The grievance politics of One Nation – Back to Back Barries podcast

I'm Barry Cassidy.And I'm Tony Barry.Welcome to Back to Back Barry's podcast from Guardian Australia.Well, if the Farrah by -election wasn't really happening, we'd have to invent it.Because right on cue, it's going to give us such a useful insight into precisely how this political earthquake in Australia is playing out in real time.Now, Susan Lee, the Liberal leader, loses her leadership.

She quits and suddenly exposes her own party to a new political reality.Because if the polls stand up, one nation and an independent will finish first and second, with the coalition parties well behind them.Expectations have grown, though, Tony, over the last couple of weeks that One Nation will win it.Redbridge has got some polling that shows that they're not without their problems.

Yeah, we've done a national sample, not in Farah, but obviously Farah is a perfect storm for One Nation.An electorate, Albury, has obviously very much urban characteristics.And as we've discussed before, the independent candidate last time, won a lot of those booths, or Labor.The Liberal Party did not win a single booth there.But then it's got your true rural regional part of it as well.So you'd expect One Nation to overperform relative to the national sample.

But in the last national sample we did publish this week in the Fin Review, Labor was still in 31, so down a couple of points.They were peaked at 38.They were a couple of points below where they were at the election, but that's what you'd expect as part of the cycle.The Coalition were up to 22, I can't believe I just said that, up to 22 points.One Nation were at 27, so still coming second.And if you're coming second nationally of 27, you're obviously going to be getting into the 30s in FARA.

in Nepean by -election in Victoria last weekend, a seat that's in the Flinders federal electorate, so in Mackenzie's neck of the woods.It's a seat that takes in Sorrento, Portsea, Blairgowrie, very well -heeled, beautiful homes, a lot of beach houses, but awonderful part of the world.And then they've also got Rosebud Dramana, which is also on the water and very nice area.But that's, as Zoe McKenzie proudly tells everyone, her electorate of Flinders has the highest proportion of tradies in Australia.And a lot of them are on Rosebud Dramana.

And what we saw last weekend was One Nation won all those booths around Rosebud Dramana.They were competitive in other booths.But they got into the 20s.Now, that's a seat that they really had no business doing so well in.The Liberal Party won it very, very comfortably on a two -party deferred.Labor didn't contest it.

But they took a 10 -point hit on their primary vote, which will be concerning Labor headquarters somewhat.

Yeah, just before you go on on that, I agree with you absolutely.I think Napoleon has been overlooked.in terms of the strength of One Nation.They got 24 .5 % of the primary vote in an electorate that includes, as you said, Sorrento, Portsea.There are five, $6 million holiday houses in that area.In Rosebud, they won the booth, as you said.

They won the booth in a place that has retirees, tradies, but also the kind of more affordable beach houses.There are hundreds of Rosebuds all around Australia, right?And so the fact that they can win a booth there, I think, was quite significant.

Yeah.And it shows that, yes, there's a lot of voters out there in a consequence -free by -election, which FARA is as well.It's not going to change government.You're going to see a lot of people kicking the tyres of these minor parties.And so I don't think One Nation's going to win in primaries.I think that's, in this fragmented electoral space we're dealing in, you're going to see the enormous importance of preference flows.

But with National Party and Liberal Party both preferencing One Nation over the Independent, you can easily see them getting over the line.And that's my expectation for the night.There was some other interesting details in our poll.Albanese improved his netfavourability by 8 points in one month.He went from net minus 17, which granted is not great, to net minus 9.

An 8 point improvement over one month is a lot in polling.

So what caused that to happen?

Well, in our focus groups, they see that he's taking action on fuel.They've seen pictures of him overseas, negotiating deliveries of fuel.

Sort of like the COVID factor, when you've got a leader doing...

Yeah, he's getting a reward for being seen to be doing something, which is very, very important.Not much change to Angus's numbers or Hanson's.The RBA, Reserve Bank of Australia, their most popular, net plus one.A lot of people were indifferent about them, but they had more favourables than unfavourables.So as far as institutions go, that's a good mark.You know, people are very against all institutions at the moment.

Well, with the exception of the ABC and the Electoral Commission, they always poll well.

