Latest / The Morning Edition / Regrets? There are none. David Littleproud on Coalition split and what Nats do next

Transcript

Regrets? There are none. David Littleproud on Coalition split and what Nats do next · The Morning Edition

0:00
S1: I'm Paul Circle and you're listening to Inside Politics from
0:03
S1: the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. In a special
0:05
S1: bonus episode today, we're joined by the nationals leader, David Littleproud.
0:09
S1: He's a man under pressure. Many commentators, Liberal MPs and
0:13
S1: even some of his own national colleagues blame January's coalition
0:16
S1: split on the 49 year old from Chinchilla in regional Queensland.
0:20
S1: Last year, Barnaby Joyce, a former nationals deputy prime minister,
0:24
S1: quit after Littleproud sent him to the backbench and he's
0:27
S1: now leading a populist revolt against the nationals with One Nation,
0:31
S1: with the dust settled on the coalition rupture. We talked
0:33
S1: a little proud about how the coalition has found itself
0:35
S1: here and what comes next under new leader Angus Taylor. David,
0:41
S1: thanks for joining us.
0:42
S2: Yeah, thanks for having me. I want to ask.
0:44
S1: About the National Party's identity in the modern era. It
0:46
S1: strikes me that there's two different versions of how the
0:49
S1: National Party, in through some of your language and some
0:51
S1: of your colleagues language is talked about. You said just
0:55
S1: before the last election to Troy Bramston and the Australian
0:57
S1: that we represent more nurses, more policemen, more teachers than
1:01
S1: we do farmers. Our seats are now urbanized and we're
1:04
S1: not the traditional elastic sided boot cockies coming to Canberra
1:07
S1: just to support farmers. But if you listen to Bridget
1:09
S1: McKenzie and others, they talk about your party being the
1:12
S1: only truly conservative party, the Burkean conservatives. There's one nation
1:16
S1: on the right. They're the Populist Party. Now, where does
1:18
S1: the National Party sit in the political spectrum in the
1:21
S1: modern era?
1:22
S2: Well, we've evolved, and we were the Country Party. We
1:25
S2: did basically come into existence to represent farmers and rural
1:30
S2: and remote areas that were dominated by primary industries. But
1:33
S2: our economies in regional Australia have evolved, and we've urbanized.
1:38
S2: Many of the communities that we represent are the majority
1:42
S2: of people live in urban towns. They're not farmers anymore.
1:44
S2: We haven't walked away from our roots that agriculture is
1:49
S2: the core of what has created the essence of the
1:51
S2: National Party. But we've evolved as Australia's evolved and we've
1:54
S2: evolved with it. And, you know, when you look at
1:57
S2: our electorates. You look at we're representing some large regional cities.
2:03
S2: I don't I've got smaller towns. The biggest town in
2:06
S2: my electorate is 15,000 people in Warwick, but I represent
2:10
S2: probably in the Southern Downs. More nurses, more doctors, more policemen,
2:14
S2: teachers than farmers. Because of how agriculture has evolved, agriculture
2:18
S2: has has relied on economies of scale like everything else,
2:22
S2: it's had to grow. And so there's fewer smaller family farms.
2:26
S2: And what they do is they they grow in aggregation.
2:28
S2: They get bigger. So there's fewer farmers, but bigger aggregations,
2:31
S2: bigger land that they're managing. So there's not as many
2:34
S2: farmers out there. And that's technology. And that's where our
2:38
S2: societies have evolved. But we haven't lost the essence of
2:41
S2: who we are, what we've come from. But we've evolved
2:43
S2: with what are those aspirations of those people that do
2:47
S2: have and live in urban areas, in making sure that
2:50
S2: they get their fair share, that we stick to the
2:53
S2: values and principles of a conservative party, but we make
2:56
S2: sure when we come here, we use our leverage within
2:59
S2: a coalition to to fight and to get the policy
3:02
S2: changes and to get the funding mechanisms that give us
3:06
S2: the amenity of life that people in capital cities just
3:09
S2: take for granted. That's what it is to be an
3:10
S2: at in a modern day era.
3:12
S1: How do you satisfy the a non-ideological nurse in your
3:16
S1: seat at the same time as expressing the kinds of
3:19
S1: sentiments and energy that the kind of Christian right, which
3:22
S1: is an influential part of the National Party movement want
3:27
S1: want to see you express in.
3:28
S2: Well, I don't think they're exclusive. I mean, I think
3:30
S2: you've got to say that the people that live in
3:33
S2: cities and regional areas, they're not we're not different. We
3:37
S2: just face different challenges and and therefore have different aspirations
3:41
S2: about how we get to achieve what we're trying to to,
3:44
S2: to get to for our families. And a nurse in
3:46
S2: Warwick or in Roma or in Longreach has the same
3:50
S2: aspirations in many respects as that in Sydney or Melbourne
3:52
S2: or Brisbane, but has more challenges because of the tyranny
3:56
S2: of distance and and the scale of support that they get.
3:59
S2: And that's our job, is to fight for our fair share,
4:02
S2: to make sure that that nurse and her family can
4:06
S2: can have the amenity of life that you take for granted,
4:09
S2: but they can continue to be there and contribute to
4:13
S2: to these regional communities that contribute so much, not just
4:16
S2: in agriculture, but in resources and everything else we put
4:18
S2: in the economy. And it's so important to our national
4:20
S2: identity that they get their fair share and that they
4:24
S2: can they can have the comfort of knowing that as
