Command, Control and Conformity

In the spirit of A&U's motto, first to know the nature of things, we acknowledge the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea, and waterways which were never seated. We pay our respects to their elders, past and present, and extend our respect to Aboriginal and toouristrate islander peoples listening today. >> Oh, can I tell you, democracy sausages are my favorite [music] meal. They are dulu with no salu. >> Forget about what you've been told by the hate media. >> I'm optimistic. They [music] have the right idea. >> Google it, mate. You're >> such a sick fan. >> This is democracy manifest. >> Hello there and welcome to Democracy Sausage from the A&U. I'm Mark Kenny, director of the Australian Studies Institute >> and I'm Dr. Maria Tlaga from the School of Politics and International Relations. And it's a very well warm welcome this week to the Saturday papers chief political correspondent Karen Barlow. Karen, welcome to Democracy Sausage. >> Fantastic to be here. >> It's been too long since uh we we we to get you on here. Um you've been writing some really fabulous stuff um in the Saturday paper uh very very much weekly uh revelation after revelation. Uh so I thought it'd be really great to talk to you today. There's so much happening in politics at the moment. It's happening at the state level. it's happening at the national level and of course it's happening internationally as well. Uh it's it's it's bewildering and tiring in some ways. Um we've just come from uh a week where Labour had its national conference. There's of course you know tumult going on in Victoria which we can come to as well. Um but let's just start with national conference I suppose in terms of what it showed us about uh the the the current Labor party uh how it is run by the prime minister Anthony Albanesi. Um there were fights that could have happened, discussions, divisions that could have occurred which presumably the whole point of national conference is to in fact resolve these kinds of issues and arrive at agreed positions. But, you know, things like Israel Gaza, um the the push for a a gas tax, an export tax, um Orcus, of course, an ongoing matter of friction. Um most of the well, everything really was avoided in in terms of uh being discussed out in the open. Uh and the prime minister was pretty defensive about that toward the end. uh everyone was lording the kind of unity of it and unity is a great thing in a political party but Labour has also always argued [snorts] that its unity is arrived at through the necessarily sort of messy process of passionate people idealistic people with social conscience coming together and thrashing it out and national conferences in the past and I can remember them back to the 80s were often highly kind of theatrical and and and and entertaining but productive in that regard as well. You know, there were some big divisions and big issues that were played out. Didn't really see much of that at this one, did we? >> No. The poor journalists, they go there all the way over to Adelaide from the press gallery and they don't really get a story. Most of it appear to be stitched up well before anyone arrived in Adelaide. Um, but I I looked to how uh Albanesey described the event, the most purposeful and united national conference he'd ever been to in his long career. So that's quite a statement from him and really that uh that is due to him and the way he controls everything about Labor. >> Well, I mean there's those jokes, right, about how you never want to have like a really leftwing boss because they'll go all like, you know, Stalinist on you. Um what's a joke that you can hear often in um social science circles? Yeah, they're they're a riot those people in social sciences. >> Yeah, that's right. That's right. Exactly. There's an inside baseball there for you folks. But um I think what's kind of interesting about this is to reflect on some of Albanesey's more storyried performances at national conference perhaps most famously in the early '9s where you know his um very strategic and deliberate agitating and brokering is actually what delivered the gender quota to which several people on the right like you know gave very off-color remarks to about um the types of people who might have won that fight. So I think this is sort of um an interesting trajectory to to reflect on given what you've sort of um said Karen and I think the other thing that is I suppose interesting about this is to think about it in the broader political context like on one level you can kind of say well isn't it great that the government is able to resolve um all of these um conflicts in in what I assume are a set of elaborate preconference processes which keep being alluded to um in the press. >> It's all very opaque, isn't it? >> Yeah. I mean, I think that I think the opaque the opacity we you know, you can argue the toss on that one, I think. But um uh you know, I think it's funny that they like to have a go at the greens for being completely opaque. And all they're really showing us is the last bit at the at the end. And I I wonder if the the Greens would actually be okay with showing the last bit at the end if if if people would actually go, right? you know, the media would come um in the first place. So, so there's there's there's that dimension and then the other is, you know, the political landscape is so um like the the right is in such disarray that it doesn't it the cost of um Albanesei imposing this level of discipline on his colleagues is is a different equation. And I wonder if the right rallies um or if uh One Nation u is able to gather enough momentum and to really threaten the possibility of a Labor government like how how people will then react to that level of um organization and and dominance. I think you know more about this than I do Karen in terms of what's going on inside the ability PMO and how that all works. >> Yeah. Well, um, the prime minister, some of his colleagues point to, you know, his upbringing as a, uh, as a, uh, only child of a oneperson family and then his time in Sussex Street as the sole sort of, uh, left, uh, operative in a overly right uh, Labor appar apparatus there. And then you've got how it it has been brought through as leader now of the Labor Party and you know I've spoken