Yeah, yeah.So I think preferred PM, there was no change at all, which was Albo on 33, Hanson on 23 and Angus coming third on 14 percent.

But then you get issues like I think Pauline Hanson saying that it was a good idea to send troops to the Iran war to support Donald Trump and America, not a good call.Whether it impacts in Farah or not, I don't know, but it's going to have an impact federally.And I think taking the plane, a million dollar plane from Gina Reinhart would not have gone over well either.And that's why I think there is We'll talk about Farron in more detail in a minute, but nationally, you have this critical mass idea where you meet a certain point and then everything is self -sustained and you get this chain reaction and you build and you build.I think it's more like what they call the subcritical mass, where you're too small.You get to a certain point and you can't grow any further.

And that's what it's all about.I hear those sort of things from One Nation, I think, right, this is when reality stops them in their tracks, because you suddenly are going to be treated like a major party.If you get to this kind of level, mid -twenties in a primary vote, you're going to be treated like a major party.They're going to ask questions around you.What are your policies?What are your solutions?

Have you ever run a budget?This kind of thing.Although, as I understand it in your polling, running a budget didn't poll that strongly.

No, we asked One Nation voters which obviously makes up 27 percent of the electorate on our last poll, we asked them, what is the biggest hesitation that you have about voting for One Nation?Now, interestingly, 47 percent said no hesitations at all, which tells me that around half of their vote is baked in.That's their flaw, which would be, you know, around 13, 14 points.

Where did that flaw come from all of a sudden?You know, it's especially a flaw that is so committed to them now.

Yeah.Interestingly, though, Pauline Hanson's support and admiration for Donald Trump was a core hesitation for 10 % of One Nation voters.She spoke to Mar -a -Lago, but 18%, which is related, was Pauline Hanson's call to support Donald Trump in Iran with Australian troops.So 28%, so almost a third of their voters, hesitate about voting for the insurgent party when you mention those two messages.Just 8 % said they were concerned about the fact that they'd never delivered a budget.And, you know, that's because in our focus groups, they're like, well, you bozos, the major parties, have stuffed budgets for years and years now.

So, you know, that's not a hesitation to them.That's actually a reason to vote for One Nation.

And taking the plane for Gina Reinhart would have happened after your focus group, I gather.

After the fairly recent development.Yeah, fairly recent.But the Coalition haven't really campaigned on those messages of support for Donald Trump.and support for entering Iran, except Andrew Hastie, who came straight out of the blocks this week for ABC Perth.And he said, Pauline Hanson is MAGA first, Australia second.Nice punchy grab there.

And it shows, again, he's willing to go where Angus seems reluctant to criticise Donald Trump, the American president.So the Coalition haven't run on those messages, so I wouldn't expect to see their vote cannibalized in Farah because of those core messages.Instead, they've been running this more lame argument about never running a budget, never having built a hospital.

Yeah, they did a little more than that towards the end.See, they started out by giving their preferences to One Nation ahead of Michelle Milford, the strongest independent candidate.And then, in the last couple of weeks, they've gone in a different direction.They've decided to attack One Nation.And it's been really interesting.I went back a second time last week and watched one hour of television news, you know, the half hour local bulletin and then the state bulletin.

And there were five political ads.Three of them were Liberal Party ads attacking One Nation and basically having a go at them on the basis that you don't know what you're going to get, like their candidates don't stick around and so on.The fourth one was a get up ad.from the other end of the political spectrum, also attacking One Nation.And the fifth one was a positive ad from Michelle Milford.So they did decide at some point that they had to take on One Nation quite aggressively in their advertising, at least.

But they're using those orthodox messages, which I don't think works as hard with that One Nation vote.Interestingly, the get up have gone there with Donald Trump.linking One Nation to Donald Trump.So that's probably going to be an effective campaign.So we'll wait and see what that delivers on the night.The other message that tested really well in a poll was the one that Sally McManus at ACTU has been doing, which is, pulling on Pauline Hanson's parliamentary record of voting against entitlements, workers' pay rise, and workers' protections.

