant, where they (mostly) all came from? I didn’t really read the response here but the Muslims only get a little over three minutes of the PM’s time. All I can say is that if it isn’t safe to be here, then I’d be happy to make it safe for them to go back.
This is about half-way through and the rest of the questions get anywhere from two to four minutes so judging only by time, we know who is most important. I can’t really stomach going through anymore as it quickly got tiresome and do keep in mind that I’m mostly just skimming the transcript. What is clear to me though is that most of the actual issues mentioned can be solved by reducing immigration. Indeed, the last two speakers wouldn’t have been here to ask their questions if we’d been more vigilant about this in the first place.
It also shows the priorities at play. Virtually nothing was asked or said that is important to most Australians and when it was, it was only in brief. The only other time the housing issue is mentioned is in regard to renters and this was from a socialist who would have everyone in public housing were he to get actual power. There is something on the scam called “superannuation” and at least one more about climate change but I’m done.