Don’t say it’s a protest vote’: Pauline Hanson on One Nation’s resurgence

Summary

---

Podcast Summary:

Don’t say it’s a protest vote’: Pauline Hanson on One Nation’s resurgence
Podcast: The Morning Edition (The Age & Sydney Morning Herald)
Airdate: June 4, 2026
Host: Paul Sakal
Guest: Senator Pauline Hanson

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth interview with Pauline Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, discussing the party’s recent surge in the polls—which, for the first time, has overtaken the Labor Party’s primary vote. Paul Sakal probes Hanson on the forces behind her popularity, addresses controversial aspects of her political career and party positions, and asks pointed questions about One Nation’s policies, internal party governance, and possible future directions for Australian right-wing politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. One Nation’s Surge: Roots and Causes

Timestamps: 01:12–04:40

• Hanson attributes voter migration to dissatisfaction with major parties, particularly due to “mass migration and cost of living pressures.”

• She claims a long history of setting the agenda on issues later taken up by other parties (e.g., border policy, fuel excise, COVID, foreign investment).

  • Quote: “People want change of policy and direction where the country’s going.” (04:18)

• Disagreement over ‘protest vote’ label:

  • Sakal suggests many support One Nation out of disillusionment rather than loyalty; Hanson rebuffs: “Don’t say it’s a protest. People want change.” (04:36)

---

2. Hanson’s Consistency, Controversies, and Evolution

Timestamps: 04:40–07:14

• Past statements on immigration and race relations: Sakal asks if she regrets earlier rhetoric, e.g., being “swamped by Asians.”

  • Hanson says she hasn’t changed — the country “caught up with me.” She frames her earlier statements as pragmatic, not discriminatory.
  • On the shift from Asian to Muslim immigration, she argues it’s a response to changing circumstances: “We didn’t have the impact of Muslim immigration in the country back in 1996.” (06:12)

• On multicultural support: Claims strong support among Australians of Asian heritage, rejects accusations of racism.

  • Quote: “They say, Pauline, you are right. We don’t want this country to become like the place we left. Neither do I.” (06:31)

---

3. Prime Ministerial Ambitions & Party Strategy

Timestamps: 07:14–12:09

• Clarifying aspiration:

  • Hanson insists she hasn’t openly campaigned to be PM, but is “not backing away” from the role if voters propel One Nation into government.
  • Quote: “If they want to vote for One Nation, give us government, well then yes, because I’ll be the leader of the party...So that means I will be [PM].” (09:27–09:44)

• Lower House candidacy:

  • Considering running for Wright, Blair, or Capricornia; dismisses Lily. Unwilling to confirm intentions this far out from the election.

• Leadership from the Senate:

  • Points out constitutional flexibility: “Nothing in the Constitution says the Prime Minister has to come from the lower house.” (11:12)

---

4. Coalition Politics & Right-Wing Realignment

Timestamps: 12:09–15:37

• On merging/subsuming the Coalition:

  • Sakal asks if Hanson wants to eclipse the Liberal/National coalition. She deflects, emphasizing policy change and focus on “getting rid of Labor and the Greens.”
  • Rejects being “boxed into” a coalition arrangement: “I’m not answerable to anyone else but the people out there.” (15:12)

• Relationship with Tony Abbott: Fine now, claims to have supported him becoming PM previously. Open to discussions with Abbott, now Liberal Party president.

  • Quote: “In the long run...my main aim is get rid of Labor—and to get rid of the Greens...This country needs to change completely.” (14:13)

---

5. Rapid-Fire Policy Positions

Timestamps: 15:37–22:25

• Budget cuts:

  • Would cut the Climate Change Department, “Aboriginal industry,” and scale back the NDIS.
  • Claims “both [departments are] $30 billion a year,” and criticizes government spending on Snowy Hydro and the NBN.
    • Quote: “Then you've got all these transmission lines...cost is going to be over a trillion dollars...Snowy Hydro...$42 billion.” (16:33–16:44)

• Minimum wage: Supports increase but worried about impact on small business.

• AUKUS and defence:

  • Supports the alliance; critical of US submarine delays but notes AUKUS is broader than just subs.

• Artificial Intelligence:

  • Expresses anxiety about job displacement, particularly in education and journalism: “Industries are going to do it and I hope it doesn’t take over the education sector...” (18:36)

• China policy:

  • Wants Australian manufacturing strengthened to reduce reliance on Chinese imports, not a total diplomatic distancing.

• Media bargaining code:

  • Admits lack of awareness.

• Gambling ads:

  • Open to limited restrictions (e.g. late-night only); broader point that if gambling is allowed, advertising shouldn’t be “picked out.”

