Colleen Harkin On The Weekly Wrap Mornings ABC Radio Melbourne – 23 May 2025

In this interview, Colleen Harkin appeared on The Weekly Wrap Mornings ABC Radio Melbourne and discussed the IPA’s research on Victoria’s budget.

All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.

Below is a transcript of the interview.

Rafael Epstein:

We are joined by Emma Dawson. She’s the executive director of the Chifley Research Centre. Good morning, Emma.

Emma Dawson:

Good morning.

Rafael Epstein:

Have you read a Colm Tóibín novel, like Brooklyn?

Emma Dawson:

Not for a long time.

Rafael Epstein:

And read Brooklyn or anything?

Emma Dawson:

Brooklyn, yeah. A long time ago.

Rafael Epstein:

Yeah, maybe? The one that turned into a film? And Colleen Harkin joins us as well. She’s the director of the school’s programme at the Institute of Public Affairs. Good morning, Colleen.

Colleen Harkin:

Morning, Raf. Morning, Emma.

Emma Dawson:

Morning.

Rafael Epstein:

Is it an unfair question to ask if you’ve read a Colm Tóibín novel?

Emma Dawson:

No, I actually haven’t, so I’m going to have to write that down on my list.

Rafael Epstein:

It depends on your cup of tea. There’s lots of Colm. Who’s the other one? Colm McCann.

Colleen Harkin:

McCann.

Rafael Epstein:

Who wrote Twist. The amount of Irish novelists I’ve had coming through this year been quite delightful. Colleen, let’s start with you. I do want to get onto, I used the description self-immolation, which is basically with the political equivalent inside the federal coalition. It is that, but let’s start with the state budget. There’s two aspects to the state budget. One is whether or not the path they’re on is the right path. It is a path that has guaranteed them successive victories and growing margins of seats, but there’s also the budget isn’t a big deviation from that. There were also the protests about the emergency services levy. How do you think the government, state government, ends the week?

Colleen Harkin:

Look, the reality is that the state is going broke, right? It’s heading towards a $200 billion debt. It’s unsustainable. It’s like the interest rate on that is about a million dollars every hour that we’re paying. I mean, imagine what that money could do differently. So they’ve sort of got this smoke and mirrors kind of attitude to sort of say, “We’ve got a $600 million surplus,” but that’s actually really not the case. That’s an illusion.

So, the trouble here is that the messaging is quite clever. I mean, Labour Party [inaudible 00:01:57] always give credit for the fact that they’re good at their messaging, but what they’re not good at doing is managing, actually, the reality of the money. That’s why in the last 10 years we’ve had something like 56 or 60 extra and new taxes put on, so it’s the issue of the reality of that what we’re doing is creating a debt that the next generation and the generation after that will pay for.

Rafael Epstein:

So let’s come to the tax in a moment then, because Colleen has laid those cards on the table. Emma? Debt? Colleen thinks it’s unsustainable.

Emma Dawson:

Well, I’ve already had my say on this once this week. I’m not-

Rafael Epstein:

Feel free. That’s okay. I did get Emma wrong, but it’s okay. Worth repeating.

Emma Dawson:

I’m not as concerned about debt. People who’ve heard me talk before will know, as many are in the community, because we have a functioning, vibrant economy in Victoria now. Yes, we’ve had some difficult years, particularly coming out of the pandemic, but that debt doesn’t have to be paid off in a specific timeframe. It’s not like a mortgage on your house that goes with your working life. If the debt’s being used to invest in things and things, which it is, we are seeing this activity every day in essential infrastructure, new hospitals out the west, new schools, then that is an investment in the future, and the return on that investment will more than pay down that debt. We’ve seen this in history. I mentioned the other day back in the 1970s, Liberal government, Rupert Hamer, building a lot of stuff in this city, building rail networks, et cetera. The debt was much higher, as a proportion of state product.

Rafael Epstein:

Was it under Hamer or both Hamer and Bolte?

