← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript163 lines
- [00:02]
A
One Nation is having a bit of a moment. Pauline Hanson's outfit, accused by both major parties of exploiting racial anxiety over the years, has faded into irrelevance at points since she burst onto the scene in the late 90s. But two new polls have recorded record high primary votes for One Nation. One of them saw One Nation's vote rise above the Coalition, which split in spectacular fashion this week over new hate crime legislation in the wake of the Bondi massacre. The breakup of the coalition and the rise of One Nation may point to a tectonic change in Conservative politics. At the same time, the attack at Bondiis further sapped trust in our political system as politicians have brawled in the wake of the tragedy. Amid the confusion over what led up to the attack and what the country needs to do next, One Nation's message has been Islam's extreme fringe needs more attention and guns are not a problem. Paul? I'm Paul Sakal and you're listening to Inside Politics from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. From Parliament House this week, we recorded an interview before the coalition split with One Nation's newest recruit, nationals defector and former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. Welcome, Barnaby. Do you like that term, new recruit?
- [01:19]
B
My mother would always pick me up. She was a pedant and all that sort of stuff.
- [01:22]
A
Well, there's apparently some recruits on the way.
- [01:25]
B
Well, I don't know, honestly, I never. People say other discussions, of course there's discussions, but it's like everything else I always say to people. It's something I deliberated on over about a year. It's a choice that's yours. I'll be really honest, Pauline never put any pressure on me to do it. She said, mate, you go exactly at your pace. What you do with you don't, that's up to you. But. Well, for me, it's self evident that I was wasting my time sitting in a back corner, basically being asked to leave Parliament. And, and that's what I would have had to do was I had to hang around. But I don't encourage other people. I say it's your choice, it's your life, it's your political career. You do what you think is best.
- [02:09]
A
And are they nats? The conversations I'm not going to give.
- [02:12]
B
That sort of narrows it down a bit. I'm not going to give that away.
- [02:16]
A
Well, I remember when you left in, when you quit the nuts in November after months of speculation, you said in your speech in the chamber, which I was sitting in the press gallery watching that you felt in some ways irrelevant. You used that word.
- [02:28]
B
Yeah.
- [02:28]
A
And not even two months later, you're back here in Parliament and you're called by Murray Watt on Monday morning, the Opposition leader at such a high level that you can't deliver homes, but you've.
- [02:38]
B
Got to have the skilled workers to deliver those hundreds.
- [02:40]
A
What are you saying?
- [02:41]
B
That's an alternate. This is all the alternate universe of Murray Watt. It's in the paper today, Murray. There was only a couple of hundred of tradies that came into Queensland where they actually are needing to build their houses. You're not actually bringing in.
- [02:54]
A
We've changed that, Barnaby.
- [02:55]
B
We've changed the policy. Hang on. You've got to let me have a say what you've got.
- [02:59]
A
So you look like you're having fun.
- [03:01]
B
Yeah, well, I like. You know, as I said as well, I like when I played football, I like to be on the front row, I like to be in the middle of it. And I feel I give my best to my nation when I'm playing on the balls of my toes. And it's just in my nature that to sit in the back corner frustrates me. Cause we've only got one life. This is not a dress rehearsal. This is it. And so if you've got an opportunity to do the very best you can, you find the position that you can play your best game. And that's precisely what I'm doing.
- [03:30]
A
You've been the deputy prime minister three times. Three or two.
- [03:34]
B
Three. On either side of the Section 44 case.
- [03:36]
A
Congratulations on the third one, which I was unaware of. You. You've had a big career giant in the National Party. You've taken a huge step that's prompted accusations of your being a rat, being disloyal, all of which are credible allegations in some ways, if you're a National.
- [03:53]
B
Yeah.
- [03:54]
A
Well, what's driving you? What makes you get up in the.
- [03:58]
B
Morning, want to be independent? Let's look at those allegations. First of all, I think nobody can deny that they did say generational change. They wanted me to leave. That's correct.
- [04:06]
A
That happens to older MPs who've had their go.
- [04:08]
B
But they did say that for me.
- [04:09]
A
They did.
- [04:10]
B
But what's wrong with that about me? Well, saying they want you to go.
- [04:13]
A
But you've had your time.
- [04:14]
B
Well, obviously I haven't. That's not what the Australian people think.
- [04:17]
A
Is it because of the polls this week?
- [04:19]
B
Of course.
- [04:19]
A
Let's go into the polls. Resolve. Our poll has you at 18.