• Job Ready Graduates policy:

  • Agreed with Morrison government’s intent to make some degrees more expensive, focusing on employability post-graduation.

• Military alliances with the US:

  • Would withhold judgment on hypothetical conflict scenarios pending strategic advice.

---

6. Internal Governance and Influence

Timestamps: 22:25–27:43

• On Gina Rinehart's influence:

  • Hanson flatly denies any policy direction from Rinehart, stating, “She doesn’t influence me at all...I listen to everyone, from Gina Rinehart to the average person on the street.” (23:31–24:24)

• Party finance transparency:

  • Confirms she is the party agent and registered officer by legal requirement, not for personal enrichment; strongly denies Mark Latham’s accusations of personal gain.

  • Quote: “Guaranteed. Never been accusations that have been thrown around. And Mark Latham...has had no inside anything to do with the administration side of the party. So those are false allegations, which I vehemently deny.” (26:24–26:41)

• Vetting extremists:

  • Hanson says new systems are in place to weed out extremists from state branches, but plays down current problems: “No, I don’t think they’re extremists...I said just make sure that people know who they're inviting.” (27:04–27:43)

---

7. Controversies: Former Staffers and Supporters

Timestamps: 27:43–31:19

• Shaun Black, convicted staffer:

  • Defends supporting Black post-prison as fair, insists One Nation is unfairly targeted for scrutiny.
  • Quote: “He’s done his time and he had a right to actually get on with his life.” (29:02–29:07)

• Sam Bamford & racism allegations:

  • Briefly addresses a supporter’s “blood and soil” comments; distances herself: “That’s just ridiculous. And I don’t agree with that. I’ve got people from all different cultural backgrounds.” (30:34–31:10)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On protest vote narrative:
  “Don’t say it’s a protest. People want change of policy and direction where the country’s going.”
  —Pauline Hanson (04:36)

• On historical consistency:
  “No, because the rest of the country’s caught up with me...”
  —Pauline Hanson (05:12)

• On PM ambitions:
  “If they want to vote for One Nation, give us government, well then yes, because I’ll be the leader of the party...So that means I will be.”
  —Pauline Hanson (09:27–09:44)

• On coalition merger speculation:
  “I’m not answerable to anyone else but the people out there.”
  —Pauline Hanson (15:12)

---

Conclusion

Pauline Hanson frames One Nation’s popularity as symptomatic of deep public dissatisfaction with Australia’s major parties, emphasizing her track record on issues later adopted by others. She strongly rejects protest-vote or fringe accusations, insists on her consistency and independence—yet remains noncommittal on a full transition to the House of Representatives or a direct pitch for Prime Minister. Hanson defends her record and party from internal and external critics, distances herself from controversial associations, and, on policy, sharpens traditional One Nation stances around migration, climate, and welfare cuts, while offering a populist “change” narrative to an electorate she claims is tired of business as usual.

---

Recommended Segments:

• Why are Australians voting for One Nation? (02:08–04:40)
• Does Pauline Hanson want to be Prime Minister? (07:14–12:09)
• Debate on right-wing realignment & anti-coalition stance (12:09–15:37)
• Rapid-fire policy positions (15:37–22:25)
• Party governance, vetting, and handling controversial figures (22:25–31:19)

---

Transcript

[Pauline Hanson]

Wallet. Feeling extra light after the holidays? Yeah, same. But recovery starts right now with TikTok slash and free. Here's how it works. Pick the products you want in TikTok, shop, share the link and watch the price drop all the way to zero. No tricks, no catch, just free stuff with free shipping. Download TikTok, search,/free and start slashing today.

[Paul Sakal]

I'm Paul Sakal and you're listening to a bonus episode of Inside Politics from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. The debate on the rise of Pauline Hanson is shifting rapidly. For the first time this week, one nation's primary vote rose above the Labor Party's. A conversation that has focused on one nation and the coalition. Swapping preferences has given way to more profound questions about the long term configuration on the right flank of Australian politics. But Hanson has yet to face the full force of scrutiny on her policies, her positions on race relations and whether her party really is a credible governing outfit. Hanson joined us in Canberra on Wednesday. Pauline Hanson, thank you for joining us.

[Pauline Hanson]

My pleasure. Thank you.