Emma Dawson:

And, of course, under Cain and Kirner. And these people tend to remember those difficult years at the end of the Cain government. But debt in itself isn’t-

Rafael Epstein:

Can I just clarify, because I think my understanding is Cain-Kirner debt is about 15% of the state’s economy?

Emma Dawson:

Yeah, that’s right.

Rafael Epstein:

We are heading towards 25%, and then Bolte and Hamer was more than 25%. It was up to about 50%, just a bit-

Emma Dawson:

It was in the 40s and slightly over 50 at one point. So the point is not just the debt. It’s what you do with it. The surplus is different. We’ve got 600 million surplus. That’s this year’s operating surplus, so that means we are taking in 600 million more this year than we’re spending this year, but the debt remains close to $200 billion.

Rafael Epstein:

Well, it will be in three or four years.

Emma Dawson:

That’s right. That’s right, so to me it’s about what is that money doing? And what we are seeing is investment in this state that, for many, many years, was inadequate, and I think there are some good investments in this budget. I would’ve liked to see more spending on social housing, for example, but I’d always like to see more spending on social housing, and I think if this is a debate, as we talked about the other day, Raf, about what we value and who’s going to pay for it, we all live in a society, we all benefit from things like the emergency services levy. We’re living in a time of significant climate disruption, and we’re going to need the resources-

Rafael Epstein:

Okay. Can I just pause you there? Colleen Harkin and Emma Dawson, they’ve both laid out their cards on the table there on the debt. Can I just narrow the conversation to the protest this week? We will all be paying an emergency services levy. Everyone will pay it on their council rates. The significant difference is that if you’ve got a significant holding of land, and it’s not your principal home, which is the case for a lot of farmers who’ve got multiple titles, some of them will be paying a lot of money. There is a rebate up to $5,000. Sorry. Up to about $4,000, if you’re a CFA or an SES volunteer. That was the cause of the protests this week, all those firetrucks. Colleen, is it a fair tax?

Colleen Harkin:

No, of course not. I mean, people who are putting the food on our tables are paying an extra 189% increase, and they’re also the people who are out, who are the volunteers who are fighting the fires when they happen. The average person’s primary residence has got an increase of, I think it’s 99%.

Rafael Epstein:

You say the commercial and industrial have gone up more than the primary producers. But yes, for your principal home of residence, it has not gone up much.

Colleen Harkin:

In terms of dollars, right?

Rafael Epstein:

But also percentage way.

Colleen Harkin:

Percentage increase, right? But the scenario about who’s paying for this, you sort of said we’ve got a vibrant community. We don’t. There’s 130,000 businesses that have closed up in the last couple of years. That’s a lot of people who have left the state, so there’s less people who are going to be burdened with these debts. So the people who are providing us the infrastructure to putting food on the table are the ones who are paying the most. No, it’s a shocking tax.

Rafael Epstein:

Emma?

Emma Dawson:

I’ve got some sympathy for the argument coming from farmers to say, “Okay. I might be sitting on a very valuable piece of land, but I can’t produce anything without that land,” and the argument that that is not therefore just an asset, it’s a tool of trade, that’s a tricky position, and I have some sympathy for that; however, what we are really talking about here is, are we going to start taxing people’s wealth and assets adequately or not land, is a finite resource if you own a lot of it. In Australia in particular, particularly in urban Australia, you are very wealthy by world standards. We have-

Rafael Epstein:

I should say that sort of four grand rebate, I think my numbers are right, that’s land worth about $5 million, because you can have 5 million of drought-ravaged land that isn’t producing much money.

Emma Dawson:

You can. You can, and so I’m sympathetic to that. These are bigger issues that then can be dealt with this tax. I think the point we have to remember here is the limits on the state government’s capacity to raise its own revenue. Under the constitution, they can’t tax income. They can only tax land holdings and certain commercial activities, and so they are quite constrained and we need this funding. We need the funding for services and infrastructure that are going to help us mitigate the impact of climate change. So, I’m sympathetic to the farmer argument. I’m not so sympathetic to people that are sitting on huge commercial land holdings and arguing that they shouldn’t pay any contribution to the state for the value of that, because they’re the same people who say, I also don’t want to pay inheritance tax when I die and pass it on. They never want to pay the first year.

