JAMES O’LOGHLIN, HOST: Verity Firth joins us. She's in the Political Forum, Vice President, Societal Impact, Equity and Engagement at the University of New South Wales and former New South Wales minister. Hi, Verity.
VERITY FIRTH: Hello. Lovely to be here.
O’LOGHLIN: Well, lovely to have you. And Emma McBride, Federal Member for Dobell, Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. G'day, Emma. Thanks for coming in.
ASSISTANT MINISTER EMMA MCBRIDE: It's great to be here in Parramatta with you, James.
O’LOGHLIN: On your way to Dubbo, I understand.
MCBRIDE: Yes, straight after here.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah, I appreciate you calling in. And Kellie Sloane, State Member for Vaucluse and Shadow Minister for Health. Hi, Kellie.
SHADOW MINISTER KELLIE SLOANE: Hi, James.
O’LOGHLIN: Let's begin with the Prime Minister's visit – 6-pack diplomacy it's been called, although I think he only had 4. The Prime Minister has concluded an extensive overseas trip. Went to the UN, meeting with King Charles. He took along a few cans of his own Albo brand of beer. Speech at the UK Labour Party conference where he talked about an erosion of trust in politics and a rise in extremist movements. He said: We all sense this is an era when our capacity for peaceful disagreement is being tested. Kellie, you're in state politics where your workplace is nicknamed the Bear Pit. Verity, you spend a lot of time in the Bear Pit. And Emma, you're in federal politics where school kids come to observe the House of Parliament and often return shocked at the behaviour tolerated that they wouldn't get away with in their own classroom. Let's begin with you, Emma. What does peaceful disagreement look like to you?
MCBRIDE: Well, James, I felt like those school kids. I'm a pharmacist, and I came fresh from the hospital floor into the parliament, and I can still remember my first question time, the wall of noise from the government benches. What I realise now is that a lot of that is largely performative, but it's still what people see. And when I was first doorknocking in my first campaign, I'd have people who'd point to the telly and say, don't behave like that. So I think this isn't the kind of standards that people in the community expect. And I know that in the parliament there's efforts to kind of improve the tone of the parliament and the discourse. My particular approach to, as you've described it, peaceful disagreement is really trying to work collaboratively, to reach across the aisle. And with my responsibilities, particularly for mental health and suicide prevention, that is the only way. We're dealing with really wicked problems that are persistent and increasing, and I think that we might have different approaches to how these problems can be solved, but ultimately the same objective. So that's the approach that I take in my job, and it's not necessarily what people see, but it's a lot of what happens behind the scenes.
O’LOGHLIN: Kellie Sloane, the last state election, there was – I think a lot of people really like the fact that Dominic Perrottet and Chris Minns were kind of nice to each other and had a bit of mutual respect going. And I wonder if that tone has continued into the current term of parliament.
SLOANE: Well, like Verity, when I was first in state parliament, sat in that chair on the front bench for the first time and felt that roar of the Bear Pit, I was a bit taken aback too. You know, the name the Bear Pit goes back more than a century to a time when there was a lot of abusive language and personal slurs and even fisticuffs are on Hansard. So I'm pretty pleased that there's none of that, none that I've witnessed so far. It's kind of more like the sand pit these days than the Bear Pit, I reckon, with a lot of people throwing their toys out.
But I have to say that behind the scenes and in the committee work, there's a lot of collaboration. And I'm a real believer in peaceful disagreement. You know, you can be really passionate without being personal. And I think as parliamentarians in a time where there's so much division and a breakdown in social cohesion, it really is up to us to be the standard bearers of the kind of behaviour we want to see.
O’LOGHLIN: And Verity Firth, I mean, you've moved out of the Bear Pit into the university sector where, I don't know, I guess people are kind of at least more outwardly nice to each other. What do you think?
