Sarah Hanson-Young on why progressives need to 'take on' One Nation

from the conversation. This is politics with Michelle Graten. >> In the current Senate, the government has the choice of negotiating with either the coalition or the Greens to get legislation through. When it sought recently to pass its gambling reform measures and its legislation to reform the NDIS, both major issues, Labour did its deals with the opposition rather than the Greens to the frustration of the minor party. To talk about how the Greens are traveling in this parliamentary term, we're joined today by South Australian Green Senator Sarah Hansen Young. She was elected in 2007 and is the longest serving of the current Greens team and has a high profile across a range of issues. Sarah Hansen Young, we're about halfway through this parliamentary term. How would you say the Greens are doing at this point? Look, we've had some um interesting uh wins already and some important wins. I think last time I was on this podcast with you, we' just passed significantly amended and changed environment laws. That was the end of last year. So, we've had some good wins. We've obviously dragged the government in relation to capital gains tax and we saw those changes uh and negative gearing, those changes in this year's budget. But, of course, this whole period has been a kind of a rebuild for us. You know, we lost our leader at the last election. We've got a new leader, Lissa Waters, who's doing a fabulous job. And politics is kind of turned on its head. It is fracturing all over the place. And we are having to think about how we engage and and work hard to be engaged with people in what is now a really not just politically fractured environment but supercharged by social media and online where people are very much in their own lanes and um often don't have peripheral vision for for other things that are that are going on. So it's a it's a new world for all of us but we're doing well. So, how would you compare this term to last term when the Greens were criticized by some for being too militant? >> Look, I think um every term is different. You see that you know been doing this uh some time now and you know each prime minister is different but every term is even different for each prime minister and how the prime minister of the day interacts with the Senate particularly the time we we obviously have balance of power in the Senate. This term uh we have had to spend a lot of time in negotiations. We that that wasn't the case last time. It wasn't just we weren't in sole balance of power then. So, we've had to adapt uh in relation to that. I think Lissa's approach to things to be really honest with you is she wants to get stuff done. She said that from the beginning and she wants to do that and we are doing that. But we also have to stay true to our values and that means, you know, standing up for people um who uh are finding it pretty pretty tough and pretty rough right now, especially when the government makes excuses for not doing things. And I think this is a big part of what's going on here and that people are angry, people are frustrated. Uh cost of living crisis is having an impact and particularly on um the most vulnerable. People are are looking around and they they're saying this system isn't working for us. The political system that we were told to believe in and and had experienced now is just not working for them. It's certainly working for some people. It's working for the big corporations. It's working for the vested interest, but it's not actually working for people. And I think what's happening is that there is a frustration of people not just that the system's not working when they need it the most, but then they're hearing from government all these excuses about why the system can't be fixed. And I think that is that is that's a a big driver of the discontent. Just to come back for a moment to the specifics of the Senate. How easy or difficult is it to negotiate with the Albani government? And were you disappointed that on the NDIS legislation and the gambling legislation, the government chose to cut deals with the opposition, not the Greens. I think the government um had made up their mind very early on that they uh wanted to deal with the coalition uh on both those pieces of legislation. The Greens have been very strong of course advocating for the rights of uh Australians who are living with disability uh and their families. And you know, we'd said right from the beginning, stop trying to scapegoat um this community. Uh if this is about um uh fixing the system and it's about making it sustainable um then you really got to make sure it is that the those people who need this need the services are at the heart of the solution. But of course the government just took the chainsaw. They just took the chainsaw to it. You know they didn't want to take on big the big gas companies. They didn't want to tax gas. They didn't want to bring in more money. So they took the axe and the chainsaw to the NDIS system. We were really clear with the government that we weren't we were going to fight that tooth and nail and we have on gambling. Look, let's be really honest. Anthony Albanzy never wanted to do this. He's been dragged kicking and screaming to have to look like he's doing something because the vested interests are clearly at the core of this uh for for the Labor government. They've got their claws into Labor and the Liberal Party and the passage of that legislation. I mean, it is so poor. It is going to be so useless. It's it's all window dressing. It's to look like they've responded to the community concern while actually doing um bugger all. And uh it's, you know, you don't have to take my word for it. The gambling companies are happy and the big sporting codes, the corporate sports companies are happy. I mean, that says everything. So, do you think there's no more chance of reform in the short to mediumterm on the gambling front? >> Well, I think there is going to have to be because it hasn't solved the problem and it's not going to solve the problem. It's if and the and the thing that I've really learned through all of this is the power of lived experience and the the stories, Michelle, of people who regular Australians who are hurting and have suffered because of this insidious gambling industry that has groomed them, that has profited off addiction and harm. And those Australians are not going to give up. the majority of of the community, the vast majority of the