Is the media giving Pauline Hanson a free pass? – Back to Back Barries podcast

I'm Barry Cassidy.And I'm Tony Barry.Welcome to Back to Back Barry's, a podcast from Guardian Australia.Well, this week, Pauline Hanson did what political leaders do routinely.She fronted the National Press Club and exposed herself to questions for the first time in 30 years of politics.But as a clear measure of how she has transformed the political landscape, she got far more media coverage than most who came before her.

And if it's news you were looking for, you got plenty of that.Here's a quick snapshot.And we'll spend a lot more time on this a little later on.But she wants an end to multiculturalism.She wants an end to a lot of things, actually.She wants an end to the SBS.

She wants an end to a free ABC, an end to parental leave.Why should people get paid when they're not working, she said.She wants an end to pay rises, at least for now, because she says small businesses can't afford it.And just by the way, you can't sack anybody anymore.And workers are always on their mobile phones and they're lazy.She opposed wage increases just this week for the low -paid childcare workers.

She wants new industrial relations laws because, as they stand, they're anti -business.Now, if anybody thinks all of that is a bit harsh, just keep in mind, they are her policies.That's how she articulated them at the National Press Club.She announced them.I'm just passing them on.So, Tony, if you're a wage earner doing it tough, what's not to like about that?

Yeah, it's interesting to me because Until now, she's been a wrecking ball or truth teller for her supporters, which at 31 % of the electoral roll, which is around 18 .25 million, it's about 5 .6 million, give or take, couple hundred thousand voters.Now, she's actually put a bit of a bullseye on the One Nation brand by having a few targets for the major parties to hit.

What's going to be really fascinating to watch - A few targets for the country to hit, I would have thought.These are impacting on the lives of every wage and salary earner in the country.

Yeah, but until now, she hasn't really had a lot of policy prescriptions that the major parties could point to, to try and peel off those votes and bring those votersthe red One Nation voters and the blue One Nation voters back into their respective columns.What's gonna be really interesting is, will that matter?You know, Alistair Campbell who's fascinating, always talks about, you know, how we're living in a post -truth, post -populism and polarisation world, the three P's he always talks about.And post -truth, we're seeing a lot of that right now.And I think her speech to the press club was a classic example of that.

There's a lot of counter -intuitiveness to the One Nation voter.Will it influence those voters?You know, she said some pretty outrageous things in the last few months and it has not impacted her vote.So whether it does from now on will be fascinating to watch.

I just think it's potentially because of some of the things she said, and particularly when she appealed to people's prejudices, that the impact of the press club speech could even be an increase in her vote, but it'll be in the areas where she's already strong.She has now lost, I think, even more support in the cities.And that wall around the cities that I talk about with Pauline Hanson the whole time, I think, it just got a whole lot higher.It's now harder for her to penetrate the cities.Imagine those electorates now that have a high percentage of Indians and Chinese and Italians and Greeks and Vietnamese, Muslims, how much harder it's going to be for her to penetrate those seats, given what she said about multiculturalism.

I think it's going to depend on what is the dominant narrative here.So we know from all our polling, 75 % dominate cost of living in their top three issues and its relationship to housing affordability and access to health care is the number two issue, sometimes number three.Obviously, identity politics does play a role for a lot of people, but is it the dominant narrative?I mean, if you can't afford the basics and you feel like, you know, identity politicsable to afford them.You know, the haves, the have -nots and the never will -haves we've now got in the Australian voting community.

If that is the dominant narrative and they feel that Pauline Hanson is their person to tear the system down and make it start again, then I'm not sure some of these identity issues will be as influential over the vote.But I think some issues like abortion and Malcolm Roberts has sort of doubled down on it.And one of my friends sort of said, you know, Icarus syndrome, you know, there's now this certain invincibility in some of the One Nation inner sanctum where they're already sort of getting ready for government, that they're now sort of pushing out the vote a little bit further than they should be.My sense is these are dangerous issues for them to be articulating a position on, and it will start suppressing their vote is my sense, but it's very counterintuitive.

