Matt Canavan on combatting One Nation.

from the conversation. This is politics with Michelle Graten. Both coalition parties, the Liberals and the Nationals, are under threat from an insurgent One Nation. The Nationals are especially vulnerable in a string of rural seats. Much of the One Nation fight against them will be led by Barnaby Joyce, their former leader who defected late last year. Since replacing David Little Proud earlier this year as Nationals leader, Matt Canavan has been outspoken on issues and highly active in campaigning. with a strong background in economics. He once worked for Joyce and they remain on friendly terms while now also being sworn political enemies. Matt Canniban is our guest on the podcast today. Matt Canavan, is it possible that One Nation could actually wipe out the Nationals eventually given what we saw in the Farah bi-election? Well, I don't approach this role with any sense of entitlement. Uh uh I don't think the Nationals or myself or anyone else uh deserves a spot in this parliament. We have to fight and work for it every day. No doubt that fight and challenge is more difficult at the moment. Uh and uh that's understandable because people in a very difficult economic times and there's a lot of explainable volatility out there in politics. Look, I'm embracing that volatility because the most important thing I want uh is to change the government so that we can get a change of direction for the country. And so having people think about their vote and possibly changing their vote uh puts them in a state of mind where they might come and eventually vote for us. So we've just got to fight very hard. Uh as I say, no result is guaranteed. And yeah, every possibility is is is is there. And you've got to approach every election, every every game of football you play uh with the concern that you very well might lose. There's an optimal level of paranoia when you go out and play and uh I've I've definitely got that. >> You'd spend a lot of time in national seats. So what's the mood on the ground there visav One Nation in those seats of yours? >> Well, I suppose a bit hard to me to say exactly in terms of One Nation, but I I would describe the mood as one of frustration, a feeling of being let down, left behind for too long. I would say there's a there's a level of engagement that I've never seen. And so I don't think it's complete disengagement or disenchantment with politics. More and more people are coming to events than I've ever seen before. And and people are listening. Now, yes, many of those people at the moment uh are probably saying that they would vote for One Nation if an election were held today, but they are still listening to us and to me. Uh and we have great local members on the ground that are connecting all the time with people. Uh what we've got to do, I think your first job in politics is to listen. I've always tried to do that. And uh then your second one just as important is to actually act and do things. And yeah, that's why we've outlined a a very comprehensive policy platform especially at this stage of election cycle for an opposition. You know, we've got specific taxes we're going to cut going to scrap net zero and and change lots of laws to promote the development of our country, especially our energy resources. Uh and we're going to cut migration. We'll have a lot more to say specifically about that very soon. So, there's a lot that we uh are putting on the table and fighting for. And uh I don't think anyone will be able to accuse us of being a small target. >> Before we move on to detailed policy, I just want to talk about Barnaby Joyce. You used to work for him. You condemned him very strongly when he defected to One Nation. >> Do you still talk to him a good deal? What's Yeah, all the time. >> What's the relationship like? How do you manage that? >> No, really good. Really good. Uh yeah, I still are mates. uh you can be disappointed in what mates do and still be mates and and I always speak pretty frankly to people I know particularly people I trust. So you I haven't said anything in public that I haven't said to him uh directly and uh and look Bar can speak for himself but he's you know he's he's a big boy and he he doesn't uh uh you know sulk about things uh uh you know he understands I've got a different point of view uh and yeah we can still get along and talk. >> So what do you talk about if you talk frequently? I know every we talk about politics a lot of course uh uh we're both very interested in that. Um we've got both got big families and there's lots of things going on in life and those sort of things as well. But you know he's a mate and uh so you talk about things you talk to your mates about. But look you know I I don't yeah question Bar to be you know he's got into politics for the right reasons. I'm always thankful for him. He gave me a start in his office and I wouldn't be here uh with without him. Uh but I I look back at part of his career and I think he achieved a lot as leader of the nationals. Achieved a lot as a minister in various coalition governments and I I'm not so sure he's going to be able to put the same runs on the board here. Uh I also think he's pretty frustrated because he's working for a boss now, right? Uh you know, one thing I know about Barnaby Michelle, he doesn't like working for a boss and and you know the way and he did he left the Nationals. Like this is what he said, not what I'm saying. He left the Nationals because he didn't like David Littleproud, but David wasn't his boss. You know, he's the leader of the parliamentary party was. And now I've got this honor to be the leader. But we can't boss our members around. The boss of our members of parliament are the local electors uh and constituents in their seats. If they keep them on side, nothing you can do. Whereas Pauline Nansson's