← The Morning Edition
The Morning Edition
Regrets? There are none. David Littleproud on Coalition split and what Nats do next
00:38:00
Loading summary
Transcript122 lines
- [00:00]
A
Paul.
- [00:00]
B
I'm Paul Sakal and you're listening to Inside Politics from the Sydney Morning Herald and the H. In a special bonus episode today, we're joined by the Nationals leader, David Littleproud. He's a man under pressure. Many commentators, Liberal MPs and even some of his own national colleagues blame January's coalition split on the 49 year old from Chinchilla in regional Queensland. Last year, Barnaby Joyce, a former National's deputy prime minister, quit after Little Proud sent him to the backbench and he's now leading a populist revolt against the Nationals with one nation. With the dust settled on the coalition rupture, we talk to Little Proud about how the coalition has found itself here and what comes next under new leader Angus Taylor. David, thanks for joining us.
- [00:42]
A
Yeah, thanks for having me.
- [00:43]
B
I want to ask about the National Party's identity in the modern era. It strikes me that there's two different versions of how the National Party, through some of your language and some of your colleagues language is talked about. You said just before the last election to Troy Bramson and the Australian that we represent more nurses, more policemen, more teachers than we do farmers. Our seats are now urbanised and we're not the traditional elastic sided boot cockies coming to Canberra just to support farmers. But if you listen to Bridget Mackenzie and others, they talk about your party being the only truly conservative party, the Burkean Conservatives. There's one nation on the right, they're the populist party. Now where does a national party sit in the political spectrum in the modern era?
- [01:22]
A
Well, we've evolved and we were the country party. We did basically come into existence to represent farmers and rural and remote areas that were dominated by primary industries. But our economies in regional Australia have evolved and we've urbanised many of the communities that we represent. The majority of people live in urban towns. They're not farmers anymore. We haven't walked away from our roots, that agriculture is the core of what has created the essence of the National Party. But we've evolved as Australia's evolved and we've evolved with it. And you know, when you look at our electric, you look at we're representing some large regional cities. I don't, I've all got smaller towns. The biggest town in my electorate's 15,000 people in Warwick. But I represent probably in the Southern Downs more nurses, more doctors, more policemen, teachers than farmers because of how agriculture has evolved. Agriculture has relied on economy of scale. Like everything else, it's had to grow. And so there's Fewer smaller family farms. And what they do is they grow in aggregation, they get bigger. So there's fewer farmers, but big aggregations, bigger land that they're managing so there's not as many farmers out there. And that's technology and that's where our societies evolved. But we haven't lost the essence of who we are, what we've come from, but we've evolved with. What are those aspirations, those people that do have and live in urban areas, in making sure that they get their fair share, that we stick to the values and principles of a conservative party, but we make sure when we come here we use our leverage within a coalition to fight and to get the policy changes and to get the funding mechanisms that give us the amenity of life that people in capital cities just take for granted. That's what it is to be an AT in a modern day era.
- [03:12]
B
How do you satisfy the UN ideological nurse in your seat at the same time as expressing the kinds of sentiments and energy that the kind of Christian right, which is a, an influential part of the National Party movement want to see you express in?
- [03:28]
A
Well, I don't think they're exclusive. I mean, I think you've got to say that people that live in cities and in regional areas, they're not, we're not different. We just face different challenges and therefore have different aspirations about how we get to achieve what we're trying to get to for our families. A nurse in Warwick or in Roma or in Longreach has the same aspirations in many respects as that in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, but has more challenges because of the tyranny of distance and the scale of support that they get. And that's our job, is to fight for our fair share, to make sure that that nurse and her family can have the amenity of life that you take for granted. But they can continue to be there and contribute to these regional communities that contribute so much, not just in agriculture, but in resources and everything else we put in the economy. And it's so important to our national that they get their fair share and that they can have the comfort of knowing that as a family and as a parent that you're going to provide that opportunity to your children. That's what I as a father look for. That's what got me into politics. What I got into politics for was because I was jackassing. Generations of young people go over the Great Dividing Range to the capital cities because there wasn't the opportunity, there wasn't the future that they saw in regional Australia. It is Time to bring them home and keep them home. And that's what the nationals fight for. That opportunity that people in cities take for granted. That we can have to unlock our potential, unlock our potential not just for our community but for our country.