If any political leader in this country, Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers, Angus Taylor, Matt Canavan, declared no wage increases into the foreseeable future, we're going to take away parental leave, we're going to close down SBS, we're going to take away all of the subsidies around renewable energy, climate change is a hoax.You don't think that would be front page lead in all of the newspapers around the country?And if Anthony Albanese said of workers that they're always on their mobile phones and they're lazy, not saying some of them, She just said straight out, that's what workers are.They're lazy.You don't think there'd be front page lead around the country.There are double standards being applied to Pauline Hanson the whole time.

Well, I think she's getting quite a lot of scrutiny, but I think we've got to be careful.Do we look at this through the prism of mainstream legacy media, or do we look at also what's happening in social digital media, the various podcasts and other social media influences, which there's quite a lot?And I think some of the major parties are still making the mistake of just looking to the front page of the newspaper and thinking, this is the biggest issue and we need to respond to this.

But my question is, why isn't the mainstream media doing it?Why aren't they treating it?Why do they not find it surprising that she wants to do all of these things?And why is that inconsistency in terms of raising the living standards of ordinary Australians not being pointed out?

Yeah, I think it has got a lot of coverage, and I think a lot of it has been pretty negative, was my sense of it.

I didn't see the lazy thing that she called workers lazy picked up anywhere, maybe on social media somewhere.I'll give you one example.

It was a content -rich speech, you must confess.

Yeah, it was, and I made that point.If it's the news you're looking for, there's plenty of it if you wanted it.There was this one analysis in a major newspaper.She wasn't slick.She constantly contradicted herself.She mangled her words.

But there was a but.A but was coming.She didn't lose her cool.She didn't self -implode, therefore the One Nation juggernaut probably hasn't peaked.So there's the judgment.Provided you don't self -implode, then the likelihood you're still picking up votes.

Would you make that judgment about Angus Taylor or Anthony Albanese?Oh, he went to the press club and he didn't self -implode, therefore his popularity is likely to go up.It's a nonsense.

No, I think she reached minimum expectations.Insofar as, you know, she went into the lion's den, everybody was like, you know, all the doyens of the press gallery were there, the big hitters.They all threw up questions to her and she didn't buckle.She, you know...

But who does?Well, that was the test for her, if she had of.But nobody does.The political leaders don't go to the press club and buckle.So why is it a tick for Pauline Hanson that she didn't buckle?

Yeah, I'd buckle if I was speaking to an NPC.But I think, you know, in terms of is she reaching minimum expectations amongst her 31 % supporters?I suspect she did.The question now is, with those sort of targets or bullseyes that she's given her opponents to try and start narrow casting in on, and will that start impacting her vote?My tummy compass says it will, and she's peaked.But I would not bet a serious amount of money on it.

Yeah.But again, it's the double standards that I was talking about.And I'll give you another example.And Raphael Epstein raised it on Insiders last Sunday.And he said, when Pauline Hanson said, there are no good Muslims, he said, ask yourself.And Raph is Jewish.

And he said, ask yourself if she'd said, there are no good Jews.The impact in the media would have been far greater than it was when she had that to say about Muslims.In fact, there would be some, I'm sure, would be saying that she should be investigated under hate laws for that.It's that kind of thing, I think, that's starting to irritate people.who were opposed to Pauline Hanson and her party.

Her vote at the time was 27 % and now it's 31%.So again, this counter -intuitiveness.

No, but again, that's partly the responsibility.I think it's the fault of the media and those who apply double standards.If that was given the treatment that it deserves, that kind of comment, then she wouldn't have gone up in the polls, but she increasingly does because the only people that are hearing this are the bigots out there who want to hear it.And that's how they respond.

But I've tested this in focus groups, and you do test people.You say, well, she recently made these comments.Do you agree with that?Do you support that?And they say, oh, no, I think that was ridiculous.But she says what she means.

And she sticks to her guns.She doesn't back down.And it's this authenticity argument, which we've talked about before.And of her 31 % voter primary, shearound 15 % of voters say yes.I'm voting for her for that reason, because she sticks to her guns, even if I don't agree with it.

She doesn't back down.And I look at these other leaders, whether it be Albanese or Angus Taylor or so forth, and they always say one thing, and they come out a few days later and back down and change their minds.And they're over that kind of lack of conviction.And I think she is getting some reward for that.But whether she can sustain that over the next two years, I'm far from convinced.