party off of operates very differently. Uh she's judge jury executioner. If you get off on her bad side, she kick you out tomorrow. So more generally, what strategy do you think the coalition should be adopting to one nation? We've seen the hasty approach which is very confrontational. We've seen others uh in the Liberals in particular who are much soft more softly softly. Where do you think strategically the attack should? >> Well, look, look, first and foremost, uh you you've got to keep in mind why you're here and what you're trying to achieve and and why I'm here uh is uh to help improve the lives of the Australian people, particularly those who live uh in regional Australia for us in the nationals. Uh that's that's my one number one overriding focus. So my focus is not on one nation or even the Labour party. It is on those people and then to do that to do good things for people. Uh I have to try and win elections and I have to try and point out where we are better than our political competitors. Uh which do include One Nation. And so I suppose I'm saying to your question, I'm not as a reflexive action trying to be confrontational, but where and when uh I disagree with One Nation or I don't think they're taking an approach that's good for our country or I think they would uh uh uh act in ways that would hurt the people I want to represent uh or not act in their best interests, I'll point it out. And I I've been not shy to do that. Uh uh but you know, it's not like I wake up every day thinking, okay, how can I attack one nation today? know I wake up every day uh thinking what can I do uh to deliver good results for people. We just had a big win to support veterans and got rid of a cap on their health services. You know, we've been fighting for that for a month and we've been put a lot of effort into that. Thinking about how we could get that out into you and the media and the fourth estate and put pressure on the government to get a result and we've got it. And that's why I'm in politics here. Days like today remind you why why I spend so much time away from my family because uh yeah, we've helped out people. Could you ever see the day that there's a three-way coalition? >> No, I don't. Because going back to what I said before, the very structure of One Nations Party is not really compatible with the way the Liberal and Nationals parties operate. Uh look, we are different parties, the Liberal and Nationals, and we have slightly different cultures from time to time. We obviously the nationals have this focus on on regional Australia, but at a at a governance level, we're very similar uh in terms of how our members of parliament are selected, how our leaders are selected, uh how we operate with party rooms and processes. Uh we gel together in that respect. That's not how One Nation operates. So I think you've seen an example of that in the past month or so where One Nation's ended up with four migration policies in four weeks. There doesn't seem to be a well-developed process in their coalition hasn't got one yet. >> Well, but when we get to one, when we get to one, we'll stick to it, right? And yes, that can take longer cuz we've got, you know, we do have uh 70 odd members of our party room that we all have to take the views of. It's important to have a proper shadow cabinet process where you debate things and, you know, get everybody's views, have frank and robust discussions, and then come to a point of a point of agreement and consensus and go and fight for that. uh you know that's not how One Nation works and I don't think you know in any realistic way it's going to ever be compatible because that's not the way Pauline runs her party and that's fine that's her party she can run it the way she likes but the simple facts are it's not how we run things uh and so I can't see there being a a coalition among us >> let's go to some issues and I know you're very constrained for time because this parliamentary day has turned into the day from hell the duty of hair bill. You oppose that on the grounds of free speech, but can I just break this down into its various parts. Do you oppose people being able to opt out of algorithms? And if so, why? >> Well, look, I think the details are very important here. I I I mean, in terms of opting out of algorithms, uh we need to really understand what that means in terms of services like YouTube. Yeah, without their algorithm, there's not really a platform. It's how it's always operated. So, it has to be practical for people. These services are things that people do use and uh seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of. I myself, you know, I think YouTube's got amazing content on it. So, we've just got to be a bit careful how we operate that. Uh but that's not my principal objection to the bill. Sure, we may be able to design things like that, keeping in mind there's already ways you can opt out of these things. Now, you can turn off the algorithm in YouTube, but you'll get a blank screen, right? Cuz it's that's you without it doesn't really work. No one really does that I don't think. Right. Uh and so there's always this question of well have we got you know is there a problem that governments need to get involved in and potentially make worse when uh I think all social media platforms now have give people the the ability to to change their algorithm to to make the modifications to turn it off if that's practical within the platform. And so I just worry sometimes the blunt instrument of government will come along and make things a hell of a lot worse. I mean we didn't you know we we haven't even got the under 16 social media ban working right. It's been a complete another failure and now they just move on to something else. That's the way government works. When you fail in one area, you don't fix that. You just try and distract people