Rafael Epstein:

Let’s not start death tax yet.

Emma Dawson:

No, let’s not go there yet.

Rafael Epstein:

I do want to have that conversation at some stage, but let me bring in Peter, just not this week. Peter’s calling from Geelong, because it’ll take half an hour. Peter, what did you want to mention?

Peter:

Yeah. Who do we borrow all this money from and what if the state government just turned around and said, “No. We’re not going to pay you back anymore”? What are all the ramifications?

Rafael Epstein:

I will give you both 20 seconds. Colleen, what are the ramifications if we say no?

Colleen Harkin:

I don’t know who actually the money comes from, and I think that’s actually-

Rafael Epstein:

It’s the bond market, isn’t it?

Colleen Harkin:

It’s bond market. It’d be really nice to have more transparency over there, and I suspect that that’s actually going to be part of the problem, that Victoria eventually will expect the federal government to step.

Rafael Epstein:

Will they?

Colleen Harkin:

Oh, I don’t know. I don’t see another solution. I mean, governments don’t make money. Only people and businesses make money. They take it.

Emma Dawson:

They reinvest it, Colleen. You can’t get to work in your private sector job without driving on a road or using.

Colleen Harkin:

Sure, but then we’ve got to be paying commercial rates, not union rates for infrastructure, and there is a lot of evidence to show it.

Rafael Epstein:

That’s a micro-argument in the middle of a big macro-argument.

Colleen Harkin:

But that’s how you get there. That’s how you get to that stage where we’ve got all of this scenario. Well, they’re inter-connected.

Emma Dawson:

Where the government just takes money and doesn’t…

Colleen Harkin:

It doesn’t. Government doesn’t produce a single cent.

Emma Dawson:

No.

Colleen Harkin:

It’s business and people who do that.

Emma Dawson:

There’s a lot of evidence to show that’s not true. I mean, most of-

Colleen Harkin:

Goverments don’t make money.

Emma Dawson:

Most of the big commercial developments globally, over the last 50 years, had some sort of government funding to start them up.

Rafael Epstein:

I can name one. COVID vaccine.

Emma Dawson:

COVID vaccine.

Colleen Harkin:

Yeah, but they didn’t make it. They took it from people in order to disperse it.

Rafael Epstein:

Well, it’s not quite true. Donald Trump basically backed up a truck, and the thing was a good thing. He backed up a truck to Fort Knox, and they gave a tonne of government money to private people, so that was paid for.

Colleen Harkin:

But government money is our money.

Rafael Epstein:

It was, but it was paid for with American taxpayer funds.

Colleen Harkin:

Yeah, exactly.

Emma Dawson:

Basically, we’re talking about the community. We are all in this together. It’s the same argument. The government is the system by which we act collectively to ensure that we have the infrastructure that society needs to function well. What the inputs to that money are come from our broader economy, so government in itself doesn’t produce anything.

Rafael Epstein:

But we need collective decision making, don’t we?

Emma Dawson:

Of course, of course, of course.

Colleen Harkin:

Right, but then when you’re in a situation where the government keeps borrowing more than it can possibly afford to pay back, which is where we are now, we’ve got a million dollars an hour in interest.

Emma Dawson:

Well, one of the reasons that, for example, the fire brigade came into existence in New York 150 years ago was because wealthy people were paying private firefighters to protect their own property, but the properties of all of the people who work for them were getting wiped out, and so they created a public fire Department.

Rafael Epstein:

I will get to calls in a moment. I want to know if you both think this is a useful comparison or not, and I do want to leave time for the self-immolation of the federal coalition that don’t exist as a coalition at the moment. The amount of debt in Victoria is about 25% of the economy. We are past that federally. It’s about 30% of the national economy. In America, their debt is something like 120%-

Emma Dawson:

That’s right.

