‘Rule it out’: Barnaby Joyce doubles down on China links to outage questions

Joining me live now, One Nation MP, Treasury spokesman indeed, Barnaby Joyce.How are you?Andrew, I was better till I walked in here, mate.After what I just heard.All right.Well, let's start on these claims that Telstra outage might be linked to the Chinese government.

Do you now accept that's not the case?

I said at the time, it's quite clear when you played the interview, that it's something that should be ruled out.Now, I just heard the minister speaking then and I didn't hear it ruled out.And I think you could go back through that tape and also determine that it wasn't ruled out.So I think it was a reasonable question to ask.And at this point in time, in the most recent iteration from the federal government, it hasn't been ruled out.Now, I hope it is ruled out.

That's suggesting that it is the case.But it is incumbent upon the government, because of the correlation of time between other events in this.to say whether they can rule it out, can't rule it out, don't know, we need to know.So you're doubling down, really.I mean, he said it was irresponsible to make the statement.Well, I don't think he did that.

You asked him to rule it out and he said he'd wait for time.Isn't that exactly what he said?What do you think should happen to Telstra in light of this?Well, first thing, we have to get to the bottom of how it happened.Now, we believe that it was a timing issue in the data centres, that the one centre was not up to speed and it went back 20 years to 2006 and that had ripple ramifications throughout the network.The question is, OK, that's what you've said has happened.

Why did it happen?Why did it happen?Why did it happen then, not happen before?Why didn't it happen a month ago?Why didn't it happen a year ago?Why did it happen just then?

Andrew, those are the questions that should be answered.It's like saying, yes, the car went off the road, got that.Why did it go off the road?Should they be fined?I'll leave that to the appropriate authorities.Obviously, it's a huge disruption, incredibly dangerous in country areas.

You go off the road, Andrew, in a country area, the only thing you want is voice.If you don't have voice, people can die.And we saw that with Triple O calls.I acknowledge that people have to realise that they've tried really hard.those calls to find a different service provider, and it means you've got to wait 60 seconds.I imagine some people, when you're under pressure, don't wait 60 seconds.

Was Sarah Henderson fine to try triple 0 in your view, or shouldn't she?

No, she shouldn't have done that.It's like going into the Accident and Emergency Department and saying, I've been bitten by a snake.triage me and get me through and then say well no I wasn't actually I just wanted to see how quick you were.Should she lose her job over that then?I'll leave that to Angus Taylor but it's a foolish thing to do and I know Sarah's smarter than that I don't know why she did it.

Now I wanted to talk to you about this monoculture statement that Pauline Hanson's made.Does she just want only white Anglo -Saxons in Australia?

No, of course not.Of course not.Well, what does it mean then?Well, what it means is we have to...I don't believe in multiculturalism either, so let's be really clear about that.I believe in an Australian culture, Andrew, that you and I live between those guardrails, and whether you have Vietnamese heritage or Chinese heritage or African heritage, that is not the issue.

That if you reside in Australia, there has to be stringent guardrails, because the liberties and the freedoms of other people are determined by your interaction with them.And if you wish to live outside those guardrails, then of course you have effect to other people who are living within it.And we can go through things.I know you want to go down to the weeds on this, so let's start rather than and save you the question.So you have things that are sort of a literal interpretation, for instance, of the Qur 'an, certain surahs.If you have that literal interpretation, then quite obviously you have a statement that you believe that your life is worth more than someone else's life, the worth of your life is more, that you have certain licenses to do certain things, and of course that is intolerable, and we can't have that.

And I might say that there are literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, especially in the Old Testament, leads to the same outcome.There has to be a temperance, there has to be a tolerance, and if you go to a church,especially in Europe, you can see where this has gone right off the rails.We cannot allow that to happen.

But aren't we multicultural?I mean, there's so many different migrants here.I mean, a large proportion of the population was born overseas.Isn't it just a fact we're multicultural?

You're multi -ethnicity, you're multi -religion.There's a whole range of that.But to be in Australia, you have to come to the point of an Australian culture.And I stick to that.And maybe being a little bit trite, but as an example, Incas had a culture.They believed that you chop people's heads off, roll them down the side of the temple, pull out their beating heart and the sun rises.

Now that's a culture.It's just completely and utterly intolerable.

Yeah.Isn't this statement then about Islamic extremists, that's what you're aiming to get at?I think absolutely it encompasses that.And why wouldn't it?But isn't that what it's about, sort of trying to elude that?

Well, I don't think you can just even stop on that.There are other forms of extremism.You know, if you have an absolute Stalinist belief of the world, if you have a belief of something like Pol Pot, that's intolerable.You might have a cultural belief, but it's completely untenable to be in Australia.And we are not going to replicate what's happening in sections of Europe now.I've just come back from England, and what are happening there in sections We do not want to duplicate that.

Were you there with Pauline, were you?