- [04:23]
B
It's such a Negative, horrible thing. You've had your time.
- [04:26]
A
I mean, you know, that's how your colleagues say. I'm reflecting on that.
- [04:29]
B
Yeah, but that, well, they're wrong. I mean, it's obvious. It's a very. That is a selfish thing to wander around and say to someone who's 58, oh, you've had your time. Is that, that's kind of rude, don't you think? Just a little bit rude.
- [04:42]
A
Well, the polls point in your favour, so resolve. Our poll this week has one nation 18%. The news poll in the Australian highly watched poll has you at 22, which is one point over the Coalition. First time in history. It's not clear yet how much of that is solid and permanent and how much is a protest vote early in the term against a broken Liberal Party. Tough economy, people are feeling disaffected and to a lesser extent maybe now a government that's losing some paint. What do you think's driving the one nation vote? Where's this coming from? Because I've done them before.
- [05:10]
B
You hooked on the fact that you've got some colleagues that you've had your time, you've gotta go, but let's move that.
- [05:15]
A
You've been the deputy Prime Minister three.
- [05:16]
B
Times, you can't do that. Obviously that is such the worst reason of all to give to people. I think that what's happened, I think the polls are an indicator, not a locked in vote. Okay, I'm not naive. I've been around this game for a fair while. But they are an indicator. They're 100% an indicator. And what it says is people are now prepared, they feel they have licence to say I'm prepared to vote for one nation. Where in the past, you know, there might have been some hesitancy about that. I think the complexion and the tenor of one nation has changed and that's a good thing. And that's giving more people the capacity to say, well, yeah, you know, imply the company. No, I vote for one nation. And they don't have to say I vote for one nation and then leave the dinner party say, no, I vote for one nation. It's my choice. I want a more deliberate, I want greater clarity. I have philosophical principles and I want them abided by with the politicians that I elect. And if they are not going to abide by those philosophical principles, then I will find another politician to vote for.
- [06:16]
A
What's created that kind of permission structure for one nation.
- [06:20]
B
Yeah, there's sort of a, well, a conceit that the major parties, the major blocs believed that they owned the votes. They didn't have to earn the votes, they owned the votes. And people would, you know, and they'd even say, you know, you'll always be a, you'll only be a protest party. And you know, all these things that sort of re endowed the conceit factor which people who enjoy their liberty, enjoy their freedom. Hate being told that we've got you in a box and you'll only do what we tell you to. They don't like that. And so people say, I express my freedom by the car I drive. I express my freedom with the house I have. I express my freedom with the clothes and the tie I wear. And I express my freedom in the where I choose to vote. And I think that what happened is you had tangential issues and sectional interests that started having too much sway in the major parties. And I'll give you a classical one. We've got to win back teal seats. You must have heard that so many times. I presume at times even you would have said that, you know, what are you going to do about winning back teal seats? That's how you really infuriate people. If they're not in the teal seat, they said, so I am penance and payment for you to win back that seat. Right, okay, you go off and win the teal seat, but I'm gone. Bye. And that's what's happened. And there comes one nation.
- [07:34]
A
Pauline Hanson said yesterday in a press conference that this term for one nation is about becoming a viable opposition, that she wants to form government. You know, some listeners at home might laugh at that suggestion given her track record. But many people would have said the same thing about Nigel Farage, who's now crushing both parties in the polls.
- [07:52]
B
Milano pulling pen MAGA movement, Donald Trump.
- [07:58]
A
What do you think the aim is for one nation this term? Is it to replace the national Party to compete with labor to hold the balance of power next term? What are the roles?
- [08:06]
B
It's not to be defined by what another party is. It's to have purpose and philosophical structure and sort of a clarity in who you are yourself. I don't define who I am by saying, now I'm gonna talk about Paul and now we're work out who I am. Now I'm gonna tell you who I am and who you are as your business. And so I think that one nation doesn't have to go chasing or removing or replacing. It just gotta define what it believes in itself. And other people will make the choice. You have to Earn the votes you don't own the. What do they believe in? They believe in a clarity of view that says, for instance, on issues such as intermittent power, that it's garbage. That the primary purpose of a power policy is to look after pensioners and poor people, not look after the nuances of Paris Agreements and such other things which are unattainable, terribly expensive and cause massive hurt. It's to say things as they are, not as you might wish them to be. The terrorist attack was Islamic fundamentalism under the guise of terrorism, Islamic State. That's how it was. It wasn't radical Anglicanism, it wasn't radical Copts, it wasn't radical.