community wanted to see those ads gone. Whether whether they gamble or not, they wanted to see those ads gone and they're not going to be gone. So the the clamor and the the fight is going to continue. And I I know I just so many people are disappointed that the Labor Party did not have the spine uh to take on the vested interest in that space. Now you've spoken about people's disillusionment and since the election we've seen a surging one nation and a decline in the support for uh the major parties. The Greens vote has stayed pretty consistent. Why do you think that is and what can be done to broaden the Greens base? Because in a time of disillusionment, wouldn't you expect the Greens to be increasing their vote rather than being fairly static? >> It is interesting. This is the fracturing that I'm saying is going on. I mean, what we've seen since the election is, you know, Labor have dropped seven or eight points since the last election. The coalition 10, the Greens are up slightly. We're, you know, up one or two points actually. And of course, One Nation uh is up. One Nation's vote is obviously coming mostly off the coalition, but somewhat off uh the Labor Party. I think what we will start to see in over the next 12 months in the leadup to the next election is people who are frustrated but don't they don't want to burn the place down. Australians are are smart. They know that the system is not working uh for them. That this the vested interests run the show. The gambling companies run the show. where the gas companies are are getting what they want. Gina Reinhardt gets what she wants. Uh and they're not seeing the Labor Party or the Coalition put forward solutions that actually deal with their problems. And and in fact, the opposite. It's kind of excusing it. It's all too hard. We can't possibly take these vested interests on. And I think over the next 12 months, we are going to see a large number of Australians look at the major parties and go, that's not for us. Some of them are already going to to to being picked up by One Nation. Um, but those who actually want a uh kinder, fairer Australia are going to be looking at the Greens. How much of a threat do you think One Nation will be to the Green Senate position? Could One Nation in fact take a number of your seats? >> Look, I I don't believe so. I can I'm I'm looking at uh the polls as they are. And as I said, Labor and Liberal are going down significantly and are losing votes to One Nation. The Greens vote is actually up and so I don't think One Nation are a threat to our Senate seats, but they are a threat to the future of this country. And One Nation is a threat to the type of nation we want to be. And I and I say that without apology. I mean, I know there's a lot of hand ringing that often goes on here that we can't possibly you you can't take on Pauline Hansen. You can't criticize her because it just makes her stronger. Well, I actually think that that is rubbish. I think she is uh in the business of grievance politics. There is real grievances out there. That is absolutely true. But Pauline Hansen isn't dealing with the grievances. She's profiting off them. She's using them. and and she needs to be called out for that. And she's spent an entire political career of 30 years perfecting perfecting this. She is the she's one of the savviest, trickiest politicians in this place and pretends otherwise. She punches down on people. She punches down on indigenous community. She punches down on migrants. She punches down on single parents and single moms. She punches down on gay and lesbian Australians. and then has the gull to turn around and complain when she gets called out. And I think there there is partly a a kind of hand ringing from some in progressive quarters to say, "Oh, we we can't take her on." Well, I just say rubbish. She has to be called out and taken on. Her voters and those who are looking at One Nation because they're frustrated with the system, their grievances are real. But Pauline Hansen is a phony. But when she's called out, why doesn't it seem to make any difference at the moment? >> Look, I do think there's a real concern. I've got the and I've been thinking about this in the just in the last few days. Obviously, Pauline has Pauline Hansen has made some comments about, you know, the negativity that she gets and and what how that's contributed to um the nastiness uh in political debate. I mean, what how hypocritical. And this is a woman who's said the most terrible things in her political career. She tells entire groups of Australians that they aren't equal and then has the goal and then has the goal to cry that she's the victim. I'm all for increasing civility in politics. And Pauline Hansen has got to look look in the mirror. And I think what's happened is Pauline Hansen has surrounded herself with nutters and it's kind of normalized. Oh, well that's just that's just one of Pauline Hansen and One Nation's crazy senators saying a crazy thing or that's just another thing Pauline Hansen has said. It becomes normalized. And that is why I I I genuinely believe that we have to be prepared to call it out and take her on. If we don't, it just becomes even more normalized. But in doing so, we also have to acknowledge that the grievances of people in the community who are feeling it tough is real. But stop the and that's why the major parties are they're going to fail if they don't stop making excuses why they can't take on the vested interests. >> So why do you think there is so much hate and bitterness in the political debate at the moment? It's not just it's not just one nation, is it? wider. Look, I I think it's not just political debate. There there is a higher level of aggression and confrontation that comes when you discuss issues across the board. Uh social media has driven a lot of that and you look at um how these toxic algorithms have um played a fact are playing a factor in pushing um us into our own tunnels at the expense of being able to see what else is going on. It is as if our our empathy um senses are have been turned down. I think social media has really contributed to that and and that works to the it's it's part of the business model of big tech. They do that so that they can sell more things to more people and and make maximum profit. That's why they drive us into these different echo chambers and I think politics is a reflection of that and Pauline Hansen and One Nation are absolutely part of the problem. Um but we are in a world where in order to