No, I wasn't.We'd like to occupy there.We would go there in Syriartum and dominate the political debate.

What do you make of the statements by Awa Mabih or the Socceroo around this?He says the comment's bullshit.That's his words, not mine.People shouldn't try to divide people based on certain things because you don't pick where you're born, the colour of your skin.You pick to be a good human being.Yes, that's a choice.

Isn't that fair?Well, you pick to be a good Australian.

You pick to be a good Australian.and to work within the guardrails, be compliant within the guardrails.That's how we work, that's how we're an effective nation and it's our aim.the whole essence of conservatism is you try to conserve.We are unembarrassed about being a conservative party, which means you conserve what you have and what we have had overwhelmingly as social harmony.Unfortunately, with the Bondi issue, it was a complete clarion call that this may be going off the rails.

And if you do not make a decisive statement and decisive steps after that, then there is something sort of reprehensible about your assessment of the issue.I do not believe for one second, Andrew, they're the only two people in Australia who thought like that.

Would you like to see Islamic immigration stopped then?

No, I haven't said that.There are areas where, especially in North Queensland, when I was a senator there, it works absolutely perfectly with the Australian culture.There's not an issue, but if you have an absolutist belief, if you have a literal belief, if you're willing to follow that literal belief through, Remember those two?We have character tests for immigration.Well, it hasn't worked so well in certain areas, has it?And what we're seeing is those people...

But a lot of people get radicalised here.Well, there's an issue.How does that happen?And that's obviously outside the guardrails of the Australian culture, isn't it?And we've brought that in.Those two animals at Bondi did not think they were doing the wrong thing.

They thought they were doing the right thing.One came during the Howard era and the other's his son.Irrelevant in that that they have now gone outside the guardrails of the Australian culture and that is the process that Australia must focus on Otherwise this will happen again and again and again do a couple of terrorists mean we throw out the fact that there's people here from all different cultures and they Absolutely different foods here and they hang out together within their cultures.We don't allow give you straight answer.Absolutely It means we go into it.Absolutely 100 % will be just blindly sit by and say you just gotta accept that this every now and then there'll be a massive

Part of living in Australia.Are the Socceroos multicultural in your view?

They're multi -ethnicity.I don't know them that well to say whether they're multicultural or not.They're multi -ethnicity.They have multiple beliefs.They obviously work for a common purpose.They played for Australia.

It's a pretty good indicator that they're probably working within the Australian guardrails.

Narendra Modi also raised this issue of multiculturalism when he was here and how Australia and India supported it.He said, what do you make of Mr Modi's visit?What do you make of that spectacle of a foreign leader holding court to 35 ,000 Indian Australians here?Do you support that or is that outside the monoculture?

Very briefly, I'll give you a funny story.Years ago, I had to go around with an Indian politician for half a day and when I was finished, Someone said, you know the people who think you might become Prime Minister?I went, impossible.His name was Narendra Modi.So he's alright?I don't know.

I have little bits of concerns about rah -rah events because you've got the Sikh community who have issues there.I'm sure in certain areas you've got the Islamic community that have issues there.I think you've got to be a little bit cautious about holding hands and turning out because we see the Prime Minister doing exactly what he was doing.He was trying to endear himself to a community for a vote.If he wants to stand side by side with all of Narendra Modi's policies, come out and tell us.That would be an interesting day.

Angus Taylor gave this speech saying your policies will drive up interest rates and blow the budget and economy.What do you say to that?Did you ask him to tabulate it?Did you ask him how he came up with those numbers?Well, the Australian Financial Review tabulated it.They estimate that your cost of living policies would cost the budget 90 billion over four years.

That's income splitting tax arrangements, lifting the taxpayer threshold for retirees, eliminating excise on our goal in bars and halving the fuel excise for three years.Do you accept those figures?

Would that be that report that I'm looking at?So the whole thing there, first of all, $90 billion is a long way from a trillion, so that's incumbent upon Angus to explain that.We can go through a whole range of those if you wish.What I would say is that certain areas, for instance, let's just go to the small section, the excise.We have a massive hole in our budget on excise return on certain things, especially cigarettes, because more and more we are just pricing people into the black market.

You cut the tobacco excise.

I think that is absolutely essential to go into that process, because it's a fool's errand at the moment.We're raising the price of excise, we're reducing the amount we're getting, and Andrew, we're actually subsidising the mafia.a pretty bad outcome all around.If you want to go into other areas, for instance, we do see a duplication between state and federal governments, and this has to be more forensically analysed because to assuage someone's political beliefs and needing a purpose in Canberra, you should not be duplicating with another government.If you go to other areas, for instance, if we go to income splitting, I know there's been a range of costs there, Andrew, but I think you need sort of to go through a micro simulation model and sort of de -identified numbers within the taxation department to become more forensic that we have a budget coming forward and a lot of these numbers are going to change within that budget and within that paradigm and needing the resources like we only have four people and I'm doing a lot of work of my own.I'm back to accountancy and I'm being an economist at the moment.