If that is the case, then you're holding a focus group, right?If that focus group is representative of the majority of Australians now, then a lot of them will either have been born overseas or their parents were born overseas.Because the figure, as she correctly identified it at the press club, is that 51 .5 % of Australians now come into that category.She then went on to say, and just give me a sense of how bereft intellectually this is for her to say this.She said, that is the case.51 .5 % either born overseas or their parents were.

Australians don't want that.Australians don't want that.The majority are in that category.How can she say that Australians don't want that?It's like she excludes that group from being Australian, or at least they're not as Australian.as the 48 .5 % who have been here for two generations.

Put that to a focus group and see whether, if that's a representative focus group, half of them will be in that category, and ask them whether they find that upsetting.What do you put her growth in support down to?I put it down to sheer anger, and I put it down in part to the fact thatthere are double standards and that she is treated differently to other political leaders because it's a good story.It's a great story.We haven't seen anything like this in the past.

So of course it's people who are frustrated.I think there's a responsibility to point out, okay, to ask, to raise the question constantly.Well, of course you're upset about all of this, but what is it, Pauline Hanson, that thinks you are gonna make the difference, that she's got the policy solutions?You know, she was asked about tax policy.I don't know whether I have a quote here, but it was almost incomprehensible.She said that, I haven't put my head to it at the moment, tax policy.

It was pretty much words to that effect.She hasn't put her mind to tax policy.If you're not going to improve people's living standards through wages and you haven't got a tax policy, how are you going to improve people's living standards?And you're asking me why she's popular.You know, it's a bit of a mystery when that's happening.So here's a question.

We've got another Redbridge poll coming out soon, another news poll is due out very shortly.Do you think, and in both polls last time, both pollsters had One Nation leading on a primary vote over Labor and Coalition coming third.What's your fearless prediction for the next poll?

I think One Nation will continue to rise in popularity, marginally.

Despite her speech?

Despite the speech because of where it will appeal and will appeal to where she, as I said before, where she's already strong, but it will set her back in the city.So and anyway, these people in the cities haven't already declared themselves in opinion polls for Pauline Hanson.So it's not really what it just tells you, though, is she's made it her task of winning city seats and she can't win government without city seats.And don't get me wrong.I know that these opinion polls are going to be are going to be translated into seats at the next election.She could win 50 or 60 seats.

at the next election.What I'm saying is she can't get enough to win government because she can't win the cities and she's making it tough on herself.Like when we talk about multiculturalism, right?And this is probably, it wasn't the most significant thing.I think the economic issues are more significant in a way, but what she said, and it had the highest impact was somehow we have to turn back the tide of multiculturalism, which has been building since the second world war.and establish one culture, one culture however identified by her.

What does it mean that all migrants have to now disregard their languages, their costumes, their festivals, their food, their lifestyles, their religions.What is it about, unless you're Judeo -Christian, you have to read yourself, what is it?She doesn't, she's never spelled it out.It's a nonsensical proposition.You can't do it anyway.You can't turn it back in that way.

Now, what I'm saying is that might appeal to the prejudices of some, right?And they might think that you can actually do that.and become a monoculture all over again.But it will have a real impact in those critical seats.And look, apart from that, when she made this when she declared that she wanted an end to multiculturalism, it's not new, she did it 30 years ago.And she did it in her maiden speech, that speech when she said that the country was being flooded by Asians, swamped by Asians.

In that speech, she did call for an end to multiculturalism and it wasn't picked up in the same way because of that more outrageous proposition that she'd raised.Paul Keating, who at the time was the immediate past prime minister, he'd left parliament, but this is how he responded.He said really quite immediately, but vigorously, this is what he said, the idea that a modern nation can wind back many decades of multiculturalism and retreat to a single culture isan illusion.Such an approach is rooted in fear and prejudice rather than realistic governance.But then he went on to put it in a global context as well, which I think is worth recalling.