to uh quite a few members of the caucus and in his ministry about how he's been operating and you know one of them came back with the the line that he's his prime minister's office is Pyongyang. It's it's North Korea [laughter] it's so uh fierce and command and control. Now, I know there's a bristling around command and control as a term, but essentially it is that and it really goes to how uh Albanese has set himself up as a left faction leader and he's doing it governing as a centrist and he's well supported by these individuals of the right. We're talking here of course the deputy prime minister Richard Mars, uh Don Farrell, the right power broker from Adelaide. uh and he they're all getting what they need and they're primarily working for each other and this uh is something that uh emanates and spreads across the entire very large now caucus those 94 members. >> Yeah, it's well 94 in the lower house. Yeah. Um it's uh it's it's interesting the um the dynamics of all of this because were this a were Richard Miles say and I don't mean actually Richard Miles because I don't think he's um well personally I'm not entirely convinced that he would you know be able to command the numbers or run a government but that's that's another question but but just thinking had Alan Easy for example come from the right-wing of the party would he be able to get away with some of the messaging and some of the positioning that the government has done when we think about things like Orcus or we think about um you know opposition basically shutting down the debate on on the gas tax these sorts of things. It's the it's the function of being a a leftwing no nominally left-wing leader that allows him the discipline to and the authority to control that more kind of policy and idealistically ambitious wing of the party. The phrase is [clears throat] he's factionally entrenched and I think that really describes how he has managed to to sort out his leadership for the Labour party at the moment and it also harks back to uh the amazing win. Everyone thought he was going to go south. It was going to be perhaps a hung parliament and he is a labor a modern labor hero and that is still >> in 2025 >> in 2025 that means that there is no talk of shifting him at the moment. It's all about if you're talking about the future, it's about succession planning. It's there is no move within the Labour Party to to get him out unlike what we've just seen right now in Victoria. >> Yeah. Well, I guess what I was getting at though is that if we think back to uh Howard with guns or we think even before that to Labor with enterprise bargaining in the federal labor government uh presiding over enterprise bargaining, the authority that you have uh with what is essentially naturally your own constituency to enact changes that they would otherwise be, you know, deeply and profoundly opposed to uh is is greater. And you know, it's a Nixon goes to Washington, a Nixon goes to China sort of thing, right? Um, and so here we have a nominally left-wing prime minister leading a very centrist, even right-leaning government in some respects. Um, but not seeing anything like the upwelling, Maria, of the kind of um, you know, friction that you'd expect from the left faction. This is the first majority left faction Labor government federally that we've seen. >> Yes. >> And yet, you wouldn't know it. Well, yeah. I think um I think this is really kind of interesting because I was listening to you both talk and I was thinking about, you know, Alan Ezy likes to compare himself to John Howard and lots of comparisons are made to John Howard. >> I'm not sure he likes to compare himself to John in terms of his mind command of the center and his electoral success and the strategic winess and the ability to see through the play to the long term, but not necessarily all the policies. >> Yeah, I think he I think he's sort of a bit careful about it. But I noticed the other day, for example, he talked, which was interesting to your point, right? He talked about sort of respecting Howard for putting together 11 years of government and and I think there is a respect there, but I think he's careful about I think he likes the comparison being made, but he doesn't want to make it himself for the same reasons that I was just talking about. It's all political messaging. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a fair point. That's a fair point. And I think that that is that is interesting in the sense that so I think John Howard is like John Howard like absolutely had a sort of set of ideas that we all kind of associate with him you know how it is blah blah blah the howard government it evokes mental images or in your mind and and and definite policy stances but I wonder if if Albanese has the same kind of aura like you know like when you when you say like there is no Albanese like it's actually really difficult to say Albaneseism, but there is like what what is that? What is the content of that? So, he's factionally entrenched. We all accept this. His ability to um grind out results from um this political party that has a history of behaving in a certain way, I think, is untraled and untraded. His ability to construct coalitions in a fragmented political system, like he's been able to do that twice now. He's been a bit lucky. All political leaders are lucky that keep winning elections. Howard was lucky, right? You know, it's not just all genius. >> And he took a while to to acquire the kind of status that you're talking about as well. He didn't have it in 98 when he went to his first election. >> He probably only started to get it after 2000 in between 2001 2004. >> That's right. That's right. And then, you know, and then and then this kind of cultic thinking about John How that he could pull a rabbit out of a hat and then he famously said in ' 07, I don't have a rabbit to pull out of this hat. Right. But it made me think like there's been this sort of talk about like the cult of Albo in um in in the Labour party, but what is it the cult about? Like what are the tenants of this cult? If you go to that farm, what do you believe in? Like I think we all kind of know winning, isn't it? >> Yeah. What I mean like how is that how is that a sustainable um for a for a a so-called progressive party, a party of social democracy and