Was it satire? Writing in the Australian newspaper this week, long-term political commentator Paul Kelly has decreed from on high that ‘Pauline Hanson is not fit to be Prime Minister’. More precisely, ‘Pauline Hanson is a known commodity: she is not fit in any sense to be prime minister of this country. Don’t fall for the cheap gibe, “she couldn’t be worse than Albo”. That’s nonsense; Hanson would be far worse than Albanese. She would threaten every aspect of this country, from its prosperity to its cohesion….’

Precisely what defines ‘fitness’ to be prime minister is not made entirely clear, despite Mr Kelly insisting Ms Hanson is not in any sense fit to be PM. That’s a big and damning call. Surely the key attributes a potential PM requires to be ‘fit’ for office, are: honesty, integrity, some kind of track record in politics, a sound grasp of issues, and an ability to lead a party and to attract votes from across the nation.

Currently nearly one in three Australians are seriously considering voting for One Nation at the next election. And in doing so they have self-evidently entertained the idea that Ms Hanson could become prime minister, and found it not only plausible but acceptable. This magazine was the first to raise the possibility in a serious way, some months ago, so it’s always good to see the so-called conservative media playing catch-up.

Is Pauline Hanson fit to be PM? Unlike the frivolous mob occupying the government benches she does appear to be mistress of her brief. It is almost unheard of these days that Ms Hanson is stumped for a sound reply to even the most intense questioning, such as we saw the other day when the very thorough Andrew Clennell at Sky News attempted to apply the proverbial blowtorch. Long gone are the days of ‘Please explain…?’ One does not need to necessarily agree with all or any of Ms Hanson’s policy suggestions to recognise that there is barely a single important political issue on which she is not fluent and across the detail.

Following a fortnight in which the serving Prime Minister has shown himself literally to be unfit to continue as PM because of his brazen lies, for a commentator to be questioning the fitness for public office of a woman who has stuck to her guns through thick and thin for thirty years is a tad ironic, unless of course it was meant as satire. In which case, Mr Kelly may have found himself a new profession.

But his argument does raise a far more important question: has a single prime minister really been ‘fit’ for office since John Howard departed office? Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard both botched the job, with the long-term damage done by both (Mr Rudd on climate change and Ms Gillard on gender identity) still hurting Australians to this day. Malcolm Turnbull was uniquely unfit to be PM, having left behind a broken Liberal party and a black-hole legacy of billions sunk into the quagmire that is Snowy 2.0, and Scott Morrison wasn’t much better. Much like Mr Albanese, Mr Morrison unforgivably and disgracefully broke his own word by signing us up to net zero. One would have thought that ‘trustworthiness’ might be a critical test when querying any ‘fitness’ to lead the nation.

Are any of the Labor cabinet ‘fit’ to be PM if Mr Albanese were to stand down? Certainly not the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who will never recover from the ignominy of his and his boss’s thieving socialist lies. Mr Burke is tarnished by his fondness for Isis brides and Mr Bowen is a laughing stock as well as a much-loathed figure thanks to his arrogant and wilful destruction of so much of our beautiful landscape. Ms Plibersek could qualify as ‘fit’ to be PM, unless of course the nation wishes to have any gold mines, but she has little hope of getting there as things stand. (Foreign Minister Penny Wong is totally unfit to lead a nation such as ours, with its important Jewish community, following her disgusting embrace of anti-Israel pronouncements, including the idiotic and offensive recognition of the non-existent state of Palestine.)

Two individuals who clearly are ‘fit’ to be Prime Minister in the view of this magazine are Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan. Both have extensive experience in cabinet, both are clearly intelligent and both have (more or less) been consistent in their political leanings and policies over the years. It is unlikely either of them would ever be as brazen as Mr Albanese, Mr Chalmers or Mr Morrison in flat out lying to the electorate.

Is Pauline Hanson fit to be Prime Minister? Of course she is. Would she be a good or even great PM? The truth is no one knows. She would certainly be competent and committed. And trustworthy.

But as with anyone going into such an important job, it can go either way. Events, dear boy. Australians have a long list of disappointing prime ministers. Yet every one of them, without exception, was at some point sold to us, praised and lauded by the likes of Mr Kelly and the gurus of the Canberra press gallery. Which does augur well for the redhead from Ipswich.