He said, merely by trying to do so, you would severely harm Australia's reputation in the Southeast Asian region, and by extension, our economic prosperity.In other words, we would become a pariah in our own backyard.At a time when really establishing strong relationships with the Southeast Asian nations is more important than ever before because of the role the US is now playing.as playing on the world stage and the threat from China and so on.So I really think that's the kind of response that is required.Bob Hawke did it when John Howard first talked about having a discriminatory immigration policy, having fewer, specifically fewer Chinese, fewer Asians.

And Barry, just as interesting as the speech itself, I thought, was some of the events that happened following, post reactions and so forth.The obvious one was the banner coming down during the speech itself.I can remember thinking as I was watching it that was... immature and stupid and pushing voters into the arms of One Nation, these people who feel like she's being cancelled or silenced.Counterproductive.Counterproductive.

And then when I found out...Played into the persecution complex thing.

Yeah.And then of course, when I found out, GetUp took responsibility for it.It all made sense to me.But I think it was just a self -defeating tactic that, you know, her advisors couldn't have been more delighted with that stunt.I mean, the message itself, as we discussed, is effective on those red One Nation voters in particular.But the cost is, is that, you know, it sort of, you know, pushes those sort of One Nation curious voters further towards her column.

And the other interesting thing that developed after the speech was that Gina Reinhardt, who's been discussed in dispatches with donations of the plane and so forth, and her influence orotherwise over Pauline Hanson then stood up beside her.She shared a platform the very day after the speech.Quite deliberate.And talked about the orange bulldozer, which gave me recollections of Elon Musk and the chainsaw.

Yeah, it was that.I wasn't as impressed with Gina Reinhart's impersonation of a bulldozer.That was kind of embarrassing, but they were just determined to send that message out off the back of it as well, that Gina Rinehart was backing her.And Gina Rinehart's only message out of that was she wanted to abolish certain departments, and especially where departments overlap with the state governments.So she was using it as a platform, too, to push for her own policies.

The orthodoxy says that's a problem for One Nation, for a backer to so identify and come out and basically, it does allow her major opponents to sort of do this puppeteer, puppet sort of, you know, narrative, which I think can be very powerful.But again, as I said, we're in this post -truth polarisation, populism world.So whether that impacts her vote or not, I'm going to be interested to see.

Well, I just wonder whether or not you're for or against SBS as an organisation or whether it should continue to go on and be publicly funded.How many points would you give it for timing?If you want to attack SBS, why would you do it in the middle of the World Cup when they're probably getting their highest ratings in their history?They're putting to air every World Cup game over the next four or five weeks.For timing, zero marks.Same with the attack on multiculturalism, a time when the Socceroos, We're all behind them right now.

They're our heroes for the next four or five weeks at least.They put out a great video where one after another they talk about where they came from.They came from Geelong and they came from Newcastle, but they also came from Somalia and Scotland and Guinea, and four of them came from Newcastle.camps.And with great passion, they talk about how proud they are to live in a multicultural society.Again, their timing wasn't great.

She's up against a pretty strong team there.

But what is the dominant narrative here?It's cost of living, it's access to infrastructure, whether it be social service infrastructure or hospitals, emergency departments, and so forth.I can see that message working, but I can also see where it works for Hansen as well.

How can you win the cost of living argument?We saw it with Peter Dutton.How can you win the cost of living argument when you haven't got any solutions to the problem?We haven't suspended all logic because of Pauline Hanson.We've had this experience with Donald Trump, I think, where we tend to say, well, look, he's untouchable.His supporters will not desert him no matter what you do.

The thing is, she hasn't the aura and the pressure.She's not the most powerful person in the world, right?Donald Trump has a cult following.I wouldn't say Pauline Hanson's, or at least the people who are saying they'll vote for her in opinion polls.They're not a cult.And I think they are people who are more likely to, in the end, balance up a few things that Trump supporters don't do.

And that's say, ask themselves, well, what will she do for me?How will she make my life better, other than appeal to certain cultural prejudices?

Yeah, I can absolutely see that scenario playing out, Barry.But I can also see their hatred of the two party system and the major parties keeps them in the one nation column, at least for the next two years.We did a poll that hasn't been published yet around people's perceptions around various professions.This is not an uncommon test.We see it regularly, but we asked it from various points of view.We said, do you trust the following occupations to do the right thing by people like you?