[Paul Sakal]

We'll get to some tougher questions later on, I promise. For those who think this is a softball intro, but we saw each other on Tuesday night at the pub in, in Canberra. And in the period, well, we didn't actually meet each other, we just ran into each other at the front bar. And in that short period, from walking to the front bar to the table or to the exit that you were leaving to, I saw about four people stop to take selfies with you right in the centre of Canberra. So not really your hotspot. And it strikes me that you're riding this wave of anti establishment sentiment at the moment where the normal rules don't quite apply to you. You're being treated differently to all the rest of the political class. You recently called a journalist a nasty bitch. You made very controversial comments about Muslim Australians. You attend only 10% of Senate estimates. So people can argue you're not doing your job properly, but you're the most popular party in the polls at the moment and the most popular Australian politician. What do you feel in your gut is creating this remarkable moment?

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, I think, as you said, people are fed up with the major political parties because they're feeling it out in the streets, in their suburbs, in their homes, in their jobs, the workforces, on the streets. The mass migration has been a driving factor with this and also cost of living. So people find it very hard to put a roof over the head, put food on the table. You've got 7 million Australians just having one meal A day. So it's a combination of a lot of different things that's brought it to this point. They don't trust governments and they constantly see our prime minister lie. They change their positions, they don't carry through with what they promise the people and there's no confidence in our politicians. And I think that's what it is. And they see me as just a grassroots Australian just like them.

[Paul Sakal]

Well, arguably on those measures not much has changed. Politicians have always told lies or misleading statements over periods of time. The non major party vote has been growing for a long time. Labor and coalition people who do party research say that people aren't. A lot of these voters who are saying they'll vote for one nation aren't doing so because they're extremely fond of you or not all of them are, but a lot of them are just disillusioned, hard working people who think the system's broken and you're the anti establishment candidate who's built up legitimacy now.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, I disagree with that in so many ways because the policies that we have, even from my first time at politics. Politics, which policies? All right, well, mass migration, climate change, net zero, Paris agreement, reducing electricity prices, getting rid of the climate change department. So there's quite a few out there. Even when I first got into politics with John Howard, you know, I was very popular back then as well. Even turning back the boats, that was my policy to actually do that. John Howard saw the wave that one nation was creating that time. So by having one nation on the scene, political scene means that the other political parties really have to stop taking the people for granted. And I've been a lot of things that I've done or said over the period of time. Even with the voice, I was one that led the charge against the voice. Even having the COVID jabs, that was another thing that I was outspoken on. A lot of things that I have done, I've set the agenda from a lot of these political parties. Even picking up foreign investments, ownership of our housing, that's another one. Both picked up the fuel excise was another my policy where the coalition then picked it up and the Labor Party did it. So beer excise, getting rid of that as well. So a lot of things that I have said and done is policy. So don't say it's a protest. People want change of policy and direction where the country's going.

[Paul Sakal]

You mentioned your early years in politics. People like Tony Abbott and others have made a comment in the recent period when you've become ascendant and They've said words to the effect of that you've changed significantly in the last 30 years. You're not the Pauline Hanson who entered the Parliament. You made very contentious speeches on the indigenous politics around indigenous affairs about Asian immigration. You said Asians would flood the country. Would you do those things differently now? What has changed, if anything?

[Pauline Hanson]

Have I really changed?

[Paul Sakal]

Well, others say that you have. Do you think you have?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, because the rest of the country's caught up with me and that's what people say. I've been consistent with what I've been saying over years, and although it was looked at politically incorrect to say those things at that time by saying swamped by Asians. And that was said because we had a high intake of migrants coming from Asian countries, and the figures that I had, we would actually have a huge number of Asians in the country by 2050. So I was expressing my views on this and it was totally out of proportion that I don't like Asians. That's not the truth at all, because I question the Aboriginal industry. Where's the money going? It's not helping. Why are we treating people totally different based on their race? That's not. That's not Australian. Why treat people totally the same?

[Paul Sakal]

Why has the Asian question been supplanted in your mind by the question on Muslim immigration?

[Pauline Hanson]

On Muslim immigration, It's totally different to Asian immigration.

[Paul Sakal]

Why is that your key talking point now compared to 20 years ago?

[Pauline Hanson]

Because it's. Because it's actually happening. We didn't have the impact of Muslim immigration, immigration in the country back in 1996, and I spoke about it in my maiden's speech to the Senate in 2016, and I could see the writing on the wall where we're headed, and that's how Australians feel about it.

[Paul Sakal]

Has Asian immigration been bad for the country in hindsight, do you think?

[Pauline Hanson]

We've had people from all different cultural backgrounds that have come on board to be Australians, and a lot of these Asians actually embrace me. They say, pauline, you are right. We don't want this country to become like the place that we left. Either do I. I'm a proud Australian. Do you want me to back away from that? Because I won't, and neither will a lot of other Australians. We've been very welcoming with a lot of migrants, have come here for a new way of life to this country. And, you know, if you value that as a country, as a culture, and I'm sick of politicians putting everyone down and the Australian people and, you know, the way We've gone so woke. People have had a gut full. We don't want it anymore.