- [09:17]
A
I just want to jump in, just super quickly, just say that the government has at various points pointed to radical Islam as the root cause of the terrorism.
- [09:25]
B
Yeah, no, they sort of. Well, the. No. Okay. We've just had a piece of legend we voted for just then that could have been so succinct, so clean. Talking about antisemitism, which is the people who really are paying the price of this. I'm not Jewish, but Jewish people, without a shadow of a doubt, the ones who are, who are in the focus of the sights of those who wish them harm, and the ones who predominantly are pursuing that course are radical Islamists. These things are two truths. But people say, oh, I can't say that because, you know, so we've got to say it's wider. We've got to bring in all these other things. You know, it's Islamophobia. No, it's not. It's. It's whatever. It's homophobia. Definitely not. You know, it's a whole range of other things. It's, it's anti Semitism and it's inspired by Israel, you know, sort of a jihadist, a form of militant, radical Islam. That's what it is. And unless you have the courage to define a problem, you have no credibility or process in how to fix it. And what we've just done there, now we've got this ludicrous thing where something, as a backventure in one nation, I brought to the attention of the chamber a fatal flaw in the bill, which they all then ignored. The flaw voted for the bill, and now they're over in the Senate recognising what I'd brought to their attention and trying to fix it, the government.
- [10:54]
A
It strikes me, just on your points about clarity of message, that something that's driving the one nation vote is the simplicity of the rhetoric. Pauline Hanson's not necessarily the Most sophisticated political operator. But you're not trying to straddle different parts of the political spectrum, you're speaking very directly to one part of the community. And the Liberal Party might be looking at different communities. What are the limits, do you think, on that? Straight talk, particularly from your Senate leader or party leader, Pauline Hanson, in terms of rhetoric that might alienate big chunks of the community, don't allow you to become a viable opposition. I mean, the burqa stunt a couple of months ago that raised up in people's minds, even when she was polling really well, all of the accusations about racism that have plagued her career. Can she continue on speaking about, you know, racial anxiety in our community in the same way she always has? If you want to grow, is that your job, to kind of civilise one nation?
- [11:49]
B
Well, Pauline is who Pauline. To the extent you can civilise, Pauline is who Pauline is. And I am who I am. And one of the things that we've always discussed is I'll remain who I am and Pauline will remain who I am. She is. And we actually do get along well and we work together. There is a chemistry there and that's the way it is. I feel, to be quite frank, a lot more comfortable now, a lot more liberated now and a lot more purposeful now than I did sitting in the back corner of the back bench of the coalition.
- [12:16]
A
Sure. But I'm talking about whether you're comfortable with one.
- [12:19]
B
I think that things evolve over time and I think the Pauline Hanson that originally came into Parliament is, Has matured immensely from that person to where she is now. I think. I think everybody would say no, that is a lot more street wise, a lot more wily. I don't think she's become less authentic, but she's become more aware. And that's a good thing.
- [12:43]
A
If your primary remains where it is now, let's just say, hypothetically it does.
- [12:47]
B
Yeah, that's probably why I'm not going to. Yeah, I'm not going to start saying that. That's, you know, I'm not getting carried away with this. I understand that is an incredible. It's an incredible reflection of people's willingness to trust. But anybody says, oh, that's your vote. No, no, no, no. Your vote comes in an election.
- [13:02]
A
Which is why I think Hanson's claim yesterday that she wants to come into government was a bit of overreach. But even In a low 20s primary vote, if it remains there, it's extraordinary.
- [13:12]
B
I'll tell you what that definitely would mean. It would definitely mean that any Person on the conservative, let's call them what they're supposed to be. Conservative on the conservative side will definitely need one nation support if they've got any chance whatsoever of going to see the Governor General to appease the prime Minister.
- [13:25]
A
Well, this is the point I was going low 20s. Primary vote given labor will preference coalition ahead of one nation if they stick with their standards.
- [13:32]
B
Ok. Even on that. Let's just ask that one. I do talk to Labor Party people as well. You know the world's changed, Right. Let's just say the world's changed.
- [13:45]
A
Yep.
- [13:46]
B
Remember, there are marginal Labor Party seats too. So thinking that you completely own the vote is a dangerous place to be.