FIRTH: It's true. I mean, in universities, we are more polite to each other. And I think that there's an acceptance in university culture that people can have different ideas and that different ideas should be robustly but respectfully contested. But it's a really interesting point, because one of the things that we have been thinking a lot about at the university, and I know other universities have too, which is how do you actually teach democratic muscle to our students, right? Because our young people are growing up in a different world. They're growing up in a much more divided world where they've got the echo chambers of social. And I think their natural sort of incredible enthusiasm of being young often drives them into positions where it's very black and white. And one of the things we're doing at the university is actually thinking about, okay, we recognise that everyone has lots of passionate views about things, particularly in terms of what's happening in our world at the moment, but how can we have those conversations respectfully? How can you speak truth but also listen? And a lot of the sorts of skills, I suppose, and capabilities that you should be learning as part of your university degree are things like critical inquiry and analysis and reasoning, and learning to be able to deliberate and build bridges across difference to find common ground.
So we're actually very interested in this at the moment. How do you equip young people to have those sort of democratic or civil society skills of the future so that they actually can get along and have complex discussions without it going into fisticuffs, as Kellie said?
O’LOGHLIN: I wonder what you all think about the Prime Minister saying we live in an era where our capacity for peaceful disagreement is being tested? I'm kind of torn. When I look at Australia, I don't necessarily see that. But then if you look at the world, and in particular, the country that's been our biggest ally for a long time, America, of course you do see it. So I guess the question becomes, in a way, are we isolated, or is that a trend that is going to wash over us? Emma McBride.
MCBRIDE: I think when we look at sort of things that are happening globally, and I think this is one of the things that we can be proud of as Australians and of our democracy, that is both Verity and Kellie have spoken about, that people can hold views passionately but not be personal, that people can disagree. And sometimes that disagreement, that tension can lead to better outcomes if it's done in a constructive way. I think within an Australian context, I'm not papering over sort of problems that have happened or things that could be improved. But I do think that in Australia, we should be proud of our democracy and work to uphold the standards of our democracy, particularly given how chaotic and adversarial many parts of the world seem at the moment.
O’LOGHLIN: Kellie, do you think we have to work harder now, or alternatively, just as hard?
SLOANE: No, gosh, we have to work so much harder. And the society I'm feeling is much more divided. In fact, some of the research will back that up. The McKinnon Institute did a poll last year on social cohesion. They surveyed 3000 Australians and the young people were the most divided. Some of their stats said that to advance a cause that they care about, about a third of Gen Z voters, like 18 to 24-year-olds, and a quarter of millennials were prepared to support practices including encouraging or using violence, sending threatening or intimidating messages to members of parliament, damaging property, vandalising government offices and lying. And to me, that's completely shocking. It says we need to do a deep amount of work. I mean, we've seen the Prime Minister have to move his electorate office. I know colleagues who've been threatened numerous times since in this term of parliament. And we are seeing a breakdown in that ability to contest ideas and find common ground in the middle. So it's black or it's white, you're left or you're right. And you're right or you're wrong, but you're not- where's the nuance in the middle? And I think we need to do work through our universities, we need to do it through social media and we need to stand up as leaders and say it's okay to- in fact, it’s – we should be encouraging consensus.
O’LOGHLIN: Verity Firth, I'm not making any comments about your age, but you can take a longer view perhaps.
[Laughter]
Do you think it is harder to get consensus? Do you think there has been a [indistinct] people heading more towards the extremes since earlier days?
FIRTH: Oh, I do. And I think – I actually don't know how people who are in politics now do it. Like, even when I was there – so I left politics in 2011, Twitter was only just a thing. And although there was some social media engagement, it was nothing like it is today. So that – and I think the problem, we all know this, but the problem with social media and the anonymisation of people to make comments which are just ridiculously over the top and hurtful and absolutist. So I think yes, there is no doubt that there is a real cultural problem that we need to face
Without sounding like Australian exceptionalism, we're also good. We are not America and we're not America yet. We do have compulsory voting. We've always had more centrist politics in this country. And I do think, as boring as it might sound to the young people, standing up for centrist politics and are at the very least considered rational debates and recognising that most people do come to an issue with the best of intentions. And so – that's cultural, but I think we're also lucky in Australia because we've got compulsory voting and we've also got an independent electoral commission, two very important structural pieces that the US doesn't have.