[Paul Sakal]

You said this week, I think for the first time in the period since you've been rising in the polls that you do actually want to run as the alternative Prime Minister. That's not serious.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, I didn't say, didn't say want to run. I said if I am put in that position, I believe that I have the ability to be able to do the job. So there's a hell of a difference. I haven't been in this and led a political party since 1997, although I was out of it for 12 years and out of parliament for 18 years, and I've come back in to lead the party in 2015, get elected in 2016, run a political party. I've got people elected in state and federal parliaments in the last 10, 11 years. And we've set, you know, a history making here with our first member sworn into Parliament this week. And do you think I'm going to walk away from all that? Why should I not? Why should I underestimate myself? What am I going to tell my supporters out there, members of the political party?

[Paul Sakal]

Well, so are you suggesting that you won't run as Pauline for pm? But if that occurs, then of course you take up the opportunity. Are you backing away from putting yourself forward?

[Pauline Hanson]

I'm not backing away at all. I am the leader of this party, as I have always said. And I said in an interview the other night.

[Paul Sakal]

Are you aiming to interview.

[Pauline Hanson]

I said it's about who is the best person for the job. That's what it's about. And it's never been about Pauline Hanson. For my own, you know, if you think I have an ego, I. What this is about is about the best person for the job and people see me as the leader of this, of this party. Even the polls are showing that a lot of support is coming from people for me to be leader. Now, I haven't made that final decision at all, but at the moment I am the leader of the party. Have you gone ask them whether or not. Have you gone and asked. Have you asked Taylor, Angus Taylor, have

[Paul Sakal]

you asked the question whether he wants to be the Prime Minister? Of course he does.

[Pauline Hanson]

Have you asked him the question?

[Paul Sakal]

Well, it's given.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, why do you question me then?

[Paul Sakal]

But you're even saying now that you haven't made your mind up on whether you want to be the Prime Minister

[Pauline Hanson]

because you don't think I can do it.

[Paul Sakal]

I'm asking you whether you Think you can?

[Pauline Hanson]

I told you my answer the other was I do believe I have the ability, but surely I'm not backing away from it. It depends on the public. If they want to vote for one nation, give us government, well then, yes, because I'll be the leader of the party. I'm going to be the leader of the party right up to the next election. So that means I will be.

[Paul Sakal]

Well, surely you're being dictated here by what the polls say, because just a few months ago. I'll just read your quotes back. You said, I don't want a ministerial position, no ministries, no executive power. You didn't want to be shut down. You said you didn't want to be dictated to or to pass bad legislation. But the polls, because they've been extraordinary, have almost forced your hand to say, yeah, I might be the Prime Minister. That's not serious though, right? Do you have a governing mentality?

[Pauline Hanson]

You tell me that. That quote that you said, I don't want any ministerial positions. That was if the coalition was going to have the numbers. They need our numbers to back them up so they can be government. There's a hell of a difference there. So therefore what I said is I don't want to be part of a coalition where I'm tied to their policies and I can't be that independent, free thinking political party that I represent.

[Paul Sakal]

Let's talk about your potential move to the lower house. So I understand that you're thinking about moving down and that it's most likely if you do, and I know no decisions have been made here that you might run for a Labor seat like Lily or Blair or perhaps an LNP seat at the seat of Wright.

[Pauline Hanson]

I don't know where you got Lilly from.

[Paul Sakal]

Definitely no Lily. Yeah, I think that's the least likely. People have been floating that.

[Pauline Hanson]

But Wright or Blair, well, they're two in my area. Plus also there's Capricornia.

[Paul Sakal]

Which one do you think would make sense?

[Pauline Hanson]

I'm not making any comment on it now. We're still a year and a half out or two years outside the election

[Paul Sakal]

and you may just stay upstairs and break constitutional conventions as a Prime Ministerial candidate from the Senate, is that right?

[Pauline Hanson]

I could actually do anything. There's nothing in the constitution says the Prime Minister has to come from the lower house.

[Paul Sakal]

Would it not be more credible if you wanted to portray yourself as a Prime minister, which I don't think you're actually doing?

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, John Gordon was Prime Minister from the Senate for three months.