- [13:54]
A
So if you remain at that level, which you in all likelihood won't, you probably won't win many lower house seats because of the preference situation. But if you remain anywhere near that level, you almost, you go a long way to wiping out the coalition in the Senate because to win a number two spot in both states, you need your primary vote up above 28, 29%. That's right. So I wonder, where do you feel like at this point in the cycle, which is early, I acknowledge, where do you think you'll be spending your electoral energy? Will it be in lower House seats, Senate seats? Where can you win?
- [14:25]
B
No, I definitely think there are lower House seats that win. I think it's just, it looks. Well, I'm trying to work out. I know. I'm trying to work out whether it's worthwhile saying it because then it says you're not. Why do I not select ones? Cause then it says you're not nominating others. Right. But let's talk about where one nation has a strong vote in the Hunter Valley. Okay. And the funny thing about that is you're dragging votes from the Labor Party, not the coalition, in places like Blair, same deal. You're dragging votes from the Labor Party, not from the coalition. New England will have a strong one nation vote. How do I know that? Before I'd even announced or told anybody I was leaving to join one nation, the vast majority of my Tamworth branch, unbeknownst to me, had walked out and started the one nation branch. And so it's organic. It was happening everywhere. And when I walk around New England now, you get people, literally, it's really humbling. You walk in and they start clapping. There's a real sort of sense of frustration out there in the community with politics and they want to see some clarity. The Bondi thing had a lot to do with it. A lot to do with it.
- [15:30]
A
Do you think that changed politics in this country?
- [15:32]
B
Yep, you bet. Because it wasn't. It's. Yeah. Anti Semitic was absolutely a big part of it, but there was also a lot of people just felt the front, like. So two people went and like, had a turkey shoot on Australian people on a beach on a Sunday in the middle of Sydney. And I just went, wow, that's. That's. That's. That's bad. And. And all of a sudden. And they haven't got over it. They're still in their forefront of their mind. Like, okay, you know, you think we've. You found our tipping point. You've got there, you've reached it. And we're going to demand. Demand that that does not happen again. And we are going to. We want you to be brave enough to define the problem and deal with it.
- [16:15]
A
Has it changed the way a white politician can talk about multiculturalism in the mainstream of Australian politics in the same way as the Voice changed the way you were able to talk about Indigenous affairs, arguably to the detriment of indigenous Australians?
- [16:30]
B
I don't know. Well, okay, I disagree with you on, you know, I disagree with you fervently that arguably. Arguably, yeah. Well, whatever the big. In my area, I get the majority of the Aboriginal vote. In my area, they call themselves Aboriginals. And I grew up in a black white town. I know very, very well. My kids go to a black white school. They go to the local state school and one of the poorest schools in New South Wales. So I don't talk. I'm not an Aboriginal, of course, I'm a white fella. But I do speak with some authorities. I know it vastly better than most people. And I can assure you there are areas around me in one of my biggest Aboriginal communities, Tinga, only 15% voted for the Voice. It was a belief more of, to be quite frank, of maybe where you reside, that you had a perception of how we saw things, which was not the reality of how we did. But then they saw through it as a parochialism of certain people in certain, you know, positions would get a further laurel and a further crown and get a further paycheck, and their lives would remain basically where they were. So now to go on to the next issue where you say, does this give us authority to talk about racial. I don't find that the people who come up to me are all white Caucasians from Mosman who are really saying, rah, rah, one nation. Actually, to the contrary, that's probably where I find the most Pushback. Where I find a lot of support is in the Filipino community, in the Indian community, in, certainly in sections of the Lebanese community. You know, this is. It's another assertion made by people because they want the world. They want the world to see it the way they see it from their front veranda, which is not the way that other people see it from theirs.
- [18:19]
A
Or conservative social culture in migrant Australia. Definitely something the progressive side of politics does.
- [18:26]
B
If you'd said that, if you'd framed the question in that form, I would say you'd probably. You're correct.
- [18:41]
A
Just going back to your colleagues, I got the sense when you left the show that you felt that there was a group in the National Party, probably those aligned to your former boss, David Littleproud, who were happy to see you go and who celebrated it.
- [18:55]
B
No, no, no, not who I felt. Who were on television. Celebrate, remember.
- [19:00]
A
Have you seen the clip of them allegedly hugging in. Have you actually seen it? Because there's conjecture about whether it occurred.
- [19:06]
B
It happened right in front of me.
- [19:07]
A
So you saw it?
- [19:08]
B
Yeah, I was. I was in the chamber.
- [19:10]
A
Explain to listeners what you heard.
- [19:13]
B
They were shaking hands and slapping each other on the back and, you know, the wicked. The wicked wizard's dead and sort of thing. And that's fine.