And that caused some hesitations as well with voters, particularly that sort of left fringe vote that is One Nation curious, that's thinking about moving over, or that 13 % of Labor's vote that had moved to the One Nation column caused them to reassess and come back home.So that message works.But I don't think these other messages, and I think, you know, some of the things, obviously, the attempted manslaughter on James Patterson on the polling booth during the week, I just sort of think people just go, that's, it just washes over people.

You know, I disagree with that.I think that incident has had more attention in the electorate than most.It was front page news in the Border Mail, for example, there was a photograph of the, of what really caused it all.And that was this National Party poster that has the One Nation candidate pulling his shirt apart, and there is the Labor Party brand.So the argument was over whether or not that's fair advertising saying that David Farley is truly a Labor figure.That's what brought it on.

But initially, the reaction from One Nation was to kind of get a bit skittish about this, so close to the election, and so they sort of said, dumped a bit on their volunteer and then on reflection and they went and had a look at the video tape and I said, no, no, that's not the way it worked at all.And David Farley then jumped on Sky News and he accused James Patterson of slinking around like a mongrel dog looking for a friend.And I said, ah, finally, that's the one nation we've become so familiar with.So I don't know how that'll play out, but I think it's an issue and I think they'll all be talking about it.

Yeah.Well, we'll see when the results come through.But my sense is..

.Well, it might be positive.I'm not saying which way it'll go in terms of...But I think it's one that they are definitely talking about on the day.

Yeah.But I think the major parties need to move away from the orthodoxies because...What's driving a lot of these One Nation voters is not normal politics.It's grievance, it's frustration.You know, 21 % of their voters, it's a rejection of the two -party system, that politics is normal.And I think a bit of argy -bargy and the booze is your classic Labor liberal.

I wonder, though, whether James Patterson should have gone there or just walked away.There was analysis in The Age that said that here is a guy on $300 ,000.He's not from New South Wales.He's a Victorian from Melbourne.And when he saw something like that, the first image we see is him walking up to them with his phone, videotaping them.Wouldn't you, in his position, just resist that kind of confrontation?

Well, I think it's smart to actually get it on the record because when inevitably...Yeah, I understand why he did that.When you inevitably get a phone call from the media saying, I've been told this, and then it becomes, he said, she said.So he's got a record of it.I think he has to fly the flag and be up there.There's no doubt that having senior politicians on booze makes a difference.

Because people queue up, they have to wait, they strike up a conversation.Jess Wilson in a pee and spent a couple of weeks down there.

But it's how you behave when you're there, though.Of course you should be there.Yeah, if someone's being provocative, though.You're coming up against a, has now been portrayed, a pensioner who lives in the area and is a genuine supporter for One Nation.

I just don't think it's going to have much impact.I think when grievance is building and the hospital health care access isn't great up there, cost of living pressures, there's also housing pressures up there as well.I just don't think that bit of argy -bargy on the booze is going to really influence a lot of voters.But it does raise the question, which I think you're getting at, is over the longer term, the next year or two years before the federal election, can One Nation withstand the surge?At the moment, there hasn't been a lot of pressure put on them.How do they respond to that pressure when people start looking deeply?

Can the major parties make them look deeply?However, when 47 % say they've got no hesitations or concerns, I think some of that vote is bedrock.

Some of it is.Half of it is.But that's why I think...To put it more simply than I put it before, there's a plateau.There's a plateau, and I'm not suggesting they've reached it, because I do suspect they'll have a good federal election, in the sense that they'll win lots of seats, but probably double figures.But they're not going to get anywhere near government.

Maybe their best prospect down the track is to be part of a minority coalition government, but I can't see them ever getting to that point.And I won't ask you for a prediction, because by the time a lot of people listen into this, they will know the results.So why should we risk humiliating ourselves in that way?So we'll just move on.The budget.And look, the interesting thing about what is emerging here is the whole issue of broken promises.

Clearly, they're doing something on the capital gains tax, and it may be that they'll allow for inflation and then tax above that, which is not quite right.quite what I was expecting, but then the negative gearing as well.But undeniably, what theyit is a broken promise, and it was only a year ago that they said before the election that there'd be no movement in this area, and now they're doing it.Jim Chalmers talked about, well, he tried to compare it with the tax cuts, where the coalition had put together a tax package, had their own brackets, and the government said they would be in line with that, then they changed their minds, and they broke that promise.But the difference there was they were able to say, Yes, we broke our promise.