- [04:59]
B
Well, that conservative zeal in your party and arguably the pressure from one nation was what led you to split the coalition last month on the grounds that Labor's post Bondi hate groups laws could have impinged on free speech. Dennis Shanahan, a deutan of the gallery called it quote one of the all time greatest acts of political bastardry by you self inflicted damage and stupidity in pulling out of the coalition. My colleague James Masola question whether you were the worst nationals leader of all time as a result of that decision. Do you have, you haven't expressed any regret as far as I'm concerned. Do you have any regrets?
- [05:30]
A
It was a malicious act. It wasn't a malicious act at all. But you gotta understand the coalition is two parties. It's not one party. And with all due respect, the good people of Longreach and Roma don't read James Mussola. They don't read Dennis Shanahan wouldn't have a rat's idea who they are. Don't you.
- [05:48]
B
Do you think they're wrong? Do you actually think those guys were without merit in making those claims?
- [05:52]
A
Well, because that's a view from here. There is this cultural mindset in this place in the gallery that the National Party should just be subservient and that we should just get a few trinkets and you know, you've got a lot
- [06:03]
B
of trinkets over the last few years.
- [06:04]
A
Well that's because I've stood for something. I'm the one National Party leader that has actually stood up and said in terms of nuclear energy divestiture, the Voice Net zero and in terms of the hate speech, I'm not one that goes down the rabbit holes of conspiracy theories but I, I personally also had a real issue with that. If we had a prescriptive bill, a prescriptive bill that just named he's about Tahira and the neo Nazis, I was all in. But this went further in the objects of the bill to go into psychological harm it could cause or social, economic. And the fact that the National Party was not afforded, was not afforded the opportunity to debate that in the forums of the coalition. It wasn't the, it was. The coalition wasn't broken by the National Party or me individually. I don't make those decisions individually. The party room makes Those decisions as a collective, when we weren't afforded that opportunity. We don't come down here just to roll over as what the gallery thinks we should do. We should just be subservient and be good boys and girls in the Coalition party room. We stand for something. And I think the political discourse that you're seeing at the moment is that the Australian people want you to stand for something. So when I walk back into the streets of Warwick or Kingarooi or in Goondiwindi, you know what they said to me? They weren't reading James Masala, they weren't reading Dennis Shanahan. They said, good on you. Cause you've actually shown you stand for something. And we want to send you down there to do what we expect you to. And in that moment, in your moment, you have the courage to stand up for what you believe in. And as traumatic as what it was, it didn't have to get to that. But unfortunately, Susan took it to that extent when she sacked us. The reality was she knew very well that if she sacked us, we were gone. Made that explicitly clear verbally and in writing.
- [07:48]
B
Your Shadow ministers all offered their resignation. One of them, in her resignation letter, Bridget Mackenzie or Bridge Senate Leader, said that they acknowledged they had breached Shadow Cabinet solidarity. You subsequently said that there were flaws in the process. There was no joint party room and there were amendments to the bill which meant the Shadow Cabinet decision on the Sunday night was not. Was not valid. Why did she tender her resignation? Was that just all post, post hoc rationalisation by you? Because of the situation you put the party in?
- [08:18]
A
It was out of respect. It was our respect to Susan that we'd argued from the start, from the Sunday. There was no bill put in front of us on the Sunday night in Shadow cab. The bill came to us at 6:13am on the Tuesday.
- [08:29]
B
Our principles which were all expressed in the bill.
- [08:31]
A
But hold on. What party and what party would sign up to a bill they haven't seen from a Labor Prime Minister, either a Liberal or National Party leader? With all due respect, let's take away the hyperbole of this place and look at this rationally and through the spectre of what the processes that have been agreed for over 100 years in the coalition. And the bill was not presented to us till 6.13am on the Tuesday morning. We're expected to vote on it by lunchtime time that day, when amendments to that bill were being handed to us as it was being introduced into the House. There was no Shadow Cabinet to have a look over that bill, there was no leadership meeting over that bill and there was no joint party room over that bill. So with respect, there was no forum that we were afforded the opportunity to vote against. Now, Susan disagreed. She believed passionately that there was a breach of shadow cabinet solidarity if we didn't vote for this bill. Made it very clear we didn't. And out of respect to her, when we got to our position, she asked us not to vote in the House of Representatives. Cause we hadn't undertaken our amendments. And that out of respect to her, we said we haven't changed our position, we haven't breached any Cabinet solidarity. We'll put our amendments in the Senate. When they come back, we'll be voting against it as well in the House. She had that strong belief. But I made it very clear when the three, I sent three letters of those, those shadow ministers out of respect to her and the coalition. The fourth letter that accompanied that was from me and the party room that the party room instructed me to send to make it explicitly clear that if she accepted those resignations, she was sacking us and she would be sacking us all. Because we were all made that position of way of the National Party position and we weren't afforded. We weren't afforded due process.