cut through in order to be heard it is kind of outrage upon outrage upon outrage and I guess from my perspective you know I'm talking to people in my local community you know not just in South Australia across the country and I'm what I'm hearing from regular Australians is they are frustrated but they want us to fix the system not burn it down and at the moment I think there is a longingness and a desperation to be able to have robust conversation and confrontation without having to resort to seeing, you know, neo-Nazis on the street or terrible abuse of members of our uh migrant community or Muslim community or uh indigenous people who feel strangers in their on their own land. And I think we do have to I think for those people and they have every right to be frustrated and they have every right to be frustrated that the outrage machine uh that is driving politics right now is not serving them. >> Just on the question of social media, we've of course got the under 16s ban. How do you think that's working? And would you like to see more controls on social media to stop some of these ills that you're speaking about? Yeah, look, I mean the social media ban uh I mean it was implemented uh almost two years ago, but it's been uh under operation um for the last 9 months and it's been a fundamental failure in terms of um keeping young people safe online and 70% of under 16s are still accessing social media and yet these platforms uh have done nothing to improve the standard of their product. it is in fact supercharged uh even more so with these really toxic algorithms. Um and it's a business model and I said right from the beginning of these the social media ban I understand the desperation to make online the online experience safer for our young people. It is it is absolutely essential but unless you hit the social media companies at their business model where it hurts it's going to keep going. And so the two things that drive the social media companies are these uh suggested or recommended algorithms where they push content into people's feed whether you've whether you've followed them or not uh and they take people's data you're the product as the user and they sell it for advertising and they are the two elements that need to be uh tackled and so I say to the government you know there's a campaign at the moment uh to fix our feeds run by um teach us consent Chanel Kontos' group. She just g a great speech at the press club this week and she's saying at least give users the opportunity to turn off these suggested algorithms. Let us just follow the people we want to follow without shoving these other content down our throats. You know, it used to be like that. It actually only changed in around 2020 that these algorithms, suggested algorithms kind of bombard people's feeds. But the other point um is uh we need to make these companies legally responsible for the harm they are creating. And you can see what's going on in the US right now. You know, court cases that are finding uh Meta uh and other social media companies liable because they have been deliberately designing a product that is addictive and harmful. And so we need a proper duty of care, a legal requirement on the platforms here in Australia to say if you want if you want to trade in this product, you have to make sure it is safe and isn't creating harm to your customers, to the user. >> Are those things enforcable? >> Yes, they are. They are. And it's not, of course, none of this stuff is easy. These are big global tech companies. They have a lot of money, but they are enforceable. It's being a number of these things are being triled elsewhere around the world. New York State has just introduced a requirement that says uh social media companies have to have a have a setting so that you that users have to opt in uh if they want the suggested algorithms, you know, other than the people you you you actively choose to follow. in the UK and in the EU, uh there's a whole debate about how people's individual data data that is how we use these platforms um are pro is protected so it's not used to manipulate and to sell things and to suck us into these horrible rabbit holes where uh toxic masculinity, um extremism, all of the worst and darkest parts of society are fed and flourish. And what about the under 16 ban? What would you do about that? You you're essentially saying in its present form, it's nearly useless. I think we need to keep ensuring that young people have a um an onboarding onto social media and the internet and digital literacy. So you know there does need to be state there are there does there does need to be settings that are appropriate for young people but the whole platform has to be made safer because young people will always find a way around things and there is not it and is not in the company's interests to make anything safer uh unless they are forced to do so. So they don't mind they don't mind that young people are finding their way through because that's just more dollars for them. >> But you'd keep the ban. Look, I think the ban itself isn't working. Um, >> so keep it or not keep it. >> Well, I I I I I don't think the ban the way it is, um, if you were going to design this system properly with, you know, as the experts have suggested, you wouldn't have a ban. You would have requirements that the companies need to adhere to that are age specific. You wouldn't kick young people off the internet or pretend that you're kicking them off social media. You would actually force these companies say if you've got miners on your platform, these are some really basic things that you must do. >> But we're not designing the system from scratch. So given we've got the ban, what would you do with it in the here and now? >> Uh we we have to underpin it with the duty of care and the fix our feeds. give people back the power uh to determine what is in their feeds that they're not just being used as a marketing tool for whether it's products and advertising or indeed malicious and nasty content. >> Just want to ask you about data centers which are um the flavor of the the year I guess and the years to come. Do you still support a moratorum on new data centers at the moment? >> Yes, I mean this is obviously a a big looming um issue and across the country communities who are already under pressure from big mostly big US AI data companies and and uh tech companies who want to set up these data centers. the communities are under huge pressure to have them, you know, uh in their in