None of those arguments convinces me. The last one astounds me.
Firstly, Japan and Indonesia are not two random countries selected for a political trivia quiz. They are two of Australia’s most important strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific.
Indonesia is our largest immediate neighbour and a Comprehensive Strategic Partner. Japan is a Special Strategic Partner and one of our most important security, diplomatic and economic relationships. Any Australian politician presenting themselves as capable of national leadership should have a reasonable working knowledge of both.
I don’t expect Pauline Hanson or any politician to be able to name every world leader. I do think it is reasonable to expect someone aspiring to lead this country to know who leads Japan and Indonesia. Particularly when her inability to do so emerged during an interview about her foreign affairs credentials and her suitability to lead the country.
Some people have resorted to the usual whataboutism, pointing out that Albanese didn’t know the cash rate or the unemployment rate before the 2022 election.
That’s true. And we hammered him for it.
They then point out that he was elected anyway. Yes, he was, and look at the mess we’re in now. Frankly, that proves my point rather than theirs. That those making the argument apparently don’t recognise this is another issue altogether.
As for the claim that Albanese wouldn’t have known who led our major regional strategic partners before becoming PM, that is speculation presented as a defence. And when it comes to Indonesia, we have evidence to the contrary.
Albanese wasn’t suddenly plucked from obscurity when he became Prime Minister. He had been in federal parliament for 26 years, had served as a cabinet minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and had been Opposition Leader for three years. As Opposition Leader he was already engaging internationally. In fact, in August 2019 he chose Indonesia for his first overseas visit as Labor leader, specifically because of the importance he placed on the relationship.
Japan is slightly harder to demonstrate with the same direct evidence, but the proposition is still difficult to take seriously. Shinzo Abe had been one of the most prominent leaders in our region, and Fumio Kishida had been Japanese Prime Minister for around seven months before Albanese became PM. Australia-Japan relations, China, the Quad and Indo-Pacific security were hardly obscure subjects for an Australian Opposition Leader.
And then there’s the “her advisers would tell her” defence.
Of course they would. Every Prime Minister has advisers. Their job is to provide detailed briefings, intelligence, specialist expertise and advice.
But advisers supplement a leader’s knowledge; they shouldn’t substitute for it.
A leader still needs sufficient knowledge and understanding to interrogate the advice they receive, assess competing arguments, exercise judgment and ultimately make decisions. An adviser can whisper a name or hand over a briefing note. They cannot manufacture years of accumulated understanding of another country’s politics, strategic interests and relationship with Australia five minutes before a meeting.
And ultimately that is my point.
This isn’t about catching Pauline Hanson out because she couldn’t remember two names.
It’s about what level of knowledge we should reasonably expect from someone presenting herself and her party as capable of governing Australia.
If our standard has fallen to “don’t worry if the prospective Prime Minister doesn’t know who leads two of Australia’s most important strategic partners — somebody on the staff will tell her”, then I would suggest the bar has been set extraordinarily low.
And if we genuinely believe politicians only need to acquire that basic knowledge when an election rolls around, perhaps that extraordinarily low bar also goes some way towards explaining why we keep electing governments and then wondering how the country ended up in the mess it’s in.