And obviously nurses is always one that you do because it is unsurprisingly incredibly high.And then you also throw in other professions, but we also do politicians and CEOs of big business.It won't shock you that CEOs of big businesses and politicians were strongly net negative.They're around net minus 60.So roughly, roughly around 80 % were unfavourable and about 50 % were favorable in terms of that proposition about do you trust them to do the right thing by people like you?Then we asked them, do you think the following professions are competent?

Again, nurses incredibly high.When we asked them about politicians and CEOs, CEOs was net positive around net positive 19.So more people were inclined to say, yes, they're competent than incompetent.Politicians, though, were net minus 40.In other words, they look at CEOs and think, I don't trust you, mate, which is this general distrust of all institutions, which is this anti -establishment political growth, which One Nation is.We don't trust you to do the right thing, but we actually think you're quite competent at what you do.

But then they look at politicians and they think, mate, I don't trust you, and I think you're incompetent.

What did they say about the media?

That wasn't so great.

Yeah.And I'm sure that's right.And that's what Pauline Hanson is trying to exploit.But where she really lost the plot completely was to describe one of Australia's most respected journalists as trashy.And that is straight out of Trump technique.And they do it only because they're trying to avoid answering the question.

It's deplorable.There's no place for that here.And so hopefully she'll be called out by colleagues, by other journalist colleagues as she goes about that.But more worrying is the ban on the ABC and The Guardian.And she is saying that she will not allow them to go to her news conferences.The point about the organisation you talk about, the politicians, the media, along with the judiciary, they're the central pillars of our democracy, and you go right ahead and criticise them all you like, but the fact is that they exist and they're there.

The media's there to hold the powerful to account, and they do their job, most of the time, very well.But the media likes to remind the country of the important role that they play in the process, and they do, and they should remind us of that.But when their freedom is attacked, that's when they should fight back, and they should collectively resist this kind of interference in their work.How can any journalist go to a news conference while some of their colleagues are being locked out?In the United States, we saw a great weakness in the media generally as the Trump phenomena unfolded.But here in Australia, I think they've got an obligation, whether it be the Parliamentary Press Gallery, the National Press Club, the unions have spoken out against it, the media organisations themselves.

I think they've got to make it clear to Pauline Hanson that it's one in.all in or all out.And I just hope that eventually they respond to that before the election campaign arrives, before you tackle these issues in the white hot atmosphere of an election campaign.It's like every time debates come up, they wait until the election campaign starts and then they have a debate about the debate and how it's going to be conducted in that atmosphere.Have this discussion beforehand.If you feel strongly enough about the issue, tell Pauline Hanson now, tell her that if you're locked Any section of the media out, we're all out.

Yeah, I think talking about the ABC, and I'll preface this by saying I'm the beneficiary of many ABC invites on a lot of their programs, and I have professional and personal relationships with them.ABC producers and journalists and so forth.So I'm not making a personal observation here.But in the last poll that we did for the Fin Review, we test politicians' names, individuals.One month we did the Reserve Bank of Australia, which was net positive plus one.We did the ABC last month and they're on net plus 14, which I've got to say in this day and age is actually quite high for any institution, going back to that lack of trust in all institutions.

You got that finding at a focus group?

No, no, that was in a quantitative survey of Australian voters.Net plus 14, it used to be a lot higher.So it's come back a bit, but it's still in net positive territory.However, when you looked at the voter crosstabs, It was positive with Greens voters and Labor voters, strongly net positive in the plus 30, plus 40 sort of range.But amongst those voting One Nation, which is almost a third of the population, and the Coalition, which is around 20 percent, so combined 51 percent on that particular poll, it was strongly net negative.Amongst One Nation voters, it was net minus 45.

So I would, you know, consistent with what I've said before, I think she's got quite a significant campaign apparatus, including pollsters.I would suspect American pollsters are assisting her there.And she's got this data which says that, you know, your supporters don't watch or listen to the ABC.

And therefore, you know - Therefore you locked them out of news conferences.

No, I'm not saying that's right.

I'm saying - Deny them their chance to do their democratic duty.I'm not talking about the morality of it or the ethics of it.

I'm just saying that her strategists are obviously looking at this and sort of saying, we're losing nothing by not communicating to the ABC audience because they're not watching, they're not listening.