- [19:19]
A
And who were they?
- [19:20]
B
Well, I'll let them talk about themselves. Right. But it's. I just find, becomes sort of like. But it's not like. It's kind of. It sort of happened. It did happen. Happened right in front of me.
- [19:32]
A
Well, there's a lot of chatter around the National Party that you will personally campaign in the lower house seats of Darren Chester, David Littlepred himself, Pat Conahan to. I'm not going to say it's revenge. I don't want to put that motive on you, but is that something you intend to do?
- [19:49]
B
I'm certainly going to campaign for the New South Wales Senate seat. Definitely. And that means I have to campaign where the voters of New South Wales are, because, you know, that's the seat I'm standing for. I'll do other jobs as required, but there's. I'm going to campaign on issues, not on people. Okay. I'm going to campaign on issues not on people. So to give more clarity to that, I have absolutely no plan to pick on a certain area or a certain person. There is nothing in that remit. If you're going through an area, then you're going through an area. On a policy issue, you really minimise yourself. You say, if I'm going to Campaign against person A. Then. Well, then just go stand in their lower House seat, mate. If that's all you got worried about, go stand in their seat against them.
- [20:35]
A
Well, if you, if your party truly believe that you're an alternative government, you probably would have stood in New England again rather than running for the Senate.
- [20:44]
B
Yeah, look, it's.
- [20:45]
A
Why didn't you do that?
- [20:48]
B
When I, look, when I left the National Party, I was really torn. It was like leaving a marriage. It really tears you to pieces. And I just, I knew the political marriage was over. I knew I was out. And I just, I just didn't want to go to court over the Alaming. I just said, basically, the House, the jewellery, it's all yours. Okay, I'm gone.
- [21:12]
A
And there would have been a sense that there was an illegitimacy about.
- [21:15]
B
Yeah, so you basically say, well, look, there's the seat. And also, not only that, I brought in a heap of money which I left in their account.
- [21:22]
A
Could you reconsider that and run in New England?
- [21:25]
B
It's not. Look, I've said I'm standing for the Senate and I just, I just, I'm just going to focus on the Senate, like, you know.
- [21:31]
A
But you seem like you're conflicted about this.
- [21:34]
B
No, I just think that I want. Okay, my confliction is I certainly want the one nation to have good, low House candidates. Right.
- [21:47]
A
And they struggle with quality candidates.
- [21:48]
B
And I don't want to, you know, I don't want to send a message out on the water. The only way you're ever going to get anywhere in one nation is to be in the Senate. I want people to move on from that. I'm going to say, I want you to understand you can get somewhere in the House of Representatives as well. And so I don't want to sort of harp on. Well, you know, it sort of be like, oh, I'll be fined in the Senate because, you know, I've gone. Well. But you just jump over the, you know, jump out of the trenches in the lower house and get shot.
- [22:17]
A
So any chance of you going New England?
- [22:19]
B
No, no, I haven't. I've made, I've made my. I made my mind up to stand for the, for the, for the Senate.
- [22:26]
A
Yeah. I think you probably underestimated what the primary vote would be in polling, though. Right.
- [22:31]
B
Even I thought that wasn't going to be as good as what it was. But it's. And I'm usually. But it's. That's, you know, it's a reflection, a great reflection on Pauline, a great reflection on the one nation team, but it's also a reflection on the malaise that people see in what the alternative is.
- [22:49]
A
I've heard labor people say that when Pauline Hanson goes off TV for a few weeks, the one nation primary rises. So it might be have the opposite effect.
- [22:57]
B
Well, that would make us the government.
- [23:02]
A
You talked about political marriages. Yeah. Do you think it'd be fair to say that Ron Boswell, who just passed away, was in some way a political father?
- [23:09]
B
He's a great man and you know, heard like Ron, saw everything through. I've known Ron since 2002, been multiple campaigns with him. Ron saw things through those eyes of that time.
- [23:24]
A
Well, you're getting ahead of my question.
- [23:25]
B
Yeah.
- [23:26]
A
So for listeners at home, particularly for those who are not from Queensland and may not know Ron Boswell, he was the national Senate leader for a long time. Really influential thinker in the national party. He died at the age of 85.
- [23:36]
B
Lastly, 31 years in politics.
- [23:37]
A
Prime minister attended his funeral, as did Peter Dutton and Barnaby Joyce. I want to read to him, to you a quote from his Australian article from December. Do you mind if I do?