change, you know? Well, I just would make the point that remember 2025 was on a very uh what's the word? Deep uh electoral victory in the sense that some of the margins are still quite uh >> quite shallow. So um >> still a low primary vote. >> So it's still a low primary vote. It still happened. There was a collapse in the conservative vote. So hence the risk in 2028. So you know how big is this um for Labor going forward? A win is a win obviously, but um the reform stuff is happening finally now and but really it's only just begun and the promise is there, but you know, we're all waiting and there was nothing that was really really new uh that was outlaid at the national conference. It was all about framing and letting us know that they're going to do something. We're still waiting. Does does the avoidance of any of these fights on policy does that reflect I mean at a superficial level obviously reflects unity obviously reflects sort of obedience or conformity it reflects professionalization in politics it's very consistent with a trend of professionalization that we've seen going on for a long time about which I've certainly been quite critical because I think it does um have negative effects on our politics as well Um but I wonder does it also Karen do you think reflect some level of you know vulnerability and and and sense of defensiveness about that very slim you know it's a big numerical margin as we all know in the House of Representatives >> but a lot of seats held by relatively small margins a very pale primary vote by historical standards a bit better than 22 but 2022 but not that much um so I wonder is it is it does it also tell us something about the kind of mindset uh of Labor which is yeah we got a big majority but we could lose it quite easily. >> Uh I think uh that labor strategists are looking at 2028 with trepidation. Uh it's going to be a election coming up where it's going to be seat by seat. It's volatile. They imagine it is that but it's also looking back uh at trauma the trauma that Labour experienced with the RD Gillard RD years as well absolute trauma. >> So this is almost like an overreaction Maria perhaps to that trauma isn't it? It's it's it's almost well we've seen this before from political parties but you know you have this kind of the kind of regicide that that occurred on both sides of politics through the 2010s and then this kind of almost pathological loyalty that we saw with Dutton for example sticking with Dutton when his strategy was plainly crazy like don't go for the teal don't try and recover your urban seats just try and win it outside on the outsides you know outskirts of the cities in the regions it was never going to work um and and yet there was no disscent and we see this no disscent attitude [clears throat] here in Labor as well. So you can take the loyalty thing to the point of it being kind of pathological. >> Well yeah no I agree and I think um I'm on a John Howard role today because I want to make two more points to compare to him and one is directly related to what you've just said which is John Howard the Liberal Party went through 13 years of trauma under Hawk and Keading. uh you know it was a tough time for them. Uh but the lesson they took out of it wasn't uh don't do anything. It it was it was actually to to moderate a bit to pick battles but to still argue for national change and to still argue for the national interest which is what the GST campaign was about. You know you're doing this for the country. um if they if they really um had taken the the lessons of those 13 years to heart, they they would have never done anything because every time they tried to float a big idea, the result was calamity and disaster, right? And leadership uh change. And I suppose the other sort of interesting sort of thought that's popped into my mind about John How we and we making that point around the comparison between that's often made between Albanzy and John Howard, which I think is interesting that it's not Albanese and Hawk or Alan and Kading. >> Well, I think it is to be fair Al that's the the benchmark he measures himself by. Um and >> no one else is making that benchmark. No one else is. They're comparing him to Howard. I look there's some comparisons to Howard now and indeed I did so in 2023. Um but uh yeah I mean look I I I think he's outwardly and within the labor labour loves telling its story to itself right and I think the story that he was telling through his uh through his time in opposition and through the first term was really this is about a hawk style government competent ministers given their autonomy proper cabinet style government respect for the public service an orderly process >> debates real cabinet >> real debates on the conference floor famously being voted down on was it nuclear uh you know proliferation or disarmament and so on and so forth. Um you know like I'm I'm going to be mean there. But I suppose like a nice way of thinking about Albanzy in comparison to John Howard is both of these leaders were seen by their opponents as very slowly and methodically chipping away at and changing the country brick by brick. not necessarily into many big um sweeping moves. So that sort of changes after 04 for for Howard. >> Don't frighten the horses. >> Yeah. Don't frighten the horses. Keep building that wall. And you turn around and suddenly the neighborhood's in very different like it's different to move around it. >> Although you say after 2004 when they snagged that 39th vote in the Senate to give them >> they did a lot of building and people didn't like it and turfed them out. >> Suddenly you had work choices and all that. Well, not just suddenly you had work choices, but you had the, you know, the the the elements of work choices that made it very difficult politically for Howard then. >> I mean, I think the other legit comparison between Albo and Hawk is um well, like the left was constantly winging about Hawk betraying the labor movement. And you can that's that's the meta narrative of this government. >> Yeah. That sort of goes back to my original point. I think that, you know, as a right-wing prime minister who was popular and everything else, but he had a very kind of fractious relationship with his left, you know, with the left faction and he sort of tried to manage that