- [10:15]
B
There's no doubt the Prime Minister's timelines and all this forced a lot of this. And there's a question about his intent on all that and that's for him to answer. But why didn't you abstain in the Senate to avoid breaching shadow cabinet solidarity? Is that not a sign that you actually wanted to precipitate this crisis?
- [10:29]
A
Well, you've made the presumption that we breached shadow cabinet solidarity.
- [10:33]
B
Your ministers acknowledged that.
- [10:34]
A
No, they did that out of respect to Susan and the times that she had.
- [10:37]
B
So they made that up.
- [10:38]
A
No, out of respect to her and the position she had, we didn't agree with that position. And so this is. We've acted with utmost integrity all the way through this. And I know there's been a lot of backgrounding by a lot of the litig about what happened.
- [10:52]
B
Are you all senior nationals, Colleagues too well.
- [10:55]
A
And saying exactly how it is. The reality is this. We didn't agree with the premise that we had breached any cabinet solidarity because that bill didn't go to shadow cabinet. There is no party leader on the Conservative side that would ever agree to a bill from a Labor Prime Minister without seeing it. I mean, that's absurd to think that anyone would go down that path. So we acted with integrity all the way through. And we made it very clear that there was no malice in this. But when you were talking about something as serious as freedom of speech, when there was an opportunity, I think there was a clear opportunity and we expressed that. Why haven't we just been prescriptive? Why didn't we. And we did it with who Just need.
- [11:33]
B
Sorry, interrupt. Needling into your concerns about that bill. What could have the unintended consequences been here? Which groups were you worried that these hate groups, laws which could effectively just shut down a group and prosecute people for being part of them. Which groups were you worried that it could capture?
- [11:50]
A
Just the groups. Now it's in the future. This is the difficulty in that if you have far reaching laws and society continues to move that it can have an unintended.
- [11:59]
B
So it was a hypothetical consent.
- [12:01]
A
Definitely. And we've seen that society shifts and it's shifted. It's shifted over the last decade and a decade before that. What you've got to do is make sure. And I think there's a precedent that this parliament demonstrated less than 12 months ago when the Nazi symbols, we all were very prescriptive about that. We went in and said, yes, they shouldn't be used in terms of the original intent that they were created in the 1930s and 40s, shouldn't be used on the streets. That was a no brainer. In fact, the states do this all the time. States did this with bikie gangs, the bikie colours. Why wouldn't we be prescriptive around that? So that we as legislators. And this is the thing is, despite what the gallery thinks, it's not all about politics. It's about doing the right thing, coming down here with the values and principles and standing up and saying, you know what, this is an overreach and I have real concerns and I'm not one that wears the tinfoil hat, but I could see that this was an overreach that we didn't.
- [12:54]
B
You didn't say that in the Shadow Cabinet meeting.
- [12:56]
A
Well, with due respect, how would you know what I said in the joint party?
- [12:59]
B
Because I spoke to all your colleagues about it.
- [13:01]
A
Yeah, well, with all due respect, I know what I said and I know what my colleagues. If you read Darren Chester's letter of resignation, you see very much what was said and I know what I stand for. I'm not going to run around and say what was said. And I think that's a real more reflection on the people that come and tell you people what they say because they come with a motive and an intent to try and cover a position.
- [13:21]
B
Do you never background journalists?
- [13:23]
A
No. Not on shadow cabinet? Definitely not. Why would I go and say what I said in shadow cabinet or the party room? I respect the processes and that's why we acted with integrity when that process wasn't reciprocated to us. And it was made very clear in that letter that if you accepted those three, then you sack us all. And, you know, I don't resolve from that. It's not something I enjoyed. But you've got to stand for something in this place. And we aren't a faction of the Liberal Party. And that's what this cultural mindset that has come across the gallery here of these commentators that want to look down at the National Party and think that we're just some bunch of hicks, look at the policies that are on the books at the moment for the coalition.