- [23:45]
B
That wouldn't be endearing to me. But here we go.
- [23:47]
A
You've he been you has left the political home that raised him, shaped him and supported him. But as with any family, the door remains open. And when he remembers where he truly belongs, his choice does not alter the truth about one nation. It is not a party of government. It has no record of delivery. It fuels resentment rather than responsibility and threatens to fracture the centre right in a way that benefits only labor and the Greens.
- [24:10]
B
I love Ron. Okay. And I'm never going to speak Demorcis nil nisi bonum, as my good Jesuit friends would remind me of. Speak nothing but good of the dead.
- [24:20]
A
Go on. The arguments. Not the man, though.
- [24:22]
B
Well, yeah, the arguments are correct if you're talking about history, but they're not correct as to where we are today. Okay. Ron's been out of politics now for a fair while and he's a. He was. He's with our Lord, but. And he remains a person I'll always hold in high esteem. But he doesn't see the politics as we see. In fact, I was a regular visitor to Ron at his house where he would be frustrated and demanding that I do something about getting rid of net zero. And I had to lead and I had to do this and I had to do that and. And you know, I did. I went about constructing a process where the coalition ditched its Net Zero commitment. But I kept on explaining to him, I said, ron, you gotta understand that's not the position of the coalition. He goes, oh, well, you've just gotta change it. And I go, ron, you're asking me to change the coalition. I can't just change the coalition. And. And in the end, he was frustrated. But I said, ron, you know what I've realized? The changes that you want, I can only bring about by being in one nation, because they're actually closer to your political beliefs than where the coalition is. You have. You have this filial connection. It's your totem. You have a whole range of affections, even though they went after you. But if I was to give you complete amnesia about all your. I didn't say this, but this is me paraphrasing my discussions. If he was to have total amnesia about all his past political affiliations, had his philosophy arrived down here and he said, now, quick, run to the party that most best. That most closely reflects your belief structure, Ron Boswell, you'd end up in one nation.
- [26:13]
A
You were in the coalition government, obviously in very senior roles for nine years. Yes, that was the government that continued on with the immigration program. That's been bipartisan. It thrust Australia into the global Net Zero movement. It did very little to break out of center right kind of policy orthodoxy. Why didn't you change things from inside?
- [26:33]
B
Well, I did try to change things from inside and you're the Deputy Prime.
- [26:36]
A
Minister when you signed up for Net Zero.
- [26:37]
B
Now everyone brings it up, but can we just go through that?
- [26:39]
A
Let's not go through the whole.
- [26:40]
B
No, no, no, no. You got to give me the space to. To correct the statement.
- [26:46]
A
OK. As quick as you can, please.
- [26:48]
B
That's better, Mr. Choice, the out. And you don't have to say that, but the. So I've voted within the National Party room against supporting Net Zero after I'd cut the deal from heaven. I believe it was ridiculous, the things that we were getting. And in the end, you know what? We never got any of them because the Liberals welshed on the deal. So why are the NAT still involved with it in Paris? You haven't got a deal. There are no bridges, there's no dams. There's none. All the stuff that I bargained for, some of it they're going forward with, but most of it they dropped off. So you don't have to honour anything because they haven't honoured the deal.
- [27:25]
A
Ok. The Australian political system is vastly different to that of the UK and the us, where you're seeing these Anglosphere populist rises. How do we know that a one nation that mimics the US and UK populist movements will work here? How do we know this?
- [27:41]
B
It won't be confident. No, it won't. If it mimics it. Australia is Australia. It's a different place.
- [27:46]
A
How does one nation differ from the Farage Maga movement?
- [27:49]
B
Vastly. I think that they're Australian. It's very ethos, it's very nature. I hopefully I'm a reflection of myself. We're more egalitarian, we're easygoing, we call BS on stuff a lot with. Even the relationship with the media is more. It's not, it's not, you know, it's not deferential. It's very robust and matter of fact, we walk down the street, we don't have bodyguards. It's this completely different approach in Australia. And I don't think if you start mimicking the United States of America or the class system in England or anything like that, you're gonna come unstuck because you're in the wrong country.
- [28:28]
A
Is there. Do we share the general level of dissatisfaction, economic malaise and lack of trust in our institutions for a movement like this to thrive?