We're giving you more.We're giving you more than what we promised you.So I don't think that's a very useful precedent, quite frankly.

Yeah.And it must be said, after that broken promise, which was February 2024, that's when Albanese's numbers really started to tank.

It hurt him personally, yeah.

Dutton got ahead of him.Now, we can't say with any great certainty it was because of that stage three broken promise, but it is a precedent there for Labor to keep a very close eye on.And I think there's also, I think voters will give a bit of leeway to governments on broken promises, but it's like a cumulative scar tissue if you start developing a bit of a reputation for lies to the electorate.that does have a danger of voters then sort of making assumptions about.There's a lot of danger there.

It hurts the whole political dynamic, right?The reputation of the political parties.You go back to the never ever GST, the John Howard statement, there'll never ever be a GST.And then there was.But the way that he handled it between elections, and not like they're doing here, that suddenly it's in a budget and therefore it's happening.What he said is, this is what I want to do, and I'm taking this to the election.

And he sought a mandate and got it.So that's the classic way.That's the honest way to go about doing it.But I think the attitudethat Labor's taken here, in the full knowledge that it's a broken promise, it's like the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, right?The outrageous fortune being the fact that they haven't been in this position as strong as this politically for so long.

The coalition, their opponents, haven't been this weak for so long.So this is the time to strike, and they're just taking the political opportunity.

Yeah.I think the big danger, though, for Labor is not so much the broken promise, although that does come with risk, and we always talk about risk versus reward.I think the broader problem, though, is the over -promising, under -delivering.They've talked a lot about negative gearing, capital gains tax, how that will put downward pressure on house prices.I think there's been, no one has been, they've all been reluctant to actually put a number on what that might mean for housing, 10%, 20%, 30 % off, which will bring its own problems because those people have already gotten to the market, like millennials, will have their negative equity, if it were to ever be reduced by that much, which it won't.I think the bigger problem for labour is if they do bring in these changes to property taxes, and it doesn't actually deliver much difference to housing prices, then Gen Z and millennials are going to be like, well, hold on, you told me that it was going to be cheaper housing.

And that, I think, that builds that frustration that's driving voters to One Nation, Greens and so forth.

Yeah.And the impact on renters as well will be just as interesting.But again, we won't know any of this for perhaps years, Rowan.So in the meantime, to me, it's a statement about equity.And it's questioning the whole principle of why people who are in a position to invest in property should be given a leg up, should be given this kind of financial support.middle -to -wealthy welfare, in a sense.

But I mean, that's part of the equation is supply and freeing up housing that people have used for investments.And that comes with a lot of risk as well.But putting that to one side, the other side of the equation is it's all well and good to reduce house prices by, you know, most economists are saying single digits reduction in house prices with these property taxes.And that's not an argument not to do it, but it means it's going to be limited.So when your average house price is $1 ,050 ,000 in Melbourne and Brisbane, obviously a hell of a lot higher.In Sydney it's $1 ,600 ,000.

Adelaide's around $900 ,000, I think.So you're talking about tens of thousands of dollars at best.

Yeah.I'm looking at it more as an equity issue and questioning why it exists in the first place.

But the other side of the equation is, is that, you know, it used to take household, the average household income, 11 years.It currently takes the average household income 11 years to save for a 20 % deposit.It used to be a third of that.It used to be around three or four years if you go back a couple of decades.So being able, and we see this in focus groups all the time, like young couples are just like, you know, we've got about 15, 20 ,000 saved and at this rate, you know, we're never going to have a deposit.And so that's the part that governments need to tackle as well as looking at those supply side parts.

How do they give people, you know, more income, more of their income?That's why I think it's really important to do the sort of things that Hawke and Keating did is, you know, yes, introduce these new wealth or property taxes.but then meet that with income tax cuts so that these younger people can have more savings and be able to get into the market.

And the responsibility on governments around that is interesting because of the interest rate increase this week.And now we're starting to see these graphs that outline where interest rates have gone in Australia compared with comparable countries.In New Zealand, Canada, UK, United States, and many parts of Europe, in most of those places, interest rates haven't gone up in three years.And Australia is just crippled by them.So it does put extra pressure on them.This time around, sure, a lot of it, most of it, the petrol price increases due to the war.