- [14:10]
B
You've led the agenda on a lot of them. I don't accept that's a gallery's perception. And in fact, the National Party's, you
- [14:15]
A
know, well, when you look at commentary,
- [14:16]
B
you look at commentary, well, they weren't talking about your right to not differentiate. That's not what they were on about.
- [14:20]
A
But anyway, no, but, no, but they don't appreciate the fact that in our moment, when we stand up and we show the courage that the Australian people send us here to show that we should do it, because there's a consequence on the other side that we should just. We should just roll over, because in the benefit of the total coal, we shouldn't have that courage in that moment. That's the problem. And that's what gets people that we represent back up about a bubble in Canberra, not understanding what it means when you walk back and I look the people in the eye, when I walk back to my electorate, they all looked at me and said, good on you, brother.
- [14:54]
B
Interesting you and Susan Lee didn't say eye to eye. I don't want to delve into the, you know, years of contest between you and her, but it's notorious in the coalition that you guys didn't have the best working relationship. You know, there's one argument on your side that she had quite an insular office that was difficult to deal with, that she didn't consult, that she actually was a contributor to this. There's another school of thought that you were very harsh to her, that you split the coalition the first time when she was dealing with her mother's death, that you, as a National Party person, was always offended by her winning. Farah off the National Party. She.
- [15:30]
A
She told me I wasn't around then.
- [15:31]
B
Yeah, you weren't around. But there's long, long actually.
- [15:33]
A
I was only just alive probably.
- [15:34]
B
You're just alive? Yeah, yeah. You know, she's been around for a while. In one of the terse phone calls that you had with her during this split, I understand she effectively said to you, and I know you won't go into the details, she effectively said, you're not a real leader. Matt Canavan really leads your party. Did you ever consider stepping down during this process? And how did you go with Susan Lee in that period? Were you trying to blow her up?
- [15:56]
A
No, and I don't accept the premise on her either. We could work professionally with them. We've had a very professional relationship with them and I don't accept the prem that we blew the coalition up after the election. Again, coalition convention for over 100 years is that after an election all policies are maintained, all policies are kept and are removed by exception. Susan wanted to remove them all. Made it very clear there was four hard fought policies that the nationals had fought for for a long time. Divestiture, nuclear power, universal service obligation reform so that mobile phones might work in our part of the world, and the regional Australia Future Fund so that we can train our own doctors and have some childcare centre. And she made it very clear, I accept the fact you might want to get rid of the rest of them, but these we're not going to. And so she broke the convention. Not the National Party. And the National Party party room, not me, gets to this position. I supported our position to say that we until we got what we were looking for. And I'm glad the Liberal Party got to a position where they accepted our terms because that laid the foundation stones for us to reform net zero. And look in terms of Susan's mother's death. We made it very clear from the start that we'd work at her pace of what she was comfortable and we're very respectful around that. So we had a professional working relationship and I know there's a gossip and he said, she said what? But the reality was we work professionally and we got back twice together because and to Susan's credit, she came back to us twice wanting to get the coalition back together. We wanted the coalition together, but not at any cost, not at the people we represent's cost.
- [17:38]
B
What have you won out of this? How's the National Party won out of this? What's the benefit?
- [17:42]
A
Well, we've now got policy that means so much to us.
- [17:45]
B
Which policy?
- [17:46]
A
Well, have you ever been on a.
- [17:48]
B
No, no, no. I'm talking about the most recent split.
- [17:51]
A
Well, it ensured those, but it meant that we were able to come back to coalition when we were mistreated. We left because we were sacked. We were sacked because we took a principal stand and we weren't afforded the opportunity to vote on a bill that wasn't debated through the proper process. Now, so you saying we should just roll over and just let that one go when it meant something to our party room. We didn't make this decision lightly. Our party room. It was a difficult position to get to. Cause our party room knew the consequence that if Susan continued to see this as a breach of cabinet solidarity, there were consequences. We all knew the party room went through that and it was a very detailed conversation that we went through. And I'm proud of the way that our guys went through it, but we couldn't walk past it. So, I mean, this is the thing. It meant something to us that we stood for this principle and as much as pride in principle. Well, to the values of what we've been sent here for. Like, there's plenty of people that come here and just go, you know what? For expedience, we're just going to roll over and let that go. And I've got to say, there's some things that we. That go through the joint party room that are very important to the Liberal Party. And I've got to say, they do it for us as well.
- [19:09]
B
They do it for you a lot.
- [19:10]
A
Well, I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say.