- [28:36]
B
Yeah, I think people where it is that there's a commonality is people are sick of butterfly chasing crazy ideas. No matter where you are. Paris agreement, net zero, you know, the belief that the whole world is sort of, sort of a utopian splendor when you've got the rise of China, which is quite obviously a totalitarian regime which is going to rip your throat out. These are, you know, this is the reality. And people want to hear. They know the truth. They want to hear it from their politicians. They don't want to hear the politicians sort of pitching and pivoting to a sectional interest and just thinking that they've got their vote in their back pocket. That is the commonality across the world.
- [29:18]
A
I want to ask about Gina Rinehart and I don't come at this question from a position of assuming that the relationship is inherently corrupt because powerful people.
- [29:26]
B
That means he's assuming the relationship is in correctly corrupt.
- [29:30]
A
That is where a lot of the questioning comes from. A wealthy person has a right to back a movement if they believe it.
- [29:34]
B
Absolutely.
- [29:34]
A
100%, I firmly believe that. But I think if you're trying to turn into a more mainstream political force, it's also fair to ask that that relationship be explained a little bit more than we understand it.
- [29:46]
B
That's interesting because why don't people Explain Simon Holmes, the Court's relationship with the deals.
- [29:51]
A
We think it should be explained.
- [29:52]
B
Why doesn't we put a spotlight on it? Why doesn't it explain Andrew Forrest's relationship with the Labor Party? I mean, everybody, all people, just because they have money doesn't mean they don't have political views. People do have political views. Andrew Forrest has a strong political view that's aligned with the Labor Party. Simon Holmes of Court has a strong political view that's aligned with the teals. Gina Reinhart has a strong political view that's not aligned with any party, but it's conservative.
- [30:17]
A
I agree with you. Conservative.
- [30:18]
B
And that's their right. And you know what? If you didn't have big backers at times, it makes life very, very difficult because you ultimately, you guys. You guys want advertising revenue. You do. You don't put any of our ads on for free. You make us pay. And so we've got to have money to be paid. And people, we don't change. We are who we are. People decide to align with us. We don't go align to them. They align to us. And many times people also got to have. You gotta understand, there are times where I'll fervently disagree with Gina Reinhardt. We're not dope. It's just because they turn up doesn't mean you agree with anything you just say. Look, sorry, on that one, I disagree with you.
- [30:57]
A
I take all your points there. Our newspapers have long put a spotlight on the relationship between donors and political parties, and that's left and right. The Gina Hutt and Reinhart relationship with One Nation is fascinating because she's previously been a big donor to the lnp.
- [31:09]
B
Yep.
- [31:09]
A
That relationship might have been.
- [31:10]
B
She's also donated to the Labor Party, too. Just quietly.
- [31:12]
A
Probably not for a long time.
- [31:13]
B
No, no. Go back and check your decorations and look at Hancock Colston. I do the Labor Party.
- [31:17]
A
You've been wearing Kidman clothes. She's been providing stake for your meetings with Pauline Hanson. Donated a plane or are you just using the plane?
- [31:24]
B
She hasn't donated a plane to me. I've used her plane.
- [31:28]
A
She's donated a plane to Pauline Hanson.
- [31:30]
B
Yeah. I don't know. Look, even that I'm talking out of school, that is. I don't know the answer to that.
- [31:35]
A
Is that a recent thing?
- [31:36]
B
Well, if it is, it's a recent thing. Right. But I certainly have been on her jet. Now, what was funny about that is I'm on a jet to go to Mount Isa. What would you have preferred that I was on the taxpayers jet and the taxpayer paid for it. I mean, what's wrong with an Australian taxpayer saying, rather than getting other taxpayers to pay for this, remember we're going to look at people, visit people dealing with a flood. This is not going to a wedding or a funeral or, you know, a game of bridge. It's to see people during the flood. And a person who is blessed with wealth says, rather than you charges to the taxpayer, why don't you use mine and fly up there on that?
- [32:13]
A
What are the limits or potential upsides of the relationship? And also what policies she interested in on your side? How much of your election count your bankroll?
- [32:23]
B
I think it's really important. I've never been told by Gina Reinhart to you must do this, you mustn't do anything. It's always been on conversation. I'll give you a tip. People who have gone a long way in life and business are generally not so naive as to start telling politicians what to do. They'll have discussions, they'll have views, but they don't have instructions. And I'll have to say that would be the same with Andrew Forrest. I don't know. I know Simon, but I don't know Simon as well. Right. But even Andrew Forrest, he's never that dopey as to tell you how you gotta go. And neither is Gina Rinehart. And if you do, if you do tell a politician what to do, they can get themselves in an awful lot of trouble because you can say, are you trying to affect a public office? Are you, Are you offering me something in a public office to do something, you know, be really careful or as has happened, or are you trying to get me to remove myself from a public office? Are you, did you offer me some money to remove myself from a public office? Because I think that's punishable by 15 years in jail. I'm pretty sure about that.