Rafael Epstein:

… The size of the biggest economy in the world. They just had a credit downgrade. Now, you might not like what’s going on in American politics at the moment. You might think they don’t invest enough in their infrastructure, but they’re at 120%. They just had a credit downgrade. They’re not in trouble. Do you think that’s relevant to this conversation or not?

Colleen Harkin:

I mean I find it amusing that you are using America as the benchmark, but no, I think the thing is that we should be comparing ourselves with ourselves, because there are lots of different circumstances in other countries that we don’t have. I mean, for example, our energy scenario, we have the tools to be able to provide the cheapest energy in the world, but we’re not using it, so I don’t think it’s helpful.

Rafael Epstein:

Not always good to have a comparison.

Colleen Harkin:

Yeah. It’s on those benchmarks.

Emma Dawson:

So, then let’s compare ourselves to ourselves and say, in the 1970s, we had much higher debt, we had much more investment in infrastructure. Can we imagine Victoria today without some of those things that were built back then?

Rafael Epstein:

Probably not. Okay, let me go to a few calls. Sarah is ringing from Hampton. What do you want to mention, Sarah?

Sarah:

Hi. Yes. Let’s compare ourselves to ourselves. For many, many, many years, Labour and Liberal refused to do anything about infrastructure in public transport. They were so worried about losing an election that they shelved it, and they shelved it, and they shelved it, and they shelved it, and it’s got to the stage now where we have to spend billions of dollars on it, whether it’s liberal, labour, anybody, we have to spend money on the infrastructure because nobody would touch it.

Rafael Epstein:

Thank you for your call, Sarah. I want to give everybody a bit of a chance. There’s quite a few people. Rod is in Ballarat. What do you want to mention, Rod?

Rod:

Yeah, Raf. Yeah, a farmer just from Ballarat. I just wondered if the ladies you’re interviewing could explain to me why, if I own a $2 million farm in regions and I’m why I’d wired to pay 72 cents per $1000 of CIV, but if I own a two-million-dollar house, which I don’t, in Melbourne, I’d only pay 22 cents on my CIV per thousand dollars.

Rafael Epstein:

Well, you get an exemption. My understanding, Rod, I’m only going off the Treasury cheat sheet, if I can call it that. The title that contains your house is not the same as the title you are trying to get produce out of. That’s one of the reasons there’s a difference. Is that enough of a difference for you. because it’s not your house that’s being taxed. It’s your productive land that’s being taxed.

Rod:

Well, a lot of farmers like ourselves own houses, granted as you say on small titles, but the rest of the property are on other titles, but the difference that a lot of farmers are upset about is the 72 cents per CIV versus 22 cents for a residence in Melbourne.

Rafael Epstein:

Yeah. I understand. I understand. Rod, it sounds like you’re actually working right now, from the sound of it, but do you have a sense of, and I realise no one’s actually been given the bill yet, but you’ve probably done the numbers yourself. Do you know how much extra you are looking at?

Rod:

Oh, we’re only small. I’m actually ringing, because ours is going be a couple of thousand dollars, but I’m actually ringing because I know a lot of farmers, that are a lot bigger than us, who just don’t have time to stand on the side of the road while they’re feeding their cows to talk to you guys. I feel sorry for them. I understand they’re the guys that they don’t have time to pass wind. I mean, they’re just flat-out, feeding animals all day, picking up-

Rafael Epstein:

And the hay is ridiculously expensive. I know, I hear you. Yeah.

Rod:

If you can get it, Raf.

Rafael Epstein:

Oh, I know Rod. Look, I’m going to be helping someone feed their cows tomorrow.

Rod:

Hey, I don’t want to hold up your time.

Rafael Epstein:

No, no. You’re not holding up our time, Rod. Great to hear from you.

Rod:

It’s a country-city divide that we’ve got to try and close, Raf, and we need people like you to try and close it.