[Paul Sakal]

Sure. Just on preference deals. The Conversations move so rapidly. Just in the space of months, we went from a conversation about who would preference whom when polling showed that you were catching up to the Liberals, but not quite ahead. You're now well ahead of the coalition in several polls and in one poll, only one poll ahead of Labor. And we're now in a kind of more profound debate about, you know, being muttered in the corridors around here about whether you could form some sort of right wing coalition with the Libs and Nats and those parties effectively be subsumed in almost a merger. That's what the worst fears of Liberals are. Is that your ultimate aim to subsume the coalition parties into a broader right wing coalition?

[Pauline Hanson]

Look, I don't know what's going to happen at the next election. We can all only guess in the long run and what's going to happen after that. No, I'm not going to make these, you know, surmise of what possibly is the outcome. As I said to you, these political parties is the reason why this country is in one hell of a mess. And I know that has to be a change in direction, policies and vision for Australia and that's what I'm going to be pushing.

[Paul Sakal]

In some parts of the political establishment you're being portrayed as the kind of saviour of the coalition, that you're the only option who can beat Labor. Many people think this is a delusional way of thinking because the ultimate aim is to supplant the coalition parties. Are you trying to replace them as the main.

[Pauline Hanson]

Let them think what they want to think. I really don't care. It's up to the people of Australia how they want to vote. They'll cast their vote. Everyone out there has the opportunity to vote on election day and let the people of Australia have their say. Not these elitists who think, you know, they have the, they have the ability to actually dictate and run it and think everyone else should be suppressed and they only know what's best for this country. The people out there will have their say.

[Paul Sakal]

You blame Tony Abbott in the early 2000s along with John Howard for causing your imprisonment. He's now back as president of the Liberal Party. I think your relationship with him has changed. What's your relationship with Tony Abbott like?

[Pauline Hanson]

Fine. I have no problem about it. I actually, I was the one who moved on. I was the one who encouraged him, hopefully that he won that prime ministership against Julia Gillard.

[Paul Sakal]

He is viewed by some liberals and I think he would contest this as being potentially open to talking about some Sort of longer term arrangement with one nation. Do you see his ascension to that position as opening the door to those kinds of conversations in the long run?

[Pauline Hanson]

Look, in the long run there's, you know what my main aim is. Get rid of labor.

[Paul Sakal]

But finish your first sentence. There's get rid of labor in the long run.

[Pauline Hanson]

What is to get rid of Labour and to get rid of the Greens. That's what it's about. And the Teals. This country needs to change completely. Get out of this climate change which is the cost of electricity's gone up, destroyed industries, manufacturing, small businesses. That is the driving factor, that with immigration. So if anyone wants to talk to me about it and we can make a change and the direction of policy that's driving this country, then I'll be talking to them.

[Paul Sakal]

Make a conversation about this. Prospect of a longer term right wing coalition, do you mean.

[Pauline Hanson]

Paula, I'm not going to. You're not going to box me into that. I'm not doing that at all. You are. You keep going to this, to this, you know, fact is just where it has to go. I'm not being boxed into anything. We're coming into an election that's probably unprecedented what we're doing because there's really three, three major parties now in it. I'm a major party, you know, I'm not just this minor party out there on the fringes to actually give preferences to give one of the majors.

[Paul Sakal]

That's why we've got you here.

[Pauline Hanson]

That's why people want change. And you're not going to box me in a corner that I'm going to be tagged with the coalition government because they're responsible for a lot of problems that we're in now. And my members do not want to see me associated or to join forces with them because they're responsible for the situation. This is why people want change. They want change from someone who's prepared to stand their ground and drive for that change. I'm not answerable to anyone else but the people out there.

[Paul Sakal]

Let's go to policy quickly. So you talked about some of your policies earlier, some of which have been adopted by major parties. Your critics would say that you're not across the breadth of policies that you'd be required to be if you led the country. Can I just go rapid fire through some newsworthy policy issues and have some quick answers and we'll run through them if we can. As quick as you can without. We're still getting your words in.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, you can, but I also tell you that I'm quite happy to answer some questions on these things. Yes.

[Paul Sakal]

Let's go through. What cuts would you propose to balance the budget? Top three.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, climate change has to go. Climate Change Department, Aboriginal, industry and if you treat everyone equally in the same ndis needs to be cut right back.

[Paul Sakal]

Aboriginal. The Indigenous Affairs Department and Climate Change Department. That's small money.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, it's not. They're both $30 billion a year in

[Paul Sakal]

spending from those departments this year. Yes.