in a range of ways. I remember people put Brian How in Social Security who was a, you know, one of the senior most left ministers and stuff. So, so, you know, there's there's kind of ways in which you can you can do those things. Um, but I just think Albanesey's position as nominally leftwing uh means that his own faction is basically going to sort of go along like a pelaton and problem solved. >> Well, he also knows exactly where all the problems going to be. >> Now we have this uh figure of the New South Wales right Ed Husk trying to introduce uh populist things like the gas tax as well. So >> well if I mean that's yeah I I agree although I don't know that I'd call it populist it's popular. Well, yeah, Hansen wants to do it in her in her way as well. >> Sure. But it doesn't mean it's a I mean, sorry, I'm I'm maybe being a bit sensitive there, but it's just that I think, you know, populism is generally deployed as a pjorative term. >> Sure. I just uh I can I know that uh Ed is uh believing that he's riding high on what uh the public is telling him, what his constituency is telling him, and that is popular across the board. So, I guess I I agree with you about the term, but he's it is a popular move. Um, but it's not something that Albanese is entertaining >> and and and we learn something, don't we, from the reaction, I I would say overreaction against Huskick because it goes to what we've just been talking about. So, you learn a lot about what they won't talk about. And then you also learn a fair bit from them about how they react when someone does when someone appears to be an apostate basically you know speaking outside the the agreed talking points or the doctrine. Uh so Husix had quite a high profile but quite a lot of friction coming his way. Uh people even surprised me actually Peter Malinoscus uh I thought he was >> surprisingly aggressive uh in his comments about Ed Husk suggesting that it was all about or he was hoping that it wasn't all about just grabbing attention um and the question put to Husk on I think radio national breakfast you know would you leave the party and he didn't he wasn't uh you know specific about he didn't he didn't didn't rule that out. >> Yeah. And he says uh he said that he didn't give a [ __ ] about what was happening, those words, but he clearly does. Um I know it's uh it's uh it was interesting the way that all that support fell away for him. So he was very much isolated. He does seem to be in a worse position than going into the conference. >> Yeah. And I wonder again this this psychology thing uh Maria in terms of when you've got a you used the term cult before when you've got a very tight culture of of of conformity of staying together and you get someone who gets axed from cabinet which is what happened to Husk and Mark Drafus the only Muslim minister or the first Muslim minister of cabinet in Husk the openly Jewish minister of uh attorney general in in Mark Drafus. Both of them acted from cabinet after the last election in a Richard Milesled factional move. And there's a sense in which uh in which Husk's complaints now are seen as sour grapes and almost like you know yes he's saying this but you know he wouldn't have said it if he was still there or he wouldn't have been arguing these positions if he's still there and that gives us comfort as a as a as a group. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I mean, look, I think two things can be true at once. And I'm from what I understand, I think Ed Husk has a reputation for being quite a contrarian. And I suppose I mean, Karen, I suppose it's actually really interesting to know what do what do insiders think about um Husk like is there any kind of complexity in how they see his positioning? I assume there'd be people who are kind of grateful to him for saying what he is saying even though they might not be able to say that publicly themselves because you know [clears throat] they're worried about their career, they're not brave enough, whatever. Right. >> Uh you're very right. There are people that can't speak out and uh they do see in obviously in Ed uh someone who can and has the confidence to do so as a former cabinet minister. Uh but yeah, it's it's very complicated. I think publicly you'll see people say, "Oh, Ed's just being Ed." But it is far more complicated than that. Um, he's one of the very few that can put his voice to things. But there are others that are standing out uh not so um abrasively I guess. Um uh Jerome Lal for example has uh taken positions uh not radical but uh you know very interesting positions. Uh we've got this um I guess many layers of this huge caucus. We've got people that are go back to the Rod Gillard years. We've got people are second termers. What are they doing now? They they see this topheavy government and how are they going to get their chance to stand out and then we've got this whole new cohort who are still finding their feet. So um it is very complicated. Um there is something in uh you know coming to the next election many of these people that have just been elected and they have got these threadbear um uh margins and they need to get elected. They need to reelected. They need to stand out. They need to stand for something and they can't just be seen as labor drones. Uh, so we'll start to see more personality, I think, soon. And I I don't think we'll see people go so far as being as going Ed, but um, you know, as we get close to the election, it'll be very interesting. >> Perhaps Ed rather than leaving the party should join the left. I mean, he's operating on a number of policy heads that would be quite at home with the left rank and file. And it would be interesting if the left was sort of wanting to say, "Oh, no, you can't join us. You're too, you know, because you're not in tune with the prime minister." Maybe if he was in a different state because, you know, it's the same state as Albania. >> Well, it was his own faction that axed him. I mean, Miles's maneuver there, >> you know. I I wonder if the the left will, you know, will add him to their column, if you know what I mean, given the way these things are formalized, you know. >> Yeah. But it's very hard to change factions. >> Yeah. >> Oh, it's been done though. Yeah. I mean, I can think is Steve Georgianis, for example, did it. South Australian MP went from the left to the right. >> He was about to be demolished. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Well, yeah. I mean, often there's often there's a backstory. That's true. Um, let's uh let's take a quick break and come back and just talk about, I suppose, the other elephant or the elephant that was in that room and which is in the broader political room. Uh, the One Nation threat. Back in a moment. Welcome back. We're talking to Karen Barlow and of course Dr. Maria Tlaga. Um the what we were talking about beforehand was the government and the national conference and a range of issues around that. One of the interesting things Karen about the messaging that came from that was that uh it was it was One Nation featured very heavily in a lot of the rhetoric either by name or by uh by by sort of more oblique reference. um you know the the populists, the right-wing insurgency, the right-wing parties, a variety of different ways of of covering it off, but clearly going back to something we were discussing in the first half, the the political landscape has changed so dramatically that um you made the point about 2028 being a matter of some anxiety for a lot of MPs. And one of the reasons, of course, is that we don't know one how to poll some of this stuff. it makes it harder to do two-party preferred, you know, to get that kind of 2P estimate happening because it's going to be seat by seat quite difficult to calculate. Um, uh, but also just the sort of nature of the political debate. Uh, and of course the story here we're talking about is the rise of one nation, the sort of what I've called the flatulent rise of one nation, which may be un unfair. Um, but there it is. Um and uh it's happened sort of pretty much it's almost like a 2026 phenomenon. Um so you've been looking at at looking at One Nation and looking at uh Pauline Hansen's relationship with Gina Reinhardt for example as a great uh sort of friend and and and benefactor of One Nation. Um tell us a bit about what you've been learning. So I did uh want to look at how uh far back they went. Uh it is a this is Pauline. >> This is Pauline and Gina Reinhardt. Uh obviously we know that Gina Reinhardt has a very long-term friendship with Barnaby Joyce and a few others in the coalition. That would be Keith Pit who is the current ambassador to the Holy Sea and a former Nationals cabinet minister and also the current nationals leader Matt Canavan. Uh for Paul in Hansen, obviously it was very interesting the pictures of them poolside at the five-star Sicilian uh resort hotel. >> White Lotus. >> White Lotus. [laughter] Yes. Uh and you know the questions about who paid for it, but in making inquiries um and I will get to how far back I found they did go as far as we're understanding. But uh I did find that there was um word circulating in coalition circles that Gina Reinhardt uh apparently had stayed with Keith Pit at his official taxpayer funded residence. So I hunted this down. I uh tried to find out exactly what the situation was. It got down to well when I put it to Reinhardt's people at Hancock Prospecting that uh she didn't stay this year on her trip to Italy, but in fact they imparted and I don't know if they really had to. They just went to well she uh did go to Rome last year for Keith Pit's birthday at her own expense and they said uh that she had because the chef was away uh bought the food, made the food and cleaned after up after some party at this uh residence. I was like, "Oh, okay. That's really interesting." And a lot of information, but that then implied that she had then stayed there. Now this is all very interesting because as I understand it from foreign affairs officials uh it's it's uh people that um have been in that space that um it's very unusual highly unusual for anyone outside government like a minister or staff to stay at such a residence. So um did she well then they didn't answer and they didn't answer another time after I inquired. Uh so it is just sort of left hanging there and very interesting very interesting. It is fascinating, isn't it? I mean, I don't know what you do when your chef's away, but I I tend to um put a hold on parties myself during that period. >> Uh just because I don't want to be doing the washing up myself, but obviously if Gina is available, that's may may alter my plans next time. >> Um I can [laughter] see you smiling. [clears throat] >> Just I'm just fantasizing about um having someone to do my dishes. That'd be so good. Yeah. >> Yeah. Very interesting. But uh what I found was that uh they have shared an adviser over the years uh a gentleman called John McRobert who has been advising Gina Reinhart on her plans for a tax-free zone in Northern Australia. He was also uh the architect of uh One Nation's 1998 easy tax, this 2% tax on uh to cover everything other than the other taxes um which has been blasted quite a few times including uh 2017. Uh they uh have been uh seen uh in the Sunshine Co, sorry, yeah, the Sunshine Coast area. Um Gina Reinhardt has a couple of very luxury um >> land holdings. >> Yeah, land holdings on the beach. Um and Pauline Hansen's been going there since the co years. Um but um Pauline Hansen's language is that this is a friendship that has uh really blossomed of late. Actually, it isn't something that um has been going um way back as tight as it is now. Uh, I'm told by Michael Gabsley, the former New South Wales Liberal Minister and uh, employee of Gender Reinhardt from 77 right through into the '9s that um, she she hasn't really uh, uh, been overwhelmed by uh, the Liberal Party over the years. She regards them as wet and wishy-washy. Uh, she's more like a Joby Peterson uh, fan and obviously Donald Trump as we know. This is something of convenience really. But um, populist, right? I mean, when we think about we didn't necessarily used to use that term as much, but that whole Joe for PM campaign and and and his his general approach was much more kind of populist um as we would describe it now. So, in a sense, what we've had and what we get from your reporting is that >> Gene has kind of, you know, put up with the the coalition, regarded the Liberal Party, as just say, as sort of wet and wishy-washy. Um, >> well, she's like >> seem to have seem to have closer relationships with the more populistn gnats, a