Rafael Epstein:

We’ll try. In fact, we’re going to be trying to do a bit of that next week, Rod. 1300222774 is the phone number. The fate of the artist that used to be known as the Coalition., In a moment.

Audio:

God tear comedy is on ABC Iview. Good God. Unbelievable. More checklists. Breeders, check. Big Boys, check. Double Park, check. And so many more. Check, check, check. Always free. Always hilarious on ABC iview. On the ABC Listen app, your smart speaker, and on 774 AM. This is ABC Radio Melbourne with Raf Epstein.

Rafael Epstein:

We’ll see if we can at least entertain Rod on his tractor, and Emma and Colleen will tell you some of the stuff they’ve been watching and reading in a bit, but Emma Dawson from the Chifley Research Centre and Colleen Harkin from the IPA. Emma, I’m going to give you the softest of soft balls, as A Labour-aligned panellist. I do want you to turn your analytical brain on. What’s the cause of the split that now means we don’t have a coalition between Liberal and National. What’s the cause?

Emma Dawson:

I think it’s a deeper and longer standing cause than a lot of people have recognised this week. There’s a good piece by Judy Brett in The Guardian about this. There’s fundamentally a growing divide on policy and ideology between the two parties. And so, if you look at what the national, the four policy areas that the Nationals want have blown the coalition up over, they are things that are deeply antithetical to a smaller liberal approach, particularly to the economy, so things like breaking up supermarkets, spending public money on nuclear power, etc. This divide has been there in the coalition for a long, long time, but it’s usually been able to be papered over or compromises to be reached. I think, as we progress further down the track towards renewable energy, towards net-zero, these divides are just going to become bigger. There was a time when the Nationals really represented the farming community, and if you look at the background of their MPs, with some work we did at my old place per capita, 30 years ago, lots of them were farmers or came from farming communities.

Now almost all of them do not come from farming backgrounds. They are more likely to come from the finance sector and have ties to the mining industry, and there’s a deep divide there between what the Liberals need, if they’re going to get back some of those inner city teal seats that are wealthy, economically quite dry, but concerned about climate change, and what the Nats believe, and I think I would say wrongly, is in the interests of regional constituents. Actually, farmers, as we’ve just heard, are at the forefront of climate change and need action on climate change and have the land that could be used for a lot of renewable energy generation. A lot of farmers are very pro-action on climate change, but the mining industry does not want to see renewables become our main source of power, because they can’t control that the way they can control fossil fuels or uranium. So it’s a deep philosophical and policy divide that needs to be fixed and I don’t know that they’ve got The Capacity to do that.

Rafael Epstein:

Colleen, do you agree? Tell me which bits of that you agree or disagree with?

Colleen Harkin:

Look, there are elements of that that I do agree with. I’ll come back to the issue of energy and reliable energy in a moment, but the divide within the two parties, I think, I don’t know why there was such a rush. Parliament’s not sitting until July. So they’ve had plenty of time to sort of contemplate their navels and work out each of them, who they are and what they actually stand for. I think that was a very much part of the problem in the recent election, is that liberal parties simply hadn’t worked out what its policy offering was based on its values, so I think it’s an opportunity for both of those parties to do that homework that they hadn’t done before and then perhaps regroup. I mean, we joked a moment ago about whether they’d regroup while we were sitting here talking, but I think that’s what actually has to happen. Both of those parties have to work out where their values are, where their values are cemented in the ground, and then what their common-

Rafael Epstein:

Do you blame one side more than the other?

Colleen Harkin:

No, I don’t. But I do think that all of those MPs have two and a half years. That’s your job in opposition. There actually isn’t a lot to do in opposition. Your job is to make sure that you’re ready to go to the next election with policies that are cemented in your values, and I don’t think that party did that.

Emma Dawson:

I think you’re right. I think these two things are [inaudible 00:19:03].

Colleen Harkin:

You think I’m right or wrong?

Emma Dawson:

I think you’re right.

Rafael Epstein:

You’re right.