[Pauline Hanson]

And then the subsidy paid out. We've probably paid out over $80 billion in the Aboriginal in the CL, but they won't give us any figures on that. So we don't know what's tied up in the subsidies, how long it's going to go. Then you've got all these transmission lines that's been put in at the moment and the cost is going to be over a trillion dollars in the climate change by the time it's finished. And then you've got the white elephant in 02. I can't think of it. Snowy hydropowers, the Snow Hydro. Thank you for saying that. That's another one. $42 billion. They've done a great job, haven't they? From $2 billion up to 42, 42 billion plus the NBN. So you're telling me about cuts and they've actually the decisions they've made. What about the NBN? That was over $60 billion. It's a white elephant now as well.

[Paul Sakal]

What about yesterday's or Tuesday's minimum wage decision? Do you Support it? The 4.75% rise?

[Pauline Hanson]

Look, you have to. But that's going to have a big impact on industries and small business. They're really struggling to pay their bills. Even the rent rise in electricity costs. But I know that the general public out there are also struggling to pay their bill. You know that businesses can. It's not a whole lot but we've got to try and support people.

[Paul Sakal]

So you're having it both ways there a little bit is the changed Aukus schedule that we learned about over the weekend with three mid service subs instead of one new one. A Warian sign for Aukus and should Orcas be reviewed?

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, you've got to look at the fact that America can't build subs. They're only building 1.3 at the moment. You know they were expecting about 2.23 a year but they're not being able to build them and it is a concern. But we do need new subs.

[Paul Sakal]

Should we proceed with Aukus or review it and have a think about where we're at.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, we're in. The deal with Aukus. Aukas is more about an ally with the United States and Great Britain. It's not just about building subs. There's more to substance to it.

[Paul Sakal]

Should workers be protected from artificial intelligence or do we need to let the technology run to drive our productivity?

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, that's huge, that one, because it's going to lose a lot of people jobs. You might lose your job too, Paul, you never know. I don't. You know, fewer politicians in here. Be great if AI could drive that because I'm all for fewer politicians, but industries are going to do it and I hope it doesn't take over the education sector because they're using AI so you're not going to have the intelligence from these people using AI to get their tertiary degrees, which is going to be an impact on employment.

[Paul Sakal]

Should we grow the trade in relationship with China or put more emphasis on the security threat with the Asian superpower?

[Pauline Hanson]

What I'd like to do is build up more of our own industries manufacturing, which we have lost over 1400 with this government. So we've lost a lot of industries. Manufacturing started with the Lima Declaration, 1975. We signed it up to sell our raw materials to third world countries. We're selling our coal to them. They're using the coal to power their plants over there and buying back finished products. We'd restored our own industries manufacturing here. We are so self reliant on imports, which is about a third of our product coming, you know, from China.

[Paul Sakal]

So distance ourselves from China at a diplomatic. Distance ourselves from China at a diplomatic.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, I'd like to be more self sufficient, which I've always said that.

[Paul Sakal]

What about the media bargaining incentive?

[Pauline Hanson]

Sorry?

[Paul Sakal]

The media bargaining code that allows tech firms to incentivises tech firms to strike deals with journalists, journalism firms to keep Australian journalism alive.

[Pauline Hanson]

No, I'm not across that one.

[Paul Sakal]

Not aware of it, no. Do you support banning gambling advertisements on tv?

[Pauline Hanson]

Look, they have, but I. Not completely. I think it could be allowed in certain times, after a certain time at night. If you're going to ban that, then ban the whole industry altogether. If you allow horse racing to happen, you know it happens. If you allow the lotto and all these things, we allow that to happen. So if you're against that, then ban it. You know they won't because it's an industry. Employees, you know, the house is.

[Paul Sakal]

Yeah, this is more around sports rather than horses, more than racing.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, it's still gambling, isn't it? So when's the next thing?

[Paul Sakal]

What about the Job Ready Graduates program?

[Pauline Hanson]

Yeah, just explain that further to me.

[Paul Sakal]

That's the Morrison government policy that's made. That's made certain degrees, including arts degrees, astronomically expensive, some other ones cheaper. The government's committed to looking at it.

[Pauline Hanson]

Yeah. When they brought that in Morrison, I totally agreed what they were saying, that a lot of people going for degrees, that there was no work for it at the end of the day. So what they did, they increased the price of. The cost of some degrees and I totally agree with that. If they're going to take out HECS debts. Yes.

[Paul Sakal]

There's a couple you weren't aware of. I've had more, but we don't have enough time, so I'm just going to move on. If you're the Prime Minister and Donald Trump, Trump asked, you asked Australia to join the US in a war in the Middle east or in the Taiwan Straits against China, would you be inclined to join?