their local area. Um we know that these centers are they use a lot of power, a lot of energy, a lot of water. They they want to set up shop here in Australia uh to do their work because they think the rules are going to be easier for them. In the United States, we've seen communities really starting to um push back against big AI and big data centers. And I'm starting to see that happen here in Australia. The government says they're going to intro they they want some rules around this. What the standards are. The problem is these centers are being built now. Some of the biggest we've ever seen in Australia, we're being told will be finished by the end of end of this year. And yet these rules are not in place. So I say to the government, if you're serious about regulating AI and data centers and actually making them work for the people, the Australian community, cuz I don't know what we get out of this at the moment. These companies are going to use enormous amounts of power. Uh it's going to uh in and not all that power is going to be renewable. We know that they are plugging into uh to to fossil fuels. So they're going to be not just power hungry but polluters, water hungry. And Australians are being told and AI is going to take people's jobs. So the Australian community is going, "Well, what is in this for us? We're going to have higher power bills. We're going to have more pollution and it's going to impact our job. What do we get from this?" So unless the government actually puts in place strong rules uh before these centers get the green light, I think they're going to have a lot of angry uh communities from one end of the country to to the other. >> So how long would you put a moratorum on? >> Well, I think until the rules are settled and uh but that could be a matter of months, right? Because legislation is being prepared. So it will be months rather than years. >> Well, possibly. Yes. I mean, if the rules are strong enough to hold these companies to account and get and make sure communities are getting what they need, then you know, that's the purpose of the moratorum. I mean, there's two there's two options the government has. You're either if you're serious about putting these uh rules and standards in for AI. One, they got to be strong enough and not just weasel words because we know what big tech does. They've done it with social media. They'll do it with with AI. We know how the big gas companies behaved. you know, we we haven't regulated them or taxed them properly and now they cry blue murder at the suggestion that they should be taxed. Just imagine what big AI is going to do if we don't have the rules in place first. And so, they've got to be tough enough. But the government's got two choices. They put put in place a moratorum until the rules are in place and enforceable so that they apply to all new centers or they're going to have to make the rules retrospective. They either believe that these rules are needed or they don't. It's either a serious policy proposition from the Albanesei government or it's a fig leaf. Now, just finally, I noticed the South Australian government has called on the Albanesei government to legislate to uh allow the use of teley health in voluntary assisted dying care. You've got a private senator's bill on this matter. What chance do you have of bringing that bill on for debate? And have you canvased generally in the Senate to see what support you might get? Look, this is an issue that I feel extremely passionate about. You know, I I grew up in a rural area and I I know how important it is to have access to good quality health care. You know, I have aging parents. uh being able to access specialists and um getting the the health care they they need just for you know on a daily basis is near impossible. So much of our regional communities have been left destitute in terms of access to health care. And now you look at this issue of voluntary assisted dying which is actually legal across the country every state and territory now. And yet if you live in a rural or remote area, you've got Buckley's chance. If you are at your end of life and you want to you're trying to weigh up what your choices are, telly health is an absolutely fundamental important part of ensuring that every Australian has equal access to that type of advice and that type of empathy when considering that advice as any other Australian. I'm very hopeful that we can get this done because the actual issue itself of voluntary assisted dying that has been debated. Australians have overwhelmingly um said they support that with all of the strictest rules in place. I mean Australia has the strictest rules around VAD than anywhere else in the world. >> But have you canvased other senators and what's the response? >> Yes. And we are, you know, I'm I'm talking across across the political divide, across the chamber. There is support for it. I'm hopeful that we can bring this on for a vote and have it done. I would like to see it done by the end of the year. I I think there is a willingness to do that and and I'm going to keep pushing for that. I know there's I know there's some uh strong and powerful voices out there against this happening, right? I'm not I'm not delusional about that. I've I've I've heard what the Archbishop uh in Sydney says, but I I think very clearly that Australians every time they're asked about this issue, they vote with compassion and they and and then if you say, "Should everyone be able to access the advice, they say yes. Should the government be able to block you from being able to have this conversation over the phone with your doctor?" Most Australians just think that that is crazy. don't even know that that that that block uh exists. It's a it's a quirk in the law and it needs to be fixed. It's a simple one to do, but for a very very important issue and um if we're serious about every Australian having equal access to good quality specialist health care, particularly at their end of life, we've got to make sure they can they can use the telephone. >> Sarah Hansen Young, thank you very much for joining the podcast. That's all for today. We'll be back with another interview soon. Thank you to my producer Ben Roer and goodbye for now. Production by Ben Roer, theme music by Lee Rose. The conversation is a not for-p profofit media organization. Sign up to our daily newsletter for evidence-based news and analysis, including articles from Michelle Graten, or listen to more of our shows wherever you get your podcasts.