- [19:12]
B
I mean, they voted for the gun. They voted against the gun. Gun linebacker for you guys. And I mean, the labor hate group, the hate group legislation. Usually when you guys differentiate the National Party, it's because it's on an issue particularly of interest to rural and regional voters. This bill was not.
- [19:29]
A
So. How do you know that?
- [19:30]
B
Well, because there's no.
- [19:32]
A
When's the last time you lived in a Kent region?
- [19:35]
B
It doesn't differentiate regional and Metro. It's got no increased bearing on one group or the other. It was around prohibiting hate groups, but
- [19:42]
A
it was about the principle of overreach of freedom of speech. That's just as important to someone living in Chinchilla as it is here in Canberra.
- [19:48]
B
Exactly. That's my point.
- [19:50]
A
So why wouldn't we stand for that? There are. So this is what you've got to understand. The National Party. Yes. They are very, very broader principles that we believe in and are passionate about and will stand up for. There are more localised issues that I talked about at the start with, about getting our fair share and making sure that that aspiration and challenge is addressed for those people that live out there. So to sit here and say no, there's no differentiation. It is. And it's important to people in the capital cities about their freedom of speech. And this is where the science and we shouldn't have this big differentiation between country and city because much of our values and principles are the same, the values we should stand up for. But when we need that bit extra to make that amenity of life for us that little bit more livable, we'll go and fight.
- [20:38]
B
Sorry, we spent way too much time on the coalition split. It's my fault. So let's go on to some other issues. If there's a person who embodied that old school version of the Nationals that we talked about before with Barnaby Joyce, he blames you for leaving the National Party. I have no doubt that's self serving to some extent on his part. But no matter who's to blame, the most recent Red Bridge poll this week has the One nation party at 39% in the regions, the coalition at 20. A recent poll has the National Party vote nationally across the whole country at 2.5%. This is a disaster.
- [21:11]
A
No, well, just be careful on the national party vote at 2.5% you% only
- [21:16]
B
run in certain seats.
- [21:16]
A
Well, I think this is where everyone in this place needs to cool their jets a little bit. We contest effectively 20, 22, 23 seats. We win 15 to 17 of them. I think that's a pretty good win loss ratio compared to any other party. We don't run in the seats where the Liberal Party are. So for those to make commentary about a National Party national vote when we don't run in the vast majority of seats, of the 151 seats we're not in there, probably 125 of them. Fair enough. Take a deep breath. Fair enough. So I think what the national poll shows is no one likes any of us, Not One Nation. They don't like labor, they don't like us. Because you know what? They're angry. Cause they're poor. And that poses an opportunity. And that's where I think the opportunity for us is. And I think Angus has hit the ground running in defining, redefining those values and principles of the Coalition, restoring our standard of living, protecting our way of life because people feel poorer and they don't feel safe. And that's about making sure we have a Proper migration policy, that one that we've seen already, that has been too high and had too lower standards, that hasn't gone to address the problems of giving hope to young people about ever owning a home. Why wouldn't we, when we're giving the greatest gift we're giving to any person on this planet, a ticket here? Why wouldn't, over the last four years, we prioritise, you know, builders, plumbers, electricians, tilers, roofers instead of dog groomers and martial arts instructors. So the reality is, is, you know, I think the polls show that there's an opportunity. There's a lot of work for us to do. You can't be ignorant to that. But I think there's an opportunity for this, for those that are here to stand for something, to show that what they believe in to the constituent they stand for. And that's what I'm proud of. For the nearly four years I've been leader of the National Party, where it was the voice all the way through the National Party, I've led, stood for something and we've changed coalition policy for the better. That that is what my party room as a collective has achieved in four years, more probably since McEwen. And that's because we've had the courage and strength of our conviction in those moments to stand up.
- [23:24]
B
Did you make the wrong call letting Barnaby go and not managing that relationship, even though he was troublesome on the backbench? Did you make the wrong call not keeping him in the tent?
- [23:31]
A
No, that was a decision for Barnaby to leave.
- [23:33]
B
You couldn't influence it.
- [23:34]
A
Well, we've made it very clear he had a role to play. But, you know, Barnaby's a grown adult. He made that decision after what the National Party provided him. He still had a role to play. We made it very clear to him. But because I think he rationalised in his head that the party room would never vote for him again to be leader, that he decided to leave and that was a decision for him. It's disappointing. We're saddened by it, particularly when you think of what the party has provided him.