Emma Dawson:

Yeah. And I think the reason they weren’t able to do that was because under Dutton-

Rafael Epstein:

The divide already there.

Emma Dawson:

… under Dutton, he knew to keep the coalition together and unified, he would have to tolerate some policies that were being pushed by the Nats that were really not acceptable to call Liberal Party values, and now that he’s left…

Rafael Epstein:

I want to drill down on something because you mentioned you wanted to say something about energy policy, so it’s clearly contentious, or, what’s the point you want to make?

Colleen Harkin:

Yeah. So 79% of people surveyed in a stat said that they wanted reliable and affordable energy way ahead of meeting net-zero targets. And so, the only way we’re going to get… If you’re a net-zero person, the only way we’re going to get there is with nuclear. You can’t possibly get there any other way. We’re putting in tens of thousands of solar panels per week that are not recyclable. There’s a whole lot of problems with it, right?

Rafael Epstein:

Can I just cite one thing against that? I’m going to get a little bit pointy-headed here, but the Australian energy market operator, the VicRoads, as I call them, of the energy grid. They sort of run the grid. They do talk to 1,500 people involved in the industry every year and the coalition’s policy was actually based off their… One of the AMO’s views out to 2050. They talk to 1,500 people in the energy sector twice a year and work on a whole lot of plans. None of those people are saying to them, “We need nuclear -“

Colleen Harkin:

No.

Rafael Epstein:

… “out to 2050.” Isn’t that an issue?

Colleen Harkin:

We’re not going to get there without nuclear –

Emma Dawson:

But we are-

Colleen Harkin:

It’s just the-

Emma Dawson:

The experts are showing-

Colleen Harkin:

We’re not. We’re not going to make the 2030 targets-

Emma Dawson:

Labor’s policy is not just renewables and it’s represented that way. There is a clear pathway to net-zero using renewables with battery storage and gas backup. Now, there’s an argument on the left about gas is a fossil fuel –

Rafael Epstein:

Gas is on a … yes.

Emma Dawson:

We should be getting out of that as well. But the fact is nuclear does not stack up in this country. Not only on safety grounds on when we can build it, how soon is it going to be viable, but economically it doesn’t stack up.

Rafael Epstein:

Economically as well. So can I just try and reframe it? Because we don’t have time to fully prosecute the evidence for and against. I just wanted to put to you, Colleen, Paul Erickson made an interesting point. So he ran Labor’s campaign. He is saying that for the conservative side of politics, for the right, nuclear is a bit like the Medicare issue. It took a long time through the ’80s and into the ’90s. I actually went in 1996 to John Howard’s press conference just a few months before the election where he said, “Look, Medicare’s safe,” and that was seen as a huge moment by the Canberra Press Gallery. I don’t want to talk about how Medicare has been in this campaign, but Paul Erickson’s point was it took the coalition 10 years to wrap their brain around the idea they couldn’t get rid of Medicare. I’m assuming you don’t think that is a fair analogy, that it’s not –

Colleen Harkin:

Look I –

Rafael Epstein:

…[inaudible 00:03:27] to talk about it?

Colleen Harkin:

… I listened to Paul’s presentation to the Press Club. I mean, he’s a very clever person, right? There’s no doubt he ran a very good campaign, but I didn’t agree with a lot of his analysis of the campaign. In my view, I think the benchmark ought to just remove four words out of one piece of legislation-

Rafael Epstein:

That’s the moratorium.

Colleen Harkin:

Yeah. That removes the moratorium because there’s no point having all of these discussions about how much it will cost, where it will cost-

Rafael Epstein:

You’re just saying let the market do it.

Colleen Harkin:

Let it work itself out while there’s a moratorium on it there’s no sensibile real conversation about it.

Emma Dawson:

Well, that moratorium’s not going anywhere anytime soon under a Labour government with the Greens. A Greens cross bench isn’t-

Rafael Epstein:

It’s also not going anywhere, I should say, with either the Victorian Liberal party or the LNP in Queensland. However, a quick prediction from both of you, because David Littleproud was saying yesterday, he thinks the Coalition might be back together before Parliament sits in July. So I know no one knows the answer, but just best guess, Colleen, do you think there’ll be a Coalition again before Parliament sits?