O’LOGHLIN: What did you mean when you said we're not America yet? Was that just a rhetorical flourish?
FIRTH: It was a rhetorical flourish. I don't think we can rest on our laurels. I don't think we can go, we're so good, we don't need to worry. I do think we need to worry and I think there's a lot of importing, particularly across social media, of more extremist positions. But I think that we've also got some good bulwarks in place, and we've just got to defend them.
O’LOGHLIN: This is the Monday Political Forum on Drive. The Prime Minister has also declared there'll be no referendum on a republic as long as he is Prime Minister. I think he went further than that, saying no referendum on anything. He only wanted to have one. Zali Steggall, the independent member for Warringah, said on Mornings with Thomas Oriti today that she's got a proposal that at every election we should also have a referendum question, which would cut down on costs, get us used to the idea of constantly updating the constitution. Is the Prime Minister right in saying you should only have one referendum per Prime Minister, or should we be more open to regular referendums to update our constitution? Kellie Sloane.
SLOANE: Well, I think Albo's made the right call, because he recognises that his political capital when it comes to referendums is somewhat limited. He would be scarred politically from going down that track. But I disagree with Zali Steggall. I don't think we should be making constitutional change routine at elections. And I'm very concerned about mixing constitutional change with the partisan politics at election time, where we do need to consider any change to our foundational document very seriously and separately. And I just don't like mixing that up in the political cycle.
O’LOGHLIN: I mean, the reality is it's almost impossible to get one up without bipartisan support. What are your thoughts, Emma McBride?
MCBRIDE: Since Federation, there's been 45 referendum questions, and some have been bundled together. So there's been 19 referendum dates, but only 8 have been carried because of the double majority, the majority of voters and the majority of states. So I think what's more important is to build community support for ideas and change rather than setting arbitrary frequencies for referendum dates. I think really that's probably, from what I've seen and my experience, I think that's the kind of the best way to build consensus for change when you need to hit this double majority.
O’LOGHLIN: But Verity Firth, I mean, there have been some things like the 4-year term that so people have spoken in favour of. I mean, there might be arguments against it, I don't know, but there's been a lot of people who've thought, well, that'd be better. We just haven't worked out how to get there yet. What do you think about how often we should have referendums?
FIRTH: It's interesting. I was going to come in and defend Zali's idea, and then Kellie sort of made me think, but it shows you how I'm a centrist person. But …
O’LOGHLIN: [Talks over] Yeah. well, that's the sort of constructive disagreement we’re after.
FIRTH: Constructive. You know, you can be convinced. Look, I can understand why the Prime Minister doesn't want to hold another referendum, but – considering what just happened. But I don't think we should be limiting ourselves to one referendum per PM. Like, I think that's silly. And on the 4-year term issue, I very much believe in 4-year terms. We had 4-year terms in state parliament when I was there. It's really good. It takes the politics out of setting the date. So that's a good thing for democracy, but also it actually just allows governments to govern. I mean, at the federal level, you've only been there about 18 months before you enter electioneering again. It isn't really long enough to properly be able to govern. And so I think I really support 4-year terms, and if we can't have another referendum in the life of this PM, it's going to be a long time before – I'm sure he would think it's going to be a long time before there's another referendum. And I think the idea of getting people a little bit more used to the idea that you – that constitutions are living documents, are documents that can be changed, they were created in a certain time and historical place, and you are allowed to review them and change them. I think that's a positive thing.
[Unrelated content – traffic report]
O’LOGHLIN: On the Monday Political Forum, we're joined by Verity Firth, Vice President, Societal Impact, Equity and Engagement at the University of New South Wales and former New South Wales minister, Emma McBride, Federal Member for Dobell, Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, and Kellie Sloane, State Member for Vaucluse and Shadow Minister for Health. Former High Commissioner to the UK and Federal Attorney-General George Brandis wrote an opinion piece in the Nine newspapers over the weekend about Special Minister of State Don Farrell, writing to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to examine the composition of our parliament, including possible increase in the size and number of members. George Brandis said that would create a significant advantage to Labor and also to Greens in the upper house. I spoke to election analyst Ben Raue earlier today, who strongly disagreed and didn't think it would advantage anyone.