That's certainly not true in the country, and that's where most of the supporters are.That's probably, perversely, where the ABC is more popular and people are more reliant on it.

No, it was more popular, and I can tell you in the regions, that's why.most of the collapse in its support has been.And I'm from regional Queensland, so I have very fond memories of the ABC playing a very dominant role in the media landscape up there.At the moment, their numbers are really collapsing in the regions amongst their voters, particularly in the regions, but across the board.So there's also an argument as to why the ABC are effectively isolating half their audience, but there's also an argument as to why they have chosen to not engage with that particular media organisation.

Yeah, and they can't be allowed to get away with it because it's too important.It's way too important.You know, Pauline Hanson constantly talks about, you know, she's the persecuted one.She talked about the constant pile on in her press club address.And yet, on the other hand, she says, I'm accountable.I'm only too happy to be accountable to the media, her media, the ones that she chooses.

Well, just on that, we got an email this week from Rod Wise, who said he watches and enjoys the podcast every week.However, he's getting concerned over Barry's growing antipathy towards One Nation and particularly Pauline Hanson.It's becoming a bit unhinged.It's obviously had little respect for Hanson and is clearly struggling to understand the surge in One Nation support.He seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge there's been a major shift in Australian politics.I don't think we've done a podcast, but I haven't mentioned that this is an earthquake, that we haven't had a political development like this ever.

I'm constantly talking about the fact that I do acknowledge there's been a major shift in Australian politics.I absolutely accept that.The other thing he says is at least he has abandoned his weekly update on dodgy One Nation behaviour.I'll always call that One Nation dodgy behaviour.I certainly haven't dropped that.So, look, let me just, again, just repeat that I do accept and I'm trying to do this

my head around the fact that One Nation is now the major political party on primary votes in this country.That doesn't mean that that will translate to government, and I still don't believe it will.But I do accept there's been a major shift.OK, we'll take a break, and when we come back, we'll talk about the back down on the budget measures.All right, well, the government's announced a couple of backdowns this week on the budget measures and on the NDIS, which we should mention as well.A bit of a change in how some of these people who are clearly eligible for some support are going to be calculated.

But on the budget measures, look, substantial.The changes are substantial.I think what stays in place is the basic reforms themselves.Negative gearing, certainly no changes there, but on the capital gains tax concessions, the bedrock remains.But a significant change to have the eligibility or the exemptions go from businesses with $2 million in turnover to $10 million in turnover.

No, I actually disagree with that.I think it was a faux back down.I think they didn't offer any costings around it, which shows that it's negligible in terms of its impact on voters and those impacted by these changes to the tax concessions and so forth.The real test, though, will be, you know, what it does to on the ground in terms of voter support.I don't think voters are going to buy that.Those who are impacted by it, whether they have shareholdings or their children have shares as a form of savings instead of bank accounts, that's what's going to be the most influential on the vote moving forward.

But the opposition coming from a small business, was loud, was quite visible, and they've done something about that.How can they go any further?I was just looking up some figures on this, and the fact is, when you're talking about Australian business,62 % of Australian businesses are sole traders.Their people are just operating on their own.You go from $2 million turnover to $10 million turnover.

So that takes you in a territory where businesses can employ between 40 and 50 people.They're not small businesses.That's medium -sized businesses.But that takes in 97 or 98 % of all businesses.So for the business groups now to be saying that doesn't go far enough, what they're actually saying is exempt business altogether.

Yeah.But I think, again, This is the consistency that voters are looking for in their politicians and why they're drawn to someone who's seen to speak the truth.And we can debate whether or not that's accurate or not, but that is where voters are at right now.And Albanese spent several years denying there was any intention to do this, saying there wasn't any need to do it, and then suddenly turns around and does it.And now that he's backing down, and I know I'm sounding like I'm contradicting myself, I think there's a danger now for him in being perceived to back down because they're like, well, hang on, for five years, you were telling me you didn't need to do it.Then suddenly out of nowhere on the budget night, you said, oh, no, we do need to do it.