Colleen Harkin:

In July?

Rafael Epstein:

Yeah.

Colleen Harkin:

Oh, it’s looking likely, isn’t it?

Rafael Epstein:

You think it’s looking likely? I have no idea.

Colleen Harkin:

I mean Susan Ley said that it wouldn’t happen until the next election and then all of a sudden they’re having another meeting and it’s chaotic.

Rafael Epstein:

So you think it’s likely?

Colleen Harkin:

It’s likely.

Rafael Epstein:

Likely. What do you think, Emma?

Emma Dawson:

Yeah, I think it’s likely. I think that ultimately there’s been a few hurt feelings and some dummy spits, but they’ll realise they’re even further away from returning to government if they don’t get back together.

Rafael Epstein:

And it seems to me Colleen, voters remember this though.

Colleen Harkin:

Of course they do.

Rafael Epstein:

Isn’t it damaging?

Colleen Harkin:

Of course it is.

Rafael Epstein:

That’s damaging for Brad Battin, no?

Colleen Harkin:

No, I don’t think so.

Rafael Epstein:

Okay. But damaging long term federally?

Colleen Harkin:

I think people are able to differentiate these sorts of public spats. Like I said just a moment ago, I don’t know why it was so urgent. They could have done all this behind closed doors and sorted themselves out. It’s not a good look.

Rafael Epstein:

No.

Emma Dawson:

It’s a ridiculous reaction to the election, can I just say, because I think if this election outcome showed us one thing, it’s that the Australian people are fed up with bitching and moaning and arguing and they just went, okay, everyone back to your corners. Let’s let a majority government have a decent go for once and to react to that by having throwing your toys out of the pram…

Rafael Epstein:

Well, even less analytically, they’re just like, if you’re not talking about the things I’m talking about, I’m not interested.

Emma Dawson:

Then I’m not interested. They’re still talking about themselves again.

Rafael Epstein:

Yeah. Maybe. Can I bring in Tom, who’s calling from Caulfield East, we were having a chat about debt because that’s been part of the conversation about the state budget this week. Tom, what do you want to say?

Tom:

Oh, good morning, everybody. Just, I’ll get a bit bored with the debt and deficit sort of argument in regards to infrastructure, like walk down Koornang Road and ask the traders down there if they’d still like the boom gates back. We’ve been positively impacted by the removal of railway crossings in this area…

Rafael Epstein:

Good Ramen in Koornang Road. Just saying.

Tom:

Yeah, it’s very good ramen in Koornang Road, yeah. Bolte believed in people in the future paying for the benefits of the infrastructure that he built. He wanted the grandkids and kids, great grandkids to pay for that. That’s why he built the schools. That’s why he built Tullamarine. That’s why he built the Tullamarine Freeway. If you’re going to put two statues of premiers together, put Bolte and Andrews together, and they both should be celebrated for what they did.

Rafael Epstein:

They’ve managed to avoid the statue conversation for a while. By the way, whenever someone tells you about the statues and Dan Andrews, if he’s going to get one or not, whatever, go and have a look at them. They are awesome statues outside the Premier’s office block and there’s, who’s the one in the little gardens on the other side of the Parliament House? Is that Bolte and his wife?

Emma Dawson:

I think so.

Rafael Epstein:

Okay. They’re gorgeous sculptures. The John Cain sculpture…

Emma Dawson:

The John Cain one’s just beautiful.

Rafael Epstein:

Yeah, they’re really, really good sculptures. That’s just up in Treasury Gardens, go and have a look. Colleen Harkin is with us from the IPA. Emma Dawson’s with us from the Chifley Research Centre. I’m a bit late to the news headlines, but I don’t want to let anybody go without knowing what you guys have been reading or watching. Colleen’s an avid TikToker herself, so she’s got an influencer for me to follow. Colleen’s laugh. I meant it half-seriously. Something you’ve been reading or watching or something else to recommend?