The other question is, what is the optimum size of the House of Reps? In 1984, we had 148 members. Our population has not quite but nearly doubled, and we've only got two more, which means each rep is representing lots, thousands, tens of thousands of more people. On the other hand, does a bigger parliament become more unwieldy? What do you think, Emma McBride?
MCBRIDE: Well, as you mentioned, James, the last time the House of Representatives was expanded was in 1984, and that was the year that the seat that I represent, Dobell, was created amongst of other seats. And I had a look – when the seat of Dobell was created, there was 58,916 enrolled voters. At the last 2025 federal election, there was 122,541.
O’LOGHLIN: [Interrupts] So your job's more than twice as hard as your predecessors'.
MCBRIDE: I should tell the first member for Dobell that. But realistically, when you look at other comparable countries, the PM's been in the UK at the moment, the constituencies that federal MPs represent are much larger than in comparable countries. So I support Minister Farrell in writing to the Joint Standing Committee and encourage people with these inquiries, there's a public submission process, to have their say. Because really what we want to see is a strong democracy that is representative and to make sure that the parliament is fit for purpose today, whether it's in the number of seats or the way that we conduct ourselves. I think it's a timely kind of consideration and to encourage people in the community to absolutely have their say.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah, Kellie Sloane, you're in the state parliament. I mean, what do you think? More members and therefore you're representing less? Or does it get big and unwieldy?
SLOANE: I just object to the fact that the argument so far has been from these guys about whether it's going to benefit Labor, or whether it's going to benefit the Liberals or the Greens. How about will it benefit the people? And that should be our starting point. I think we're pretty over-governed. I think …
O’LOGHLIN: [Interrupts] Don't you think we need a fourth level? [Laughs]
SLOANE: Gosh, I won't trap myself by saying what I think about how many levels we have already. But we do have 3 good functioning levels of government. We've got the feds, the state and local government, so we are relatively over-governed compared to other comparable places. And it is not the size that matters. We know that. It's what you do with it, right? So how do we better equip our political leaders to manage larger constituencies? How do we make sure that our parliaments aren't overburdened by too many members? And that sometimes leads to poor decision-making. So I think we need to think about how people are benefiting most. Are they feeling like they're serviced sufficiently by their members of parliament?
And can I just say, if we ask the people, how many people have you heard lately say, gosh, we need more politicians? We really need some more politicians. I'm sure that's what everyone wants.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah. Good level of self-awareness there, Kellie.
SLOANE: I don't want to put myself out of a job. I hope that I'm working very hard for my constituency. But yeah, I don't think people are crying out for more politicians, more people in Canberra. Let's just make sure the boots that are on the ground now are doing the job well.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah. I mean, you do make a very good point that we all have representatives at 3 levels already. What do you think, Verity, from your more academic viewpoint?
FIRTH: [Talks over] Point of view. I do think that it was not good that George Brandis wrote the article the way he did, as if it was a big stitch-up for political benefit. I thought, for all the reasons we've just discussed, the Australian Electoral Commission is an independent authority. No party will have control over this, so don't create drama and conspiracy theory where there isn't one. And so I was glad that Ben Raue came out and refuted that so completely. It's an interesting question, because I think it's also about what sort of representative democracy do you want to have? I always tell this story of when I was the minister for education in New South Wales and I was representing the seat of Balmain, and the minister for education in India came and visited. And what you often do is you take him out on a boat around Sydney Harbour and you sort of show off the glory that is Sydney. And as we sort of went past Balmain, I said, 'Oh, and that's my electorate and I represent 40,000 people. And he said, yes, well, my electorate represents 2.5 million people.'
O’LOGHLIN: Gosh.
