Through the heavy-duty gates and past the guard and then up the stairs littered with Israeli flag bunting. We’re heading to the Moshe Triguboff Auditorium at the Moriah War Memorial College, where Allegra Spender and Dave Sharma will come together for a debate organised by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. Labor’s Matt Thistlethwaite is joining them from neighbouring electorate Kingsford Smith, and appears to be a third wheel for the Wentworth title fight, but he’ll prove his mettle later on.
Sadly, the hall is only about half full, leading to a decided lack of atmosphere. Audience members are asked to submit questions online, with a piece of paper available for the less tech-savvy. The only audience interaction or moment of levity is when one attendee rails at Sharma that he’s still paying $2.19 a litre for petrol, prompting Sharma to offer to share his petrol station itinerary so he can fill up cheaper.
But it’s Israel first. We don’t even need to get to the questions for that, because Spender — or “Holmes à Court-backed candidate” as the Daily Telegraph insists on calling her, because female independents apparently can only be defined in terms of a male — wants to hit back at a News Corp smear campaign suggesting that because she received advice from Blair Palese (who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement) she’s anti-Semitic. In fact, Spender insists, she’s a strong supporter of Israel, and talks of its 3000-year connection to the land, the need for it to be strong, and her opposition to BDS. Indeed, this is not a debate to be arguing over whether BDS is anti-Semitic, let alone anything more controversial.
Sharma opens hard: there are only two choices in the election, he says, a Labor government or a Morrison government, and Labor and independents will side with the Greens, who loom as extremist bogeymen above proceedings. Sharma has cowered in bomb shelters in Israel, he says; he’s gone to hospitals and to funerals there; he has a visceral reaction when Israel is attacked. It’s grist to the mill, but far more effective.
When the questions start, it’s a seamless transition — the first topic is anti-Semitism. Everyone wants the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism adopted as policy, despite the deeply problematic conflation in the definition of Judaism with Zionism. Spender, having said her piece on anti-Semitism and Israel, waffles a little but fixes on a bigger role for Holocaust museums. Sharma accuses the ABC of running anti-Semitic commentary, and wants the national broadcasters to adopt the IHRA definition too.
The topic segues to education and anti-Semitism, where Spender is more comfortable, identifying the section of the school curriculum where she wants increased education on anti-Semitism. Sharma then, neatly, decides to turn the question around and reminds people about how successful Australia is as a multicultural society.
So far, with Spender playing defence on anti-Semitism and topics mostly playing to Sharma’s strengths, it’s favoured the incumbent. But things are about to turn. The next question is on preferences, and Spender seizes the chance to give a well-prepared spiel on how Australia is best governed by moderates from the centre, not the extremes, and how the government is being run by Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan on climate.
Spender isn’t allocating preferences, so has nothing to worry about, but Sharma is specifically asked why he is preferencing UAP ahead of Labor and Spender when the UAP gave a platform to a neo-Nazi. It’s not a good look for Sharma, and he immediately declares he wished there was optional preferential voting, and that voters should preference how they like. That is, the Liberal candidate is urging voters to ignore the Liberal how-to-vote card — does that mean Sharma has no need for election-day volunteers?
More trouble awaits on the next topic, climate, where Thistlethwaite delivers the perfect response, attacking the Coalition for weaponising climate, name-checking Joyce and Canavan (the alternate bogeymen), itemising Labor’s policies — especially on electric vehicles — and boasting of the work of the University of New South Wales on solar technology.
Spender is now on the front foot, saying a 2050 target is meaningless and the next 10 years are what really count — she wants a 50% cut by 2030. She argues that climate is an economic issue, a cost-of-living issue and a national security issue. It’s smart framing, well delivered. Sharma obliquely criticises his own side, saying he got into politics because he was sick of representing Australia on climate issues, then argues — to audible hostility from the audience — that Australia is doing better than other countries.
Sharma gets to go first on the next question on the cost of living and workforce shortages, and it’s a tactical blow for him; he concentrates on talking about the government’s budget measures for the cost of living and delivers little. But Thistlethwaite knocks it out of the park, saying there were skill shortages before the pandemic because the Coalition slashed vocational education and higher education funding. He then shifts to wage stagnation, housing affordability and childcare, in a perfect answer that savages the government while describing Labor’s proposals.
Spender also delivers strongly, arguing for higher immigration and easier visa entry requirements for workers so local businesses can put more staff on. Where, she asks, are all the workers going to come from to fill the jobs that the major parties say they are going to fund? It’s an excellent question, avoided by Sharma and Thistlethwaite.
The debate finishes on foreign policy. Thistlethwaite offers some bromides about Labor policy, but Sharma, on his home turf, gives a glimpse of that intelligence he loves to tell us about, giving a brilliantly succinct history lesson on Australia’s international environment since World War II, and how the post-Cold War era is now at an end. It’s excellent stuff from the former diplomat.
But Spender is undaunted, and charges onto what is supposed to be the Coalition’s home ground. We’ve failed diplomatically by alienating France and allowing China to gain a foothold in the Solomon Islands, she says, and much of that is down to our refusal to take climate action, which she repeats is a crucial national security issue.
If Spender defeats Sharma, it will be a telling moment: the teal independent taking climate onto her opponents’ home turf and using it to undermine his claims to office. That might be exactly what could unfold on Saturday week.
How about the non-News Corp media start calling the Coalition candidates “the Murdoch-backed candidates”.
I think it will be beneficial having teal Independent’s elected to parliament. They will help bring Australia back to the centre and after a decade of climate change denial by the Coalition we may actually achieve some positive outcomes on that front, especially if Labor are elected. Anthony Albanese is known for working well with others on important issues.
“ Sharma has cowered in bomb shelters in Israel, he says; he’s gone to hospitals and to funerals there; he has a visceral reaction when Israel is attacked”
So sick of those that criticise Israel being called anti Semitic
Yes, especially since many Jewish people (both orthodox and liberal) oppose Zionism.
The Libs’ preference strategy: if they don’t get in they’d rather have nutters represent their electorate. Is there a better word than appalling?
The Teals are hardly nutters but rather intelligent women with abilities, energy and integrity!
Read it more carefully:
Sharma is specifically asked why he is preferencing UAP ahead of Labor and Spender
I thought when you mentioned all the Israeli flags that you were going to tell us it was being held at the Israeli embassy. Ironic that people then went on about foreign threat to Australia when the last major incident was Israel’s spy group stealing Australian identities.