- [24:01]
B
Determine ego, relevance, deprivation.
- [24:03]
A
I want to be judged when I leave the leadership in how I. I conduct myself and what I give back to this great party, this great movement of regional Australia that has given me everything. And I think you should be judged when you're gone or you're sent, rather than in that moment, because that's when you see the true. The true leadership is whether that. Whether that movement that's given you Everything. Whether you're prepared to stand by it through thick and thin. And you know I'm going to bleed green and gold until I die.
- [24:34]
B
Is it the Farribai elections coming up? Obviously, you'll run. The libs will run. One nation will run and an independent. Will that be a leadership test for you if the Nationals don't poll ahead of one nation or the Liberals?
- [24:45]
A
Oh, I think it'd be very hard for us to poll ahead of any of those. To be candid with you, we haven't been there for 25 years. I mean, it's been a Liberal seat since the 1940s when it was established. We had it under Fisher 25 years ago. We haven't got any state seats, apart from a slither of Cootamundra in Farah that has any national party infrastructure. But we've got strong membership there that want to run. And we'll have a candidate.
- [25:09]
B
Do you know how that is yet?
- [25:10]
A
No, nomination's closed on Monday, so we'll work through that. But I think we'll have a role to play as a coalition candidate to try and I believe our role will be to try and garner some of that one nation vote back to our side and to the coalition and then hopefully be able to siphon that off of preferences with the Liberals. We'll be preferencing the Liberals, and Gus and I have been very explicit about this, that we'll work together to make sure that we get one of our candidates up. But it's going to be difficult.
- [25:36]
B
And one nation ahead of them. Independent. The Teal Independent and Labor.
- [25:39]
A
Well, I mean, I don't know where the polling will be, but people are angry in Farah that they're going to have to go back to the polls. That's always difficult for the side of politics that causes that. So we're going to be constructive and proactive in working with the libs to try and get a coalition member of Parliament. It'll be difficult for us. I've been upfront with Angus about that. We haven't been there for 25 years. But. But doesn't mean we're not gonna swing hard, because I think we do have a role to play that we can show that you can have that conscience within the coalition that actually can get outcomes rather than just being a professional complaints desk outside yelling and screaming, but can never effect change. Whereas you park your vote with a national, you know you're gonna have a strong voice inside a coalition that can get things done.
- [26:23]
B
Well, you say they're a protest Party, Would you?
- [26:25]
A
I didn't say that then.
- [26:26]
B
Oh, almost. Would you? There's clearly widespread concern in the community about migration and you guys are trying to tap into that. And they've lost trust with the electorate on that issue. One nation's clearly doing very well on it. Cause they're very simplistic in their messaging. But we saw Pauline Hanson say there are no good Muslims the other week. Is Pauline Hanson and her party a racist party, do you think?
- [26:46]
A
I don't think so. I think that's harsh. I think Pauline's had trouble in messaging sometimes in articulate. Articulate, yeah, is probably the word I don't think. I like, look to see the good in people. And I think there is good in Pauline Hanson. I know personally, I think she has good intent. She doesn't always communicate it the way she should. But obviously there's more conflict within one nation about that than there is outside it. Obviously, Barnaby doesn't agree and there's a conflict around that. They can sort themselves out.
- [27:20]
B
Will that blow up, do you think?
- [27:21]
A
I don't know. I'm not interested in one nation. I'm interested in saying to the people we want to represent the people that we represent now that we're going to be a constant, stable force of common sense in Canberra. A conscience within the coalition that gets your fair share, particularly when you live outside of Capital City. That's the enunciation of message that I think we can prove. And we will continue to demonstrate with the policies we take forward.
- [27:44]
B
If that message doesn't start to draw back One Nation supporters and it looks like they might obliterate the coalition. Would you be open to a leadership change down the track in this term to a. To a Matt Canavan or a Bridget McKenzie or something?
- [27:56]
A
The party room determines that. I mean, I'm comfortable in my own skin. I mean, put my record for nearly
- [28:02]
B
four years, you've talked a lot about your record and you have a leg to stand, and I accept that. But I know the itemised list is all I'm saying.