But there's this still unconquered problem in Australia about the unsustainable levels of inflation that need to be dealt with.But I think to those who are paying mortgages, this would have been more annoying.than ever because of the reason behind it, because it was brought about by Donald Trump's decision to go to war with Iran.

Yeah.Although a lot of the preconditions, you know, inflation was getting well over the 2 .2 to 3 % band before Iran.So the preconditions were there for interest rate rises and the markets were predicting it.The RBA's minutes of their meetings were saying we are getting to the point and certainly Iran then tipped it well over.And now we're looking at an inflation figure with a five in front of it.And so that is going to have, you know, diabolical impacts.

The market is already talking about at least two more interest rate rises, possibly three.And the big thing here, especially if we go into a recessionary cycle and inflation, interest, unemployment up to 9%, which NAB said was their worst case scenario, worst case.If that happens, you know, during the GFC, banks made an undertaking not to foreclose on homes.because they knew it was a liquidity problem that had an end date.But if we hit a recession and unemployment, banks will foreclose on these homes.especially if they have negative equity.

So that's a big, big risk because that's going to cause massive unhappiness in the electorate.And I think Labor are well aware of that.And so they're trying to insulate as much as they possibly can.

Just before we take a break, I want to talk about the families that have just flown back from Syria, several of them arrested on arrival.You know, in this country, we find political divides on everything, and there's one on this.The federal government says that they were so reluctant, they didn't want this to happen, but now that it's happened, they're Australian citizens, and so they come in, whereas the opposition is saying, well, you could take their passports away.Now, they are Australian citizens.It's a big call.I don't know why people are so comfortable with this proposition that a government, a government can just take away your passport.

by all means, put me before a court and charge me with whatever it is that you think that I've done.But this idea of just, you know, taking it, I think it's a very restricted measure that governments can take against citizens for good reason.

Yeah.There's certainly a lot of scholars out there who are saying, you know, Albanese could have done more in terms of legal barriers, throw up legal barriers to delay the process.But ultimately, they're Australian citizens, so they would have come back in.The challenge for Albanese is going to be if one of these people who've come back in are later on charged with a serious crime that they've committed here, then that's going to be a world of hurt for Albanese.

But then again, if that's happened, they need to be prosecuted.And who else is going to prosecute them?They come back into this country, they're Australians, and they'll be prosecuted in Australian courts.Yep.

And ScoMo set the precedent.

Yeah.I just want to go to an email, a lot of emails actually.I won't read them all out, but from last week, record numbers in fact, because of bouncing off our discussion around the tax on gas exports.And we did have quite a response to the punters politics.got a lot of support.They said that, this is Alex Stolz, disappointed that we dismissed the groundswell of support.

And by the way, that was 57 % in support of it, only 12 % against it.But a tsunami of opinion.He said, we're focusing on performative politics rather than the policy.And thank you for making me angry enough to write in.Cameron said, you made light of an influencer, a bit more balanced if you had mentioned Ken Henry.And Ken Henry, of course, said, forget the crap and get on with it, or worse to that effect.

Tucker from Mount Lawless said this morning was the first time I'd felt a little prickled.Conrad Benjamin is a master of economics and he's completely obsessed with tracking down hidden scandals.And Sam, a schoolteacher, we're about to be schooled here, Sam's on the same theme, a big supporter of the show, however.The casual description of the lead witness, this kind of failure to engage with people of this nature, is a large factor in the rise of fringe ideas.We've got a fair whack there.

Yeah.Well, first of all, he doesn't have a master's of economics.He's a former grade 10 economics teacher, according to his own bio.So there's a world of difference between that.It's like saying I played State of Origin for Queensland.

Yeah, but you can't teach economics unless you've studied economics.

Yeah.I don't think I'd be changing macroeconomic policy based on the evidence of a former school teacher turned social media influencer.

I think the view people have is he actually does reflect more accurately public opinion.than those who say, leave these gas companies alone.