from going to another. But you're right. My principal objections bill is not that. It's it's the it's the potential chilling of free and open debate by giving the minister these extraordinary powers to define what harmful is. >> So should there be no controls on the internet for adults? >> Look, my preference is is minimal given that I mean ultimately the internet is a free exchange of of information. you know, our country, our societyy's been based on that. It seems strange to me sometimes the media seem very very keen on this, but you you'd be the first to react if we said, well, you know, mainstream media needs to have controls on it. And and I I would totally I don't think mainstream media is always a force for good. I think during co it was a a terrible amplifier of fear and panic. Um partly because the business models of mainstream media are under such stress. Uh not trying to be pjorative here, but you know what happens now? You know, you would go into a newsroom now and and maybe not yours, Michelle, but many news rooms you go into, they're basically monitoring second by second how many people are clicking and where they're going. And there's a tendency to go to clickbait then and that does put up things that, you know, may actually uh increase societal, you know, issues. But I don't think the government should come along and regulate that cuz that will make things worse. >> And what about pornography and material on >> I was talking about information absolutely material that is illegal in our broader sense. Uh uh sure. Absolutely. We already do have controls on that in our internet on extreme and violent uh pornography and the like and and happy to look at where the boundaries of that should be drawn. Uh but that's not, you know, that's not what this bill does. And we've got to be very careful that we don't allow uh a piece of detail legislation to be slipped through under the veneer of protecting people from, you know, violent and uh explicit content where it does give the minister to sort of potentially silence debates around gender identity which are legitimate political debates in the current modern comp context and and sometimes debate is offensive to some. >> Do you think she would do that? >> Well, I I don't trust her based on her own words. The problem here is obviously giving uh a government the power to define in such broad terms what is harmful is an extraordinary power and I would suggest requires an extraordinary level of trust to be placed in such a person. Now the minister herself just the week the very week that she introduced this bill said that the people the reason people don't trust her anymore is because of social media. I mean, I I found that I I found that an unbelievable idea because at some point at some point, Michelle, we do perhaps have to look at ourselves first. Are politicians and the political class at all responsible for the breakdown in social trust? Or are we going to completely absolve ourselves and blame big tech and all these other people? Well, I say no because I've been in this place for a long time. And I tell you what, there is the constant uh and clear repetition of lies. People, it's not just that they're lies, they're lies and they know they're lying. They do it because they want to get elected or they think that that's what they've got to do. But, you know, um when you first learn to deceive, uh uh that's when trust starts to to erode. So, maybe we should look at ourselves a little bit first. And that's what I found that minister's claim shocking. We've also had other Labour ministers say that they're concerned about social media as it's turning people to right-wing populism. They never mention about left-wing extremism, which is just as evident. You go online, there's just as many people espousing violent left-wing ideas and content, but they never seem worried about that. Again, that starts to erode your trust. Should these people be entrusted with this power uh when they only seem to be concerned about the communication done by one side of politics when their primary concern seem to be the impact on their own election prospects uh not the broader social welfare? >> I want to move on to AI. You've accused Open AI, the company, of blackmail after suggestions it could pull back investment if the government didn't water down our copyright protections. Could you just expand on your view on this? Well, I think you've described it pretty well. It sounds to me like uh what you think should be done and >> Well, that's true. I can do that. But it does sound like straighten up blackmail as you've just described. I think you've just described it accurately of what they said. Now, maybe they misspoke and didn't quite mean it, but that's for them to explain. That is what they were reported as saying. Uh and I find that completely objectionable and there's no way in hell that our country should erode property rights uh based on on the threat of investment or not investment. No, sorry. That's not how we work. Uh now, yes, there's a reasonable discussion perhaps we could sit down and have uh with uh with artificial intelligence companies about how our intellectual property framework could best suit their needs. This is not unusual when different types of technologies come along. Uh there is sometimes negotiations that occur about how you access and use uh copyright material. You know, Spotify have done it of course uh in recent times. The radio industry have these arrangements in place uh to do it when they play music. all these things. So we can sit down and be reasonable but it has to be done uh with a strong view that we will protect the property rights of Australians first. That's our job. And I would say to the artificial intelligence companies you're playing with fire here because if you start saying that oh well these types of property