- [28:10]
A
Yeah, no, it's good. Well, I'm happy for you to go through them again. But, you know, I'm relaxed. I'm comfortable in my own skin. I know the rules in which you sign up to. I'm. I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is the contribution that I get to make, the influence I get to make and the legacy I get to leave. If you start worrying about all this other stuff, it sounds great in here, it's all great. And we all run around the corridors making texts and phone calls. Isn't this great? You know what? If you start worrying about that, then you lose sight of what you're here for. That's not what I came to this place to do. I came to make sure that next generation don't go over the range. They come home and they stay home. That's the legacy I want to leave for the people I represent in regional Australia.
- [28:55]
B
Well, you won on the Voice. You want on Net Zero, you want on divestiture. They were big wins. What are your next three big policy priorities in the coalition?
- [29:02]
A
Well, I think importantly, the Regional Australia Future Fund is so important to us. It's a billion dollars every year, above and beyond. These are the things that people in capital cities take for granted. They can get a childcare place. We, we're in regional and rural and remote Australia. It's not about childcare affordability.
- [29:17]
B
What does this fund do?
- [29:18]
A
So it'll be a billion dollars a year and we will set up out of that. Every year that dividend will go into creating more childcare places in regional, rural and remote areas that we don't have. Because it's not about affordability, it's accessibility. There's simply. I've got towns with childcare centres that have got waiting lists for three years. So before I come into Parliament, I mean, I manage some rural bankers, I'd lose a whole lot of my female managers because they couldn't get a childcare place. You see all the opportunity, loss and cost that we had because they didn't have the amenity that people in cities had to go and have a career. I mean, that's not how this country should operate. So I'm passionate about making sure we get that right, about making sure we got some doctors, that 250 Commonwealth supported places to train doctors in regional universities. So they'll go and be out there in the bush. These are the heart and soul issues that we need and to fill in some potholes above and beyond the money we get, that's about making sure we get our fair share. It's about when in that moment when you're on the side of the road and you've broken down or you've had a car accident, you might be able to use your mobile phone to ring triple zero, that those mobile phone towers that you paid for as a taxpayer are used and the telcos are held to account. That's important to me that in our moment, you get that amenity of life, you're protected about supermarkets. Not just treating farmers right, but treating you right. They're stitching you up as well. When you go down to here, Marnick is Coles like stitching you up. So that's the stuff that we fought for and that's why it was important after the election. I didn't realise.
- [30:51]
B
Is divestiture still your policy now?
- [30:53]
A
Yeah, it is, it is. That's. Well, that's about to say. That's why after the election we didn't want to.
- [30:57]
B
Yeah, I remember it got stuck in and I just have. We haven't heard about it since then. And I wonder how. Angus Taylor is a free marketer. I think he did thesis on it.
- [31:04]
A
No, Angus Taylor was actually. Was the one. He and I created the bill that we put in in the last parliament on divestiture of the supermarket and I
- [31:10]
B
think he studied it at university.
- [31:11]
A
So what we didn't want to do is to go backwards for three years and to be fighting for these four key policies. So after the election, that's why we accepted, despite it being against coalition convention, to remove all the policies that if we got those four, we'd stick around because I didn't want to waste three.
- [31:28]
B
Are they in the new coalition agreement?
- [31:29]
A
Yes, they are. That's part of the reason we came back and that they.
- [31:32]
B
So divestitures in it. The new one with Taylor.
- [31:34]
A
That's exactly.
- [31:35]
B
Anything else in that agreement.
- [31:36]
A
We haven't asked for anything other than what we wanted after the election. We're not being greedy. We just want to be respected.
- [31:43]
B
Anything more on Solidarity? Was there any tweaks to how that
- [31:46]
A
language is in terms of where we are? We've got a really good working relationship and I've known Gus since I got here. He's an intellectual powerhouse. I actually respect his intellect. And what I like about it is that he's got a country lens of that. Cause he grew up in the bush. So I'm comfortable with where we are and his understanding of the National Party. And, you know, I think that there is great alignment there and the Nationals aren't asking for anything more than those core policies that actually go to the heart of giving our people some hope out there that they, you know, they can have the amenity of life and have that career that we take for granted in the capital city.
- [32:25]
B
There's a lot of interest in where you'll go on the migration policy. Josh Frydenberg said last week at a Conservative conference called Aspire that Australia should be looking to some European countries and other models where those countries have put in new rules for migrants to have a longer period before they can become permanent residents, to look at things like employment, whether they've broken the law effectively to ensure that there is a greater level of integration. Is that a model that Australia should be looking at?