number of them, and still does. But Pauline Hansen, well, she's the real deal, right? She's not even encumbered by the gnats having to sort of compromise with the libs. She's she's out and proud. >> Yeah. And uh you know in dealing with the the coalition government when it existed, she employed a lot of prominent um liberal uh people like Sophie Mirabella, uh Tina McQueen. Uh so you know she she dealt with them as she could. >> There's a couple's there's a couple of not outspoken people. >> Uh but then yeah um Pauline Hansen um presents as a winner and Gina Reinhardt. You just look at her with the pool poolside in Glasgow. She loves a winner and she will back a winner. And so resources have been going in and you know now we're at the stage of the the sexy plane, the sexy very expensive. >> Um Adam has donated the car. >> Um and there have been lots of flights. She's backing a winner. >> This is this is really interesting. Um I'm interested in both your thoughts on this actually because you know the the the great trick that Trump does right is being the kind of tribune of bluecollar America at the same time as being completely unreservedly enriching himself and be and associating using that very term you just used. you know, very only likes winners, um, you know, um, and is just disgracefully rich, right? Uh, and, uh, and and and sort of flaunting it. There was always a question whether that kind of thing, that kind of contradiction could exist in in Australia, whether you would to be a genuine representative of uh you know the outsiders of working people of people doing it tough in the regions, real Australians as they would like to say, you had to sort of essentially model those values yourself and and the lifestyle, right? But um Pauline Hansen is showing no negative results in her polling at the moment from this close relationship with the world's I think Australia's richest person. >> Australia's richest person. Uh she Hansen has uh admitted that she takes policy advice from Gina Reinhardt and the example she gave was over uh pensioners being allowed to work and have that not affect what they receive. Uh but we are yet to see whether uh Hansen One Nation uh will take on board what Gina really wants to do which is that Northern Australia tax-free zone. >> And she was big in favor a while ago, several years ago uh of of lowering the minimum wage in in certain sectors, wasn't she? I mean, she talked about how mines in Africa and other places, people were on $2 a day and that this was who the Australian sort of resources sector was competing with. Mhm. >> Um, now I'm not saying she was advocating, although the reporting at the time suggested she was advocating $2 a day or $2 an hour. Now, maybe she wasn't, but she was certainly advocating a lot less than than Australia was paying its resource sector workers. >> Yeah. I look it it raises the question of well what does she expect um to get out of these um relationships because she is you know a strategic actor and has been around politics for a very long time and I don't think we can say that she's a naive player and I I think I saw on the weekend I forgotten which newspaper but the editorial was basically sort of saying well Gina's a billionaire and she should be able to build influence if she wants and they also had a story about Alany going to that uh from the with that billionaire's son and that this was terrible which I thought was funny. um same newspaper are these two different these two different lines but they both underscore the fact that um we are talking about big money in politics um it does need to be uh scrutinized the fact that this is a a very recently blossing relationship that's great that's you know glad people [clears throat] are forming friendships beautiful but but very kind of you know um these are friendships on um on the um you know that that are adjacent um particularly and specifically ically um to politics. We have rules uh regulations and norms around these things for the very good reason that the public needs to be assured uh that people are making decisions based on what they think is actually good for the country or has some merit. Um not necessarily because it's an exchange someone of favors. someone's effectively sort of skewering influence in their favor with the you know the outsized resources that they have. >> Yeah. And it goes it goes to efficacy and I mean given that I think um I think the numbers have improved a bit but at one point only uh one in five so 20% of Australians felt that Australia was run in the interests of everyday people and not big interests. Right? So this that's a devastating sentiment to have about your polity, >> an egalitarian democracy as it tells itself it is. >> Precisely. Um and and it goes to it goes to a lot of the reasons why um voters who are disaffected um are looking at at Pauline Hansen. But of course, look, it is more kind of complicated because the relationship between um worrying about big money and politics doesn't necessarily translate into you moving to to One Nation. But she does have this sort of um like aura where people aren't marking her on the same scorecard as they're marking Angus Taylor or Barnaby or uh you know, Alan Ezy. And I wonder um how long that political gravity can last. I mean, for some politicians, it lasts their entire careers. Tony Abbott was like that for a very long time. For example, >> that's right. But it does turn out, Karen, that there's something I think we can now describe as kind of populist exceptionalism, which is to say that what we imagine would be the the the constraints on orthodox institutional politicians tend not to apply to these new populists that we see around. I mean Nigel Farage is perhaps getting a a lesson in Interesting. >> Yeah. In uh and and but he may still yet prevail. I mean he may come through this bi-election that he's caused himself which as I've said on this podcast before you just would not be able to do what he has done in Australia. You would not be able to do that if you caused your own bi-election for the purposes of some sort of political stunt. I think that would pretty much rule you out. I can't imagine a circumstance where it wouldn't. Um but nonetheless leaving him his his frictions aside at the moment um that up until now for him and for Trump and for Bolsinaro and a whole range of others that we've seen around the world is sort of riding this populist wave they the contradictions of them being filthy rich and communing with the the the filthy rich have not affected their ability to speak as if they are you know connected in some organic way to ordinary folk who have almost nothing. >> Pauline Hansen hates questions about money and I guess our job as journalists is to follow the money and it is where it's interesting. Uh you but she's also got this conundrum like she um the the taxpayer what the taxpayer is paying for versus the private money. None of it um sits really well. None of it. >> She thought it was great saying this trip has not cost the taxpayer a dime. I mean to me it raised instantly hang on who's funding it? It's even sound that sounds even worse. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. Uh and uh she is uh riding high in regional areas and it is very expensive to get around uh to so you do need a plane. Susan Lee had her own plane. Uh but not many other people have that luxury. So you know the money has to come from somewhere and then it goes to influence. But uh she barks at any question about about money. It would not be raised. it is raised by journalists and the scrutiny is now uh starting to really uh churn through what she's doing and we are all waiting to see um when she hits the um the register of senator's interests shortly on the Italy trip. >> Indeed. Luckily, we don't need to worry about litigation on her part because she's a fundamentalist when it comes to free speech. We learned this just yesterday when she railed against the federal court full bench which upheld a uh a racial discrimination decision by the federal court previously in relation to Marine Farooqi where she'd uttered some outrageous words. Um piss off back to Pakistan I think were the words that she said via the social media platform ex Twitter. Um and um she's uh you know instantly put out a statement saying that that uh you can't say anything in this country just because some people are offended. So I you know I think that >> you can't say anything in one nation either. She has to have total total control. You know remember those rules for for her party members and branch members. >> Yes. It's not a beacon of internal democracy. But I think she's at least now established publicly that uh you know it's okay to talk. we can say what we think because if we think it that should be defense enough anyway it's going to be interesting to see whether she takes this to the high court. What do you think her she has sort of you know suggested that she might appeal to the high court. Um what do you think of the dynamics of that? I mean at one level you've got the money that's been flowing into one nation and uh I'd [clears throat] be surprised if people paying for that money would like it to be going into the hands of lawyers to fund a a case. On the other hand, she might decide that an ongoing application to the high high court through this period uh and you know it becomes a vehicle for her prosecuting this whole you know rights of the ordinary people to be able to speak plainly rather than be controlled by elites or whatever it is that she's going to argue. >> I think uh I think entirely that uh it is a vehicle for fundraising. Uh I think that I think that's that's the way she's acted. Do you think she'll even try and people will be quite happy to support her because she's a victim in this circumstance even though she started in the first place by having a go at um Marine Farooqi. I think entirely she can twist this if she would like to towards crowdfunding. >> Absolutely. There's like there's a type of um logic um in that disjuncture like where she's got this tribune of the people status but then there's all the money you know and it's and the thing that knots it together is her personal martyrdom for you know the right to say the thing you are thinking that redistribution of cultural goods and that's why she hates the money question cuz it takes her into material politics takes her to you you know what she really believes about industrial relations which is that employers should have the upper hand. She's she's always been really explicit about >> also perhaps one of the rudiments of her friendship with Gina because because she obviously >> they both like to see wages go down and and I don't know about um Miss Reinhardt but Pauline has said she'd liked it to be easier to sack you. >> Yeah. Just final uh final thing. Um let's go back to uh Justinta Allen. Um she's now just before we've recorded this podcast announced that she's gone. She's relinquished the position as premier. We have this ext this sort of ties what we've been talking about together here. We have this extraordinary situation where One Nation is polling at I think about 25% in the state. That's without any MPs, without any candidates, without any leader, without any policies to speak of other than those that are sort of maybe known about at a at a general uh national level. Um, and we have the lexicon of politics being sort of u drawn into into her um on onto Pauline Hansen's turf. uh Labour obviously really deeply worried about what One Nation's going to do. Um and some in Labor thinking it wouldn't be so bad for them if One Nation were to be successful in this election either as the majority or the minority party in a coalition government because it would one allow Victorian voters to purge their anger about you know things in Victoria uh and and thus allow them to then look at the federal government you know a year or two later in um in in with a with a sort of a cleaner gaze. Um uh but also because one nation in government is almost certain to become I think the technical term is [ __ ] show um you know no experience no structures people who would be by definition first term MPs I mean this is the other thing you people miss about the federal scene as well when they talk about Pauline Hansen becoming prime minister you know a person who's never been a minister never sat in a cabinet never balanced a budget never done anything being prime minister leading a team of all rookie MPs virtually except for a few senators that exist at the moment. >> Don't worry, the public service will be there. >> The public service that [laughter] >> left public service that you hate because you know they're elitists or whatever. >> Yeah, just an extraordinary circumstance set of dynamics Karen playing out in Victoria now. >> It's it was put to me by a liberal that um this is the first real test for One Nation because the previous goes um uh South Australia and Farah >> consequence free. >> Yeah. >> So cuz cuz you knew that Malinowskis was going to get back in. So you can park your vote whenever. It's a bi-election in Farah. It's not going to change the government. But this >> but they did win it nonetheless. >> Yes. So there's that. But that but Victoria there are consequences. >> Yeah. Big consequences. >> Big consequences. And how will people get and it's it's so close. It's just what 4 months away. So, you know, whatever Labor is doing federally to wear One Nation down ahead of 2028, well, it's not going to work for Victoria and it's a separate sphere, separate thing going on with Justinta. Um, you know, people have this is going to take time to for uh you know, the major parties to try and win back voters federally, but then we have this situation in Victoria. Yeah. It's just going to be uh fascinating to look uh look at as it as it happens over the next couple months. They got to find their line and length here really in terms of one nation as well in terms of what arguments work, what arguments don't, what how to calibrate your message so that you're not talking down to people flirting with the idea of one nation. Uh that you're not in in some way sort of you know patronizing them uh but at the same time being robust and attacking the you know the the the political arguments and weaknesses that you that you see. It's um it it it it's potentially going to be quite difficult, I think, for for labor to do. >> I think it's going to be interesting as well because in a state jurisdiction, it's all about service delivery and Pauline Hansen's narratives aren't about that at all. >> No, they're No, they're not. They're about grievance, really. >> Yeah, that's right. And I and I I think that will be that will be a really interesting three-way pull between, you know, a very damaged um and unpopular Labor government, the Liberal Party, who is not necessarily constructs their arguments around social service and delivery. Um >> but they'll be constructing a very strong argument about balancing the budget and so forth, >> royal commissions, corruption, and all of that. Yeah. and then One Nation. um you know um so it will actually it will be really interesting if the One Nation campaign actually pivots into like questions of government and service delivery as opposed to this sort of cultural grievance um politics which >> when voters particularly for state government which voters do understand broadly are the the ones that do that job like how they will actually look at that perhaps perhaps um uh you know the liberal party will be the net beneficiary um of that and it will be interesting to see how Pauline chooses to campaign like if she actually changes anything about how she operates. >> Yeah. And how she resonates with Victorians because it doesn't really seem like an obvious fit. I mean for Labour it's a big it's a big thing too because I mean this is a very second most populous state. Um it it therefore you know like federally Labor needs not to be going bad in Victoria. I think currently they hold Labour holds I think it's 26 of the 38 seats uh that are federal seats that are in Victoria. So it's a pretty solid whack of of um of labor support there and it is a jurisdiction that is often talked about as being you know the the sort of Massachusetts of Australia or you know more progressive than the rest of the country and so forth. So yeah really just so fascinating. I suppose the other thing that will be interesting is that you know One Nation is targeting um and has been has put um just into Allen's seat like the Bendigo area on their on their target. >> And what does she do as well? I mean she she presumably she's going to pull the pin. >> Well, I I I mean I don't know. I mean and and perhaps as an potent that potentially might be of benefit to Labor. I don't I don't understand the dynamics um on the ground. Um but yet you might see a very strong urban uh regional split in that um state and what will happen to the national party like will they survive the process? Yeah. >> Yeah. Karen you mentioned the uh South Australian example. I mean it was in northern out in northern suburbs of Adelaide that the one nation vote. So among habitual lifelong labor supporters you know bluecollar workers and the like who uh were switching to one nation. Now, it didn't happen in enough numbers to deliver a uh very many electoral gains, but this is obviously a a developing story and their numbers, One Nation's numbers have in have increased since. So, you know, there's there's we we may see something quite dramatic happen in this state election. >> Yeah. And uh you mentioned Bendigo, of course, uh federally that's seen as a prime one nation target federally. uh uh and uh >> Belleratu nearby. Uh yeah, you've it's the regions is I think uh federally particularly vulnerable for labor especially with the Liberal vote tanking. They could rise one nation could just rise above the pack and take over in that regard. But you know again we're well out from 2028 but they Labour sees a particular risk in the regions. >> Yeah. which they've held since Bra won them. You know, it's an important part of their voter coalition. So, losing them would would be significant cuz there's no guarantee that they'd actually easily win them back cuz it's not a natural constituency for them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Fascinating time to be watching politics. Uh Karen, thanks so much for uh joining us on Democracy Sausage. >> Fantastic to be here. >> Uh and um Maria, I guess that's us for this week. Did you there were no notices we need to give or anything that >> not that I recall. >> We got a couple of interesting things coming up, but I'll just ask uh listeners to um to wait on for them cuz I think we've got uh we're doing some interesting things in the next few weeks. >> Oh, I'm I'm excited to find out, too. What are we doing? [laughter] >> I'll I'll tell you later. That's us for now. Bye. >> [music]