[Pauline Hanson]

That is a hypothetical question and I'm not going to answer that now at this time because that needs to be strategically advised, that I'd be listening to people from all the defence and all around my advice. It's not something that I would actually make this decision.

[Paul Sakal]

Do you still support Trump's war with Iran?

[Pauline Hanson]

I think we needed to make sure that Iran didn't have nuclear weaponry. By all means.

[Paul Sakal]

Was it a success, that war?

[Pauline Hanson]

Sorry?

[Paul Sakal]

Was it a success, the war?

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, I think it's still going on, Correct? It's still going on. So do you think it's going on? We don't know if you can get the Straits of Hormuz open and we get the oil supply, but you can't allow that dictatorship and that happening in the world. I think it would be more detrimental to the world if they were allowed to have that weaponry.

[Paul Sakal]

Do you think Trump's made any mistakes in his presidency today?

[Pauline Hanson]

I'm sure he has, but I'm not an American citizen. Let them decide.

[Paul Sakal]

You can't call up one.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, there are certain things, I totally agree, that he's looking after the women and doesn't allow men in their spaces. He's pulled back on the immigration. He's actually created investment in his country. And last year, at the end of last year, Bino, they heard that he's pulled in $19 trillion in investment in the country. So that's all very positive that what's going on. He's tried to get accountability for where the money's gone in the country.

[Paul Sakal]

Would you ever have an argument with the Trump administration if you were to lead the Australian government?

[Pauline Hanson]

If I didn't agree with him, I'll have an argument with anyone or I'll debate them.

[Paul Sakal]

Another person who you might be forced to argue with is Gina Rinehart. I know you've been asked lots of questions about her influence on one nation. Can you guarantee that Reinhart won't have sway over any of your energy policies, your decision making on the Environmental act, on defence policy? She sought to influence the coalition's policy making before the last election. Is that a relationship you have with her, a policy making relationship?

[Pauline Hanson]

Yeah. No, she doesn't influence me at all. She's like anyone. I've been to her meetings, I've listened to the speeches, I've heard her views on these things and they're very in line with my views. So it's like a lot of Australians there that I listen to right across the board with their farmers, industries, manufacturing, everyone, they have views because it's actually their environmental policy and safeguard mechanisms that is actually shutting down this country. So why wouldn't someone, you know, why wouldn't I listen to her or listen to anyone else? As I did a tour and I listened to many Australians over the past four days, I was travelling throughout Queensland.

[Paul Sakal]

So you'll take her, you'll have conversations with her about her policy preferences that will inform the way you go about

[Pauline Hanson]

policy preferences, putting them in her policy preferences?

[Paul Sakal]

Well, she's expressed strong views on resources, on defence policy, on the posture towards China.

[Pauline Hanson]

This. Excuse me.

[Paul Sakal]

That's ok. Take your time.

[Pauline Hanson]

Let me just tell you, I've got a number of members of Parliament here, two in the lower house and I've got three of my colleagues in the Senate with me. We work as a team. We go through the policies with our advisers and different ones around me. We talk about where we want to take this party with our policies. I will listen to other people's advice. Doesn't matter whether a Gina Rinehart or whether it's the average person on the street, whether it's small business person. I have a revolving door in my office. So I have so many people that are constantly coming to me and talking about policies. Even last week, family law, small business. This is constantly being, you know, talked to me about and I listen to people's opinions and advice and it's us as a team, as members of Parliament and which direction we take.

[Paul Sakal]

Do you. Are you a director or beneficiary of the company structure that receives donations for one nation and receives AEC payments?

[Pauline Hanson]

Um, I am on the. Well, the. Well, the money goes back to the party.

[Paul Sakal]

But you're the director of the entity that receives the donations and the AEC payments.

[Pauline Hanson]

Well, through. It is set up as a structure, but it's the party and I am head of the party and I'm the registered officer of the party and so that goes straight back to the party. Um, I am the party agent as well, but you have to have a name as the party agent, otherwise you can't receive the funding. So, yes, I am.

[Paul Sakal]

Who owns the plane that Gina, an associate of Gina Rinehart donated to the party. Do you own it personally?

[Pauline Hanson]

No.

[Paul Sakal]

Who does?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, that was a donation to the party.

[Paul Sakal]

Have you ever. Mark Latham's made claims around this. Have you ever taken private gain or received private gain out of any money One Nation received from either the AEC or donations?

[Pauline Hanson]

No.

[Paul Sakal]

Guaranteed.

[Pauline Hanson]

Guaranteed. Never been accusations that have been thrown around. And Mark Latham, can I tell you, has had no inside anything to do with the administration side of the party. So those are false allegations, which I vehemently deny.