- [32:52]
A
Yeah. And we'll come out with our final policy. But just cast your mind back to the last election. We had quite a, quite a harsh migration policy in the eyes of many pundits. What Peter Dutton and I took to the last election, in fact, it's probably pretty close to where one nation got to now. So we're going to look at this also around values and principles about the people we're bringing in, the standard of people we're bringing in. But you know, before we lost government in 22, the Ag visa that the nationals fought hard for and we negotiated and got part of that was around saying to people coming to this country, we can come. You can come and live in a particular area and work in a particular industry. You have to do it for five years, then if you stay for another two after that, that's your first pathway to permanent residency. And I think there's a lot of merit in that. And I see that already in places in my electoral like Charleable. We've got an abattoir out there about 150 Vietnamese that are there under me workforce agreements. They've been there five or six years. Their kids are the ducks of the school. They're the captains of the school. They're not hanging out at the pubs of a Friday night causing fights. They're the first to church on a Sunday or the first to set up for the school fight. These are great people that personify the values and the standards we would expect in this country that's built this country on migration that we should be bringing. We do need migration, I understand that. But we need to have a fewer number with higher standards and we need them to go to where we need them to make that contribution. And that's the power that we have without costing the Australian taxpayer a fortune, because that's just a lever of common sense. And that's where I think we can have a migration policy that gives the states time to build some homes by slowing it down, but by lifting the standards on values and on skills that we need where we need them, then you give them that ticket and you can eyeball them. And once they're entrenched in the community and they're contributing to the community, they're contributing to our country and that's what you've got to get back to is understand the contribution not just migrants make, but we as Australian citizens should live by this. What are we contributing back to our community? Because what we contribute back to our community contributes to our great country. And that's a principle that I think many of us have lost. But particularly those that we're bringing to this country, we need to make sure they aspire.
- [35:04]
B
Do you like that Frydenberg idea? I know it's not policy yet.
- [35:08]
A
There's value definitely and I think this is where there is real opportunity.
- [35:13]
B
Value in what?
- [35:14]
A
In looking at these types of policy elements that could be adopted. And I think you shouldn't shut your mind to it. I think we had a very strong migration policy the last election and I think now there's an opportunity to refine that. And understanding the shift in geopolitical atmosphere that we're experiencing is to make sure we do get that right.
- [35:35]
B
How does that feed into the policy formulation?
- [35:38]
A
Well, again it comes down to don't discriminate on race or religion. You discriminate on their values and principles that they're going to bring to this country and how they going to make that contribution to their community and their country. You don't need to over complicate it, but you need to eyeball them. And I think you need to make sure you understand where they're coming from, what they can contribute. But I think there's also that time element that makes sense around their lived experience in Australia and how they want to contribute and the way they contribute to Australia that it aligns with that great migration story that's built us.
- [36:09]
B
The Canadian government and other centre left government has very explicitly linked the migration settings to housing. Is that something you guys will look at?
- [36:16]
A
Well, I mean this is where the missed opportunity. I mean there has been abject failure of state and local government in planning. So the reality was we need to buy them time to rebuild and to build supply. What the federal government lever they can pull is migration. And I think what we've got to do is make sure that we give young people hope because they've lost hope of ever owning home. And if you don't own something in this country, you're less likely to fight for it. So that's why I think it's important that we look at this through a multifaceted lens and we get the numbers right, we get the settings right of who's coming and their values, their skills and about the problem we're trying to solve, which is hope for homes.
- [36:54]
B
So explicitly linking, you know, getting the numbers down so that construction can keep up.
- [36:59]
A
You've got to buy time. I mean, Labor's bought in 1.33 million people in the last three and a half years. They've prioritised dog groomers and martial arts instructors above roofers, tilers and builders and electricians. I mean, if you've got a supply problem, one, you slow down the demand lever and two, you bring in the people that can actually help contribute to build supply. That's just common sense. I mean, I'm not academically gifted. You know, Chinchilla State High in grade eight taught me about demand supply. I didn't need to write 6,000 word essay that Jim Chalmers did to work that principle out.
- [37:29]
B
You and Angus Tyler can have an academic. He can do some schooling for you.
- [37:32]
A
I think he'll tell me up pretty easy.
- [37:34]
B
Thanks for joining us, David.
- [37:35]
A
Thanks for having me.
- [37:36]
B
Cheers. Today's episode was produced by Josh Towers with technical assistance from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. And our podcast 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. Thanks for listening.