rights uh malable malleable well what about your own? I mean the whole industry the whole IT industry uh is built on the value of intellectual property. uh it's not the hardware, it's not the the chips uh that that make their businesses some of the most capitalized in the world. It is their is the ideas that they put into those chips. So I think they should be protected. I'm sure they think they should be protected, but it cuts both ways. >> What about the data centers? Are you comfortable with the guard rails proposed and are they popular or unpopular in the bush? Just briefly. Look uh no I'm not uh I'm not comfortable at this stage principally because it's not clear that uh we have the energy to supply these data centers. Uh that's the big problem and to do so I think we need to have nuclear energy for a start. Uh probably we also need some coal and gas as well to supplement things while that comes on. Without that I fear this is going to have an enormous impact. If it does have a big impact on energy prices it will lose support pretty quickly. Now in terms of in the bush look it's a bit early to say. These are very very new. Like any development, they are attracting concern. Uh there's concerns about power prices, concerns about uh water. I I'm not and never have been anti-development. Uh but any any developer has to has to uh get local support on board. That's my test. If you if you want to get your project going, get the locals on board. They're my shareholders. >> One thing I'd like to ask you about is your own position on economics. You you're trained in economics. You worked in the Proactivity Commission. Couldn't get a drier economic place than that. How do you see your own position at the moment? Have you changed your theoretical view on economics, your practical views? I >> I wouldn't say I've changed my theoretical views, but yes, practically, I suppose things have changed because the world's changed. >> Are you a protectionist now? >> Well, I I think we have to be realistic. What's changed is China. China entered the World Trade Organization 25 years ago, promised that it would do a bunch of things like remove protection. It has not done that and it's now got the commanding heights of almost every important industrial commodity. And so I don't think that's healthy uh for the world. Uh yes, in economic theory we can all trade and be best friends, but the one thing that economic theory falls down on, I've always had this view since my days at university uh learning this is economics doesn't do a very good job of uh of factoring in power and power relations and you know whether or not some people are acting in a in a nefarious malicious way and so clearly this is a risk to the world and it would be better if we can with our friends and allies have supply chains are less reliant on on China. So there's that aspect. I suppose the other thing has happened is just I've been a lot more exposed the issues that uh afflict regional Australia working for Barnaby and and being around and and this is basic economic theory. When we take away people's water, their energy, uh their land, we produce less stuff. And that is exactly what's happening. We're producing less stuff, our productivity is falling, incomes are falling. Uh, and it seems like, and with all respect to my former colleagues of the Productivity Commission, but many others in the economic fraternity, they seem to be suspending the laws of economics when it comes to things like net zero. Like, fair enough if you want to get to net zero. But if you are going to deny yourself the use of large parts of our energy resources, uh, if you're going to buy back water in the Marray Darling for environmental means, that is going to come at an economic cost. And, uh, we are we are too often ignoring that cost. And then there's an understandable backlash from the people that have to suffer because of it. >> I know you have to run just finally your own future. Uh you in an awkward position on the Senate ticket for next time according to the polling you could be at risk. Are you going to stay and fight for the Senate place or are you going to move to the lower house? >> Well, first of all, I don't mind being on the front lines of this fight. Uh, I'm not going to ask my troops to do anything that I won't do myself. So, I have absolutely no fear in going into a race where yes, I may not win. Um, whether I stay in the Senate or go to the lower house, I think I think I'd be in the same position either way. Uh, and there's no safe lower house seats either around right now in terms of >> if one comes up, are you going >> Yeah. Well, it depends. It depends. But I've said I will not be challenging any any any sitting nationals members or any members uh of parliament. Uh I desperately want all of my members to run again. Uh because their name ID, their incumbency, their record is our best protection. But if there if there is an uh if there is a need for someone to run, uh we got to win seats in the lower house. Uh I'll I'll I'll consider that then. As I say, and I I'll do Yeah, I I will. Look, I'm putting it all on the line. I'm not going to die wondering. I'll do whatever I have to do to change this government. And you know, whatever I do, wherever I run, you know, this could be my last election. I know that. Um, I'm not going in with any any uh roseey glasses. Rosey glasses. >> Matt Can we'll let you run off now. Thank you very much for joining the podcast on such a busy day. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roer. That's all for now. We'll see you soon. >> Production by Ben Roer. Theme music by Lee Rose. The conversation is a not for-profit media organization. Sign up to our daily newsletter for evidence-based news and analysis, including articles from Michelle Graten. Or listen to more of our shows wherever you get your podcasts.