[Paul Sakal]

Ok, we'll go back to him. James Ashby, and your new general manager is developed this quite sophisticated new vetting system to weed out extremists, people with criminal histories from party official roles and for candidate roles. You've been shutting down branches across the country due to suspect characters being involved in them. What have been the issues with the people leading these branches? Are they extremists?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, I don't think they're extremists. I've just had a conversation actually this morning about with the CEO. This morning brought it to my attention. I think there's. And I said, well, how many branches is it? About four. You know, people getting the branches or they're getting speakers in and he's concerned about it. And I said, well, look, just send out a memo to people, be aware of anyone who wants to come talk to the branches who may have extremism. And I said just make them aware of it because I don't want these people in the party.

[Paul Sakal]

Are they kind of on the white supremacist fringe?

[Pauline Hanson]

I don't know, Paul, I don't that. I don't think it's that extreme at

[Paul Sakal]

all in that direction. Is that the case?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, not that. No, it wasn't that at all. Was said, you know, whether they've been far right or the people that got. He didn't go into any great detail with it. I said, just make sure that people know who they're inviting in members, invite others. And also, Paul, they could be trying to set us up, right? So even the media will try and set us up to get someone to go there as a speaker. Then all they've got is start expressing their views and that's in the media. And I'm being infiltrated by these extremists. So it's all the time happening with One Nation has set us up all the time and I've really had enough of it.

[Paul Sakal]

Did you make a mistake sticking with your former staffer, Shaun Black for as long as you did, given he was convicted of sexual assault?

[Pauline Hanson]

I tried to give him a fair go and he did his time in prison and I stuck with him because he was trying to make a living for him and his family. What do we do with these people? What would you like me to do?

[Paul Sakal]

Well, the argument from your critics is that and from the coalition is that you've taken a really strong line on pedophile and people have pedophiles and you've had a hard on. Crime policies, contradicts.

[Pauline Hanson]

That's absolutely rubbish. Don't tell me pedophile. So don't use that word with me.

[Paul Sakal]

I'm not suggesting he is one, but you've taken very strong positions on law and order, so in a general sense, yes, I say.

[Pauline Hanson]

And guess what? He's actually been to prison. He's done his time and he had a right to actually get on with his life.

[Paul Sakal]

So why'd you say that?

[Pauline Hanson]

So he's paid his time to society because these people out there are still going with it, putting letters around their electorate and the propaganda that I've copped for years and years from these people, because they don't like to see the rise of one nation. So in whatever possible way they can do, they're going to do everything they possibly can to destroy one nation and the rise of one nation, because they're scared of our rise.

[Paul Sakal]

So you wanted to retain him on staff, but there was pressure to get rid of him?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, it was a decision that I had to make. And other members of the party, of course, people were saying to me, look, you can't keep him, I've got to sack him. So anyway, he was sacked.

[Paul Sakal]

I only have a few more, I promise. I know you don't have much time. Someone who has attracted accusations that he's on the kind of fringe of the political debate is Sam Bamford. He's a big supporter of yours. Online he runs the Two Worlds Collide podcast. Yeah, he's recently. And there's been various One Nation characters who've expressed admiration for his podcast. He's recently been involved in a debate with RVMNE and some others on the right around his ethno nationalist views. He's effectively put an argument that to be a true Australian, you need to be making a blood and soil argument around the colour of your skin, that only people with white skin can be true Australians. That's what Sam Bamford has been saying in recent times. Do you agree with that at all?

[Pauline Hanson]

No. No.

[Paul Sakal]

Would you?

[Pauline Hanson]

Not at all. And I'm not aware of that. But Sam Bamford says, you know, he may support me. That's great. Thank you for your support. But. And I've done a podcast with Sam, you know, but we're not bosom buddies or anything like that. Everyone has a right to have their opinion. But if that be the case, if you said that you can only be Australian if you're white, well, that's just ridiculous. And I don't agree with that. And I've got people from all different cultural backgrounds. If it stood for us as a. And I've got people, people who are close friends of mine and from all different cultural backgrounds. So I don't. I don't accept that. I really need to go. I do have a. Yes, 25. Two. I do. Have I told you 1:30. I've got another meeting on at 1.30.

[Paul Sakal]

Do you want to do two more minutes?

[Pauline Hanson]

No, no, I can't. I can't pull.

[Paul Sakal]

Senator Hanson, thank you for joining us.

[Pauline Hanson]

Thank you. Alright, bye. Bye.

[Paul Sakal]

Today's episode was produced by Tammy Mills with help from Debbie Harrington. And our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Paul Sakal. Thank you for listening.