I need further resources to get to the bottom of this.I think it's incredibly unfair that a party like the Liberal Party with 88 support staff and the Labor Party with like 480 are sort of saying, oh well, why don't you?Why don't you?Well, we will, and it has to be more, there's a process.I just spent the weekend in Brisbane sitting down with economists, sitting down with other accountants, poor sorry souls like myself, always have a job, always hate it.to try and sort of break these numbers down.

I don't believe, I know you can't take on second tier effects, but there's some issues, for instance, the regulatory costs around housing.All the governments say, oh, we're going to deal with a housing crisis.And you say, well, you're going to deregulate with real efficacy, because about 20 to 25 per cent of the cost of a new building is government regulation.And if you're trying to create the perfect house, the zero risk house, you're going to have massive costs.Once you decide you're going to give people the opportunity to choose, then in certain areas you're going to have cheaper housing.Will you be putting all your policies through the parliamentary budget?

We will give the best.We will do it to the best of our ability, Andrew.And I look forward to that.I'm not going to give a sort of guarantee like that, Andrew, because that means I have the resources to do it.And if I get the promise, that we're going to have the resources to do it.It certainly makes it a lot easier.

So who's that to, Anthony Albanese, you want more staff?But you haven't got the seats to demand more staff, have you?

Well then we have this sort of issue, don't we?A real trap where they say, we want you to act like a major party but we're not going to give you the resources.It's like me saying, Andrew I want you to go out there and run with the other marathon runners but you've got to do it in trousers.

If you don't get the staff, you won't put everything in the PBO.

We're going to give our very best attempts to.You've got to realise, and I think it's fair to accept, that we don't have the resources.

You're raising a lot of funds though, could you fund some of your own staff?You'll have to.Okay.You actually said in a newspaper interview this morning the Reserve Bank should go harder on government spending.Yeah.Is that a bit hard to say with all your promises, big spending promises?

No, I think that it's fair enough that there should be the critique and we just have monetary policy as the role of the Reserve Bank.And I do have some sympathies for the Reserve Bank because they're given a hammer and it's a hammer that's, there's so many issues.For instance,the resale of housing stock, Andrew, is not encompassed in how we assess what inflation is.There are other areas that fall outside that remit.I think the Reserve Bank has got to be more independent, not less, and be able to make statements about the sort of, the lack of fiscal, the loosing of fiscal policy.

policies would they?

I don't know.How would we know?Because they don't like spending.Well, I could go through and find some serious savings, for instance, and I'll give you one.I wish the fourth estate, including you, would look under the bonnet of this.What is the cost of the capacity investment scheme that our taxpayers are tied up to, to underwrite foreign companies building intermittent power precincts.

They are not renewable.Intermittent power precincts with foreign wind blades, with foreign turbines.I get that.Well, why don't we ask the question?

Because you're going to be underwriting that or nuclear or coal.

Get out of the climate change department.Get out of climate policy.Whatever needs to be left over can be absorbed by another department.But what is the cost and why aren't we told what this whole boondoggle costs?We can see certain examples of it.For instance, Snowy Hydro 2 .0.

I must admit, I was in the coalition when they did it.But that was Malcolm Turnbull's little baby.$2 billion to $42 billion.How about Orana West?$550 million to about $6 billion and on and on and on it goes.This money just rolls out and nobody asks any questions about it.

And then we have the secret agreements, which you know, including yourself, you never ask.

Okay, coal -fired power stations are closing.

Great idea to get them going again, by the way.Which costs money.

Are you coming to the conclusion that One Nation can win an election?current poll numbers or form a coalition with the Coalition?

I would never ever say that.It's hubristic and hubris comes before nemesis.I'm going to make sure we work day by day and put our best foot forward, stay humble, let the Australian people make up their mind.

Is there a chance that one day it could happen now?You might not have thought that a year ago.

Of course I would want it to happen, but I'm not going to be so hubristic as to say it will happen.What I would say to Mr Taylor and the Coalition, focus on the Labor Party.I am.I want to hold the Labor Government to account, rather than spend your whole time in some sort of paranoid, delusional state.where every interview they give is apparently about One Nation.

Has Pauline Hanson given you an indication how long she wants to keep serving as leader?As long as she's able to.I get along very well with Pauline.We've worked together.Do you see yourself as a possible successor to her?

I don't see myself as anything but doing the job I'm doing in treasury and infrastructure.I'm very much enjoying it and I can't wait for the day where I'm up against Jim or Tim, maybe you'll have it on this show, as a qualified accountant who's worked for both international companies and domestic banks.I'm looking forward to that opportunity so much.

I'd love to have all three of you here.Thanks very much Barnaby Joyce.