Colleen Harkin:

No, my offering today is the new Net series, it’s a show called “Nonna”

Rafael Epstein:

Nonna. Is it Nonna or Nonnas?

Colleen Harkin:

Nonna’s.

Rafael Epstein:

Nonna’s. Netflix.

Colleen Harkin:

It’s appealing because from my point of view, there are very few occasions where you see mature-age people being the cast, right? And it’s a cast of five or six women who I think they maybe in their sixties or seventies or something. And in Australia, for example, on TV, only seven per cent of our main characters are mature-age people when they’re actually 23/24 percent of the population. So I just sort of a shout out to those people who are making movies of not just all gorgeous, twenty five year old’s.

Emma Dawson:

I enjoyed it too.

Rafael Epstein:

Nonna’s.

Emma Dawson:

Nonna’s.

Colleen Harkin:

Nonna’s.

Rafael Epstein:

Basic plot?

Colleen Harkin:

It’s apparently based on a true story of a guy in New York, I think it is, who started a restaurant in honour of his grandmother.

Rafael Epstein:

Oh, right.

Emma Dawson:

And he got the local Italian nonna’s to cook in it.

Colleen Harkin:

To cook for him.

Rafael Epstein:

Okay, I get it. Okay, we got a little bit of the audio. Yes, we do. This is the Netflix show, “Nonna’s”.

Audio:

This rooster. Where’s the oregano? You call this Italian food? Come on, attacking me again, Roberta. Come on. On come. Spaghetti and meatballs, it’s deli meat and [inaudible 00:08:26] This is good stuff. See? [foreign language 00:08:32] He’s trying to kill me.

Rafael Epstein:

Okay, I’m laughing already and I haven’t even watched a single bit of it. That’s “Nonna’s” on Netflix.

Emma?

Emma Dawson:

Yeah, look, it’s very good fun. Something to read then. “Fearless Beatrice Faust”, new book from Judith Brett, I’ve mentioned Judith twice today. Really great biography of one of our more colourful feminists.

Rafael Epstein:

Who was Beatrice Faust?

Emma Dawson:

She was an Australian feminist scholar, an activist in the 1970s and eighties. She had some fairly strident views around things like prostitution and pornography amongst others, but she was involved in the women’s electoral lobby

Rafael Epstein:

Right, that’s why Judith [inaudible 00:09:11].

Emma Dawson:

It’s a great read. It’s a really, Judith always, she always brings these things to life and it’s a particularly good book, I enjoyed it a lot.

Rafael Epstein:

My recommendation, if you haven’t watched it, if you want to watch something that is, we’re actually going to hopefully talk about next week, but Star Wars for adults, there is nothing like “Andor”. It makes the entire Star Wars universe better. And if you are into politics, and you into rebellions and repression and distortions of the truth and insurgencies and what rebellions are actually built on, Andor is for you. If you don’t like Star Wars, I don’t think there’s a single lightsaber.

Colleen Harkin:

No.

Rafael Epstein:

And there’s a tiny mention of the force.

Colleen Harkin:

I’ve never seen any Star Wars

Rafael Epstein:

And if you ever read any of those original reviews of Star Wars in 1977 that reference the Vietnam War, and you sort of read them now and think, sorry, what? This is just amped up to the nines. Why was there a rebellion? Why was there an Empire? Andor, strong recommend. Hopefully we’ll talk about it next week. Emma Dawson has joined us from the Chifley Research Centre. Thank you, Emma.

Emma Dawson:

Thanks Raf. Thanks Colleen.

Rafael Epstein:

And Colleen Harkins with the Institute of Public Affairs. Thank you very much.

Colleen Harkin:

Great, thank you both.

This transcript with Colleen Harkin talking on The Weekly Wrap Mornings ABC Radio Melbourne 23 May 2025 has been edited for clarity.