Yeah, but these are highly complex, you know, and I mean, Part of the argument against it is it isn't complex, it's really simple.Well, it is complex because even amongst those people that support a change of the taxation treatment, there's actually three different types of taxation that they inevitably fall into.Some say an export levy, some say a super profits tax, and some say a change to the resource rent tax.So even those advocates are split on which model they prefer.So it's not simple.And I think, you know, these reductive solutions that you just whack a tax on is not doing the issue justice.

And some people were sort of questioning, Albanese said $22 billion.Did anyone fact check that I would trust part of politics over Albanese?I mean, I don't think the prime minister is lying about a figure that is in the budget papers.It's in budget paper number two, if anyone wants to go and check.I don't think the Prime Minister is lying about a figure in front of the entire press gallery.

No, but I think that the fact is what is simple about this is they're not paying enough tax.And the community clearly wants them to pay more.All we're doing, despite all the kind of geopolitical economic arguments that they're putting up around this and fuel security and the rest of it, all we're doing by this is reducing the profit margin.if we were to put on a higher tax, reducing the profit margin of international companies and getting free money, in my view.All right, look, let's take a break.We'll be back in a moment.

It's just become too expensive, $45 billion overspent on it.And it was problematic to begin with, quite frankly.It was kind of a, it wasn't a good idea.In fact, you could even say it was shameless pork barreling on the part of the Nationals.So they've stopped it.It was supposed to go from Melbourne all the way to Brisbane.

It's going to stop somewhere in New South Wales.Contrast that also with the suburban rail tunnel in Victoria, where the opposition parties here are considering probably, they say, that they would stop that project, even though the tunnel borers are already operating and $6 billion has been spent on it.So at what point do you recognise this project was not sustainable in the first place, and despite the money that's been spent on it, you've just got to stop now?

Well, both ideas were busted ass.The suburban rail loop in Victoria, it was actually designed in the Premier's office.They didn't even bring in the Premier's Department because I wanted to keep it super tight.Didn't have a business case, didn't have any infrastructure Australia or even infrastructure Victoria.methodology behind it.They just announced it.

And the numbers just don't stack up.And they never will stack up.And already we're seeing massive cost blowouts.And inland rail, again, another half -arsed idea from Barnaby.But again, it goes to that perfect storm in Farah.This is just another issue that's emerged this week.

And if I was to be cynical, I would say that Albanese deliberately did it.I mean, he made the right call.From an economic responsibility point of view, he made the right call.but releasing it a few days before the election to help One Nation, quite possibly.

The difference between the two is that at least with the inland rail, there's something there.There is a useful resource.The tunnel, there's nothing to salvage.But then again, okay, you're right off the cost, $6 billion, and you don't go out to $40 or $50 or $60 billion.Dan Andrus did the same thing withthe East West Link.

He said that I think at the time there wasn't much money spent on it.It just turned out to be about a billion dollars or something in contracts that they couldn't avoid and so on.But he tore up that contract to save a whole lot more.He did the same with the Commonwealth Games.Again, they'd spent a lot of money, half a billion or something, but rather than spend many, many billions.So it's a really interesting one, but it was just this week it came up in both at the Victorian level and nationally.

Yeah, the only thing Albanese's, you know, I agree with what he's done here, but The risk, again, is I do know voters hate this kind of chopping and changing of infrastructure projects.And that was one of the reasons that Daniel Andrews got an increase at the 2018 election was their concern about scrapping projects that already started.They really just wanted them to be completed because they were aware that the East -West link had been cancelled.And so they were just sort of like, let's just finish the job.But of course, it's now a 12 -year -old government and voters are now asking, well, how much more time do you need to do these things?

In Victoria, at the Fed Square, they were going to have a live site for the World Cup and the authorities should take care of it, said no, and the Premier overruled them and said that's fine.She said, look, there's always going to be trouble.There'll be dickheads everywhere.She not only put it in a press release, she went out and set it on videotape.This is Cinderella trying to be relatable, wouldn't you say?

Of course, she's right.

Exactly.Okay.Well, that's it for this week.This podcast was made on the sovereign lands of the Wurundjeri people.It was produced by Daniel Simo.Video production, Karishma Lutria.

The executive producer is Hannah Parks.I'm Barry Cassidy.And I'm Chris Chappell.I'm Tony Barry.

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