And the reason is intergenerational inequity, which by the way, has been existing for a decade or more.And then after a month of insisting you didn't need to make any change, now you've announced you're making change, albeit not a particularly major change.And that's where voters go, you don't have any conviction, mate.

You don't believe in anything.Or even a more telling criticism that you didn't get it right.You didn't get it right the first time around.So that goes to efficiency as well.Their justification with that is, look, pre -budget, there's a limited amount of people that you can draw into the process, because I like to keep these things secret.Well, maybe you don't need to.

Maybe you do need to have the debate and get it right before you make the announcement, so that you then don't have to go through this painful process afterwards of making changes.Interesting though, it shows you that maybe the impact on small businesses...was exaggerated to an extent, because they've made all of these changes.They've gone from $2 million to $10 million, and yet the loss in revenue is not great.It's $8 million overall, but the loss in revenue is about half a million to something, maybe even less than that.It's not a great hit to the revenue, but it does at least satisfy some of the complainers.

I still think the biggest problem Albanese's got is this perception that he's a liar.I can't think of any prime minister that's got away with it.And I think he felt that with a weakened opposition, he could do it.Of course, the opposition being the coalition, the official opposition being the coalition, but they have a shadow opposition now.And that's Pauline Hanson, who's more effective.And she ran that ad during State of Origin primetime, which wouldn't have been cheap, fire the liar.

And she's produced another ad just in this week that's a two minute ad.It's obviously for social media.

It's pretty slick.Do you think it's Australian made?I'm not saying Australians can't make great ads, but it's pretty slick.

It is one of the better political ads I've seen in Australia.Two minutes.Theme music tapping into the negative mood sentiment.It looks like a very professional American campaign outfit.Creative Agency produced it.It looks like it's been researched of focus groups and quant.

It hits all the sort of targets and bullseyes.Again, but it's also just reinforcing this voter prejudice that Anthony Albanese can't be trusted.And trust is the most important commodity for any politician.At the end of the day, prime ministers, it's a character test.And that's what they hung Scomo on, that he couldn't be trusted.They smashed his integrity.

And now you can see his opponents are doing it to Albanese.Tim Wilson was a bit mischievous this week, which I know is hard to believe.from Tim Wilson, but yeah, he was doing an interview with Mark Butler and he kept on saying, well, you know, you're the next prime minister, you're the next prime minister.Now my view is a lot of the Labour hardheads, and Don Farrell is one of the most influential figures in the Labour Party, they lived through the Rudd -Gillard debacle.That basically gifted government to Tony Abbott.That's not to take anything away from Tony Abbott's campaign performance, but it was a rare you know, opportunity for, for, you know, with labour imploding.

Tim Wilson has predicted, hasn't he, that Anthony Albanese will be gone by the end of the year and Mark Barclay will be prime minister.Yeah.

I can see Albanese's numbers crashing, but I just think those labour hardheads who live through the Rudd -Gillard debacle will never, ever allow that to happen.

That's no more valuable a prediction as me saying that he won't be in the next parliament and Zoe Daniel will beat him at the election.It's worthless as a prediction.coming from Tim Wilson when he's talking about an opponent in that way.On the NDIS, and I really do think that, again, I mean, this is another back down, the algorithms are not working, right?They're not fair.They're not giving people proper judgments.

And again, they're dealing with the most vulnerable of Australians.You'd think they'd allow humans to make some of these judgments rather than rely on arithmetic, which is limited in how it judges people.I have sympathy for the government on this, because I know it was getting out of control and something had to be done.And I've just made the observation that the same media that was going on about NDIS and how it was unaffordable and inefficient, whatever, part to the media now finding the case studies to say how cruel this government is, which is a bit hypocritical.But nevertheless, they've got to get this one right.They've got to get it right.

And people with genuine disabilities shouldn't be able to come forward and say, well, why aren't I getting these benefits?And now tofall back on the algorithms and say, well, they've got to look again at that.That's a bad look as well.Yeah.Okay.

Well, that's the program for this week.The podcast is made on the sovereign lands of the Wurundjeri people.It was produced by Daniel Simo and Karishma Luthier.The executive producer is Hannah Parks.I'm Barry Cassidy.And I'm Tony Barry.

And this is Back to Back Barries, a Guardian Australia podcast.