- [33:25]
A
Commonwealth Crimes act does being heavily funded by, I think the richest woman in Australia?
- [33:31]
B
I think that's definitely the richest woman in Australia.
- [33:34]
A
It's a question whether she's the richest person in Australia. Does that clash with the idea that one nation is in it for the battler?
- [33:41]
B
Nope. Nope. I think you would find that most people don't determine their view of your policy by your friends, but actually what your policies are, you know, they say, are you in here to look after pensioners who can't afford their power bills? Yep. Okay, I like you. Are you here to make sure that we develop regional Australia? Yep. I like you. Are you Here to make sure that I don't get murdered if I go to the beach. I like you. Do I need to know who your friends are? Not really. Do I need to like you as a politician? Not really. Do I need to like the friends of the politician? Not really.
- [34:17]
A
What does 2026 hold? What do you want to prosecute? And what policies might one nation release?
- [34:22]
B
Now this one's gonna come from. Biggest issue for 2026 is next year's 2027. Isn't it election year? No, no, that's when Xi Jinping says he's gonna take Taiwan. Where in the year he said by 2027, we're in 2026. This world could be about to be turned completely and utterly upside down. Now let's go away from the horrific side of a war which if it's hot and we're involved with tens of thousands of Australians will die. It'll be like the First World War and Second World War. Please God, pray that that never ever happens. But let's look at the economic consequences.
- [34:57]
A
Do you think Australia should be involved?
- [34:58]
B
Don't. Just let's hear the economic consequences. Your iron ore exports are finished. Your coal exports are finished. Your gas exports are finished. Last section. Your beef exports are finished. Your cotton exports are finished. Tourism, a lot of that's finished. Your dollar is going to be worth nothing. Nothing. Inflation will go through the roof. The only way to get any value back in the dollar is to come some crazy jack up. Interest rates as high as they can possibly go. We will be an economic basket case. And I don't see anything happening down there that's preparing us for it. They should have every senior minister and shadow minister on their pegs saying what their plan is. And you guys in the fourth estate haven't questioned them on that either.
- [35:45]
A
What should we do with military spending?
- [35:47]
B
You've got to, you've got to make Australia as powerful as possible as quickly as possible. You've got to raise it. But you can't raise it unless you can pay for it. And you can't pay for it if you're going to chase these other crazy butterflies of net zero Paris agreement. We're not, you know, we're gonna, you know, we're not gonna build dams. We're, you know, we're. You just. You opening yourself up to be knocked out cold, if not militarily, economically. And there is nobody in this building who seems to be aware of that and preparing for it. Isn't that funny? You asked me what the big thing about 2026 was. And I said, you'd be surprised. I was waiting to see if qu. You'd pick it up. And even the fourth estate's on this.
- [36:27]
A
Andrew Hastie is in a similar terrain to Pauline Hanson and yourself in terms of the issues he's talking about. If he was to lead the Liberal Party and there's a significant chance that happening this year. Lead the Liberal Party? No. How do you think that would. What do you think the dynamic would be between a hasty led Liberal Party and one nation?
- [36:48]
B
I think that that's to be determined by the voters. You know, that would be, you know, that's a. See, I really open a can of worms because as soon as I go into that part, you're going to have, you know, what about Angus Taylor? What about this? What about that? What about something else?
- [37:02]
A
You know, I don't think Taylor is in the same part of the political spectrum as you.
- [37:07]
B
Yeah, let's see, let's see, let's see what happens. I do want the best for my nation. And going back to your previous question is why, if we get this wrong in 2026, if we get this wrong, we have done something really evil because we've really, we've had this incredible gift, which is Australia, and we just blew it. And when you say, oh, that's excessive. No, it's not. Either Xi Jinping is a joker, having a little pulling our leg, bit of a bullshit artist, or he's a man who's telling the truth. And if he's a man who's telling the truth, we've got a big, big problem coming our way.
- [37:48]
A
Barnaby, thank you for joining us.
- [37:50]
B
You're welcome.
- [38:00]
A
You can read this story and all our political news on our websites, theage.com au or thesmh.com au Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. And if you're wondering where our esteemed host Jacqueline Mailey is, she'll be back next week. Before you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Paul Sakal and thank you for listening.