FIRTH: And that was the average electorate size in India, and it was really interesting. So I talked to him about it and I said, what do you do? Like, how do you possibly represent 2.5 million people in a sort of constituent case management load? And he said, it's just completely different. They don't really do case management. They don't do any of that more traditional constituency work that we do in Australia. They just have massive billboards and big sort of banners and it's really – you're not – you don't go to your local MP for that sort of support. So I do think it's worth exploring. I think that Emma's right, that compared to the other countries, we're actually pretty high up there. Like, UK is an average of 73,000 votes. So let's have a look at it, but let's not pretend there's some giant squabble between the party – let's actually just do it properly through an independent intellectual commission.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah, And be grateful that we have one. Almost half of Australian universities have been restructured in the past year. More to come. We've seen leadership changes, the upper ranks of the ANU in Sydney. At UTS, hundreds of staff have been told they might not have a job next year. Courses are being scrapped, schools merged. Meanwhile, the number of Australians starting uni is at record levels, according to the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, last Friday. We're told constantly that the jobs of the future will require more skills. How do we ensure we have a tertiary education system robust enough to accommodate the challenges of the future and fit for purpose? And I guess more of an existential question, what's the purpose of a university education? Don't worry, Verity, we will come to you, but let's start with Kellie.
SLOANE: I was hoping you'd start with Verity, because she will have the expertise. But can I just say, maybe just to start off with, that universities aren't the start and end of the options for kids coming out of school. And I think we need to be pushing more young people into apprenticeships, going to TAFE and learning that it's not just that sort of tick a box, go to university that really matters. Having said that, a really important – it's very important for us to have a strong and robust university sector here in New South Wales. A lot of the levers come from the federal government, but at state level, we are having a parliamentary inquiry later this year into the interplay between the federal and state governance and all the very many unwieldy regulations and federal laws that they have to manage.
I know that there has been a struggle having consistent funding, and during COVID a lot of the universities really suffered because of the decreasing numbers of international students who ultimately end up subsidising some of the local students. So look, it's a very big puzzle to solve, but it's not the only one. And there's a lot of students that might be listening today that have their exams in a couple of weeks. And please know that whether it's university or TAFE or going out and just starting work in the real world, there are so many options available to you.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah, Verity Firth, what's a university for?
FIRTH: What is it for? Well, I mean, you expect me to say this, but universities are critical to all of the discussions that we've been having today, but also to productivity, to ongoing jobs growth, to really also discovering the amazing solutions to a lot of the world's most wicked problems. I was thinking today the fellow that won the Eureka Prize in Science this year, one of the social impact prizes, is a researcher from the University of Sydney who's converting plastics and biomass into aviation fuel. So it's these sorts of things that universities provide that are going to be critical to how we actually address so many issues.
But the point I wanted to make is we're really lucky in Australia. We have world-class universities – you know, many, many universities in the top 100 globally for a nation with only 27 million people. But we've effectively funded that – both sides of politics over more than 2 decades have funded that through international student revenue. And when the government moved last year to cap that and to move against basically as many international students, universities sort of overnight were left in a pretty dire position. And so, I think both sides of politics need to work out if they don't want international students, and that's to do with a whole range of domestic issues that have got to do with what's going on in the world at the moment, but if their actual policy position is less international students, they need to work out how they're going to fund higher education in this country because it is so needed. And we've set these dramatic and fantastic targets to have 80 per cent of working-age people by 2050 having had some tertiary qualification, and that is what will secure Australia's future, so let's do it.
O’LOGHLIN: And Emma McBride?
MCBRIDE: I represent a community where typically the pathway to a secure job or a steady career has been vocational education, particularly TAFE and apprenticeships. In my role, I’m responsible for rural and regional health, and one of the things that I'm most focused on is students outside of the major cities being able to have access to training in place, particularly for vocational degrees that lead to a pipeline of our health workforce. I think it's something that for the future of our health workforce in particular, it's something that we need to have a very sharp focus on.
O’LOGHLIN: Yeah. Look, thank you very much all for your time. Verity Firth, Emma McBride and Kellie Sloane.