4:27
S2: a as a family and as a parent, that you're
4:29
S2: going to provide that opportunity to your children. That's what I,
4:31
S2: as a father, look for. That's what got me into politics.
4:34
S2: What I got into politics was because I was Jackson.
4:38
S2: Generations of young people go over the Great Dividing Range
4:41
S2: to the capital cities because there wasn't the opportunity, there
4:43
S2: wasn't the future that they saw in regional Australia. It
4:46
S2: is time to bring them home and keep them home.
4:48
S2: And that's what the National's fight for that opportunity that
4:51
S2: people in cities take for granted, that we can have
4:53
S2: to unlock our potential, unlock our potential not just for
4:56
S2: our community, but for our country.
4:58
S1: Well, that conservative zeal in your party, and arguably the
5:01
S1: pressure from One Nation, was what led you to split
5:04
S1: the coalition last month on the grounds that Labor's post
5:08
S1: Bondi hate groups laws could have impinged on free speech.
5:11
S1: Dennis Shanahan, a doyen of the gallery, called it, quote,
5:14
S1: one of the all time greatest acts of political bastardry
5:17
S1: by you. Self-inflicted damage and stupidity. In pulling out of
5:20
S1: the coalition, my colleague James Massola questioned whether you were
5:23
S1: the worst nationals leader of all time as a result
5:25
S1: of that decision. Do you have you haven't expressed any
5:27
S1: regret as far as I'm concerned. Do you have any regrets?
5:29
S2: There was no there was a malicious act. It wasn't
5:31
S2: a malicious act at all. But you would understand the
5:35
S2: coalition is two parties. It's not one party. And with
5:38
S2: all due respect, the good people of Longreach and Roma
5:42
S2: don't read James Massola. They don't read Dennis Shanahan wouldn't
5:45
S2: have a rat's idea who they are.
5:47
S1: Don't you think they're wrong? Do you actually think those
5:49
S1: guys were without merit in making those claims.
5:51
S2: Well, because that's a view from here. There is this
5:54
S2: cultural mindset in this place, in the gallery that the
5:58
S2: National Party should just be subservient and that we should
6:00
S2: just get a few trinkets. And, you know.
6:02
S1: You've got a lot of trinkets over the last few years.
6:04
S2: Well, that's because I've stood for something. I'm the one
6:06
S2: National Party leader that has actually stood up and said,
6:11
S2: in terms of nuclear energy divestiture, the voice net zero.
6:16
S2: And in terms of the hate speech, I'm not one
6:19
S2: that goes down the rabbit holes of of of conspiracy theories,
6:23
S2: but I have personally also had a real issue with that.
6:26
S2: If we had had a prescriptive bill, a prescriptive bill
6:29
S2: that just named Who's About to hear and the neo-Nazis.
6:32
S2: I was all in. But this went further in the
6:35
S2: objects of the bill to to go into psychological harm
6:38
S2: it could cause or social, economic. And the fact that
6:41
S2: the National Party was not afforded was not afforded the
6:44
S2: opportunity to debate that in the forums of the coalition.
6:47
S2: It wasn't the it was the coalition wasn't broken by
6:49
S2: the National Party or me individually. I don't make those
6:52
S2: decisions individually. The party room makes those decisions as a collective.
6:55
S2: But when we weren't afforded that opportunity, we don't come
6:58
S2: down here just to roll over as what the gallery
7:00
S2: thinks we should do, and we should just be subservient
7:02
S2: and be good, good boys and girls in the coalition
7:05
S2: party room. We stand for something. And I think the
7:07
S2: political discourse that you're seeing at the moment is that
7:10
S2: the Australian people want you to stand for something. So
7:12
S2: when I walk back into the streets of Warwick or
7:14
S2: Kingaroy or in Goondiwindi, you know what they said to me?
7:17
S2: They weren't reading James Mitchell, they weren't reading Dennis Shanahan.
7:20
S2: They said, good on you because you've actually shown you
7:23
S2: stand for something and we want to send you down
7:25
S2: there to do what we expect you to do. And
7:27
S2: in that moment, in your moment, you have the courage
7:30
S2: to stand up for what you believe in. And as
7:34
S2: traumatic as what it was, it didn't have to get
7:36
S2: to that. But unfortunately, Susan took it to that extent
7:39
S2: when she sacked us. The reality was she knew very
7:43
S2: well that if she sacked us, we were gone. Made
7:45
S2: that explicitly clear verbally and in writing.
7:48
S1: Your shadow ministers all offered their resignation. One of them,
7:52
S1: in her resignation letter, Bridget McKenzie or Senate Leader, said
7:56
S1: that they acknowledged they had breached shadow cabinet solidarity. You
8:00
S1: subsequently said that there were there were flaws in the process.
8:03
S1: There was no joint party room and there were amendments
8:05
S1: to the bill, which meant the shadow cabinet decision on
8:07
S1: the Sunday night was not was not valid. Why did
8:11
S1: she tender her resignation? Was that just all post post
8:14
S1: hoc rationalization by you? Because the situation you put the party.
8:17
S2: In, it was out of respect. It was out of
8:19
S2: respect to Susan that we'd argued from the start, from
8:22
S2: the Sunday, there was no bill put in front of
8:24
S2: us on the Sunday night in shadow Cabinet. The bill
8:26
S2: came to us at 6:13 a.m. on the Tuesday.
8:29
S1: Principles, which were express in the bill.
8:31
S2: But hold on. What party and what party would sign
8:34
S2: up to a bill they haven't seen from a from
8:36
S2: a labor prime minister, either a Liberal or National Party leader?
8:40
S2: With all due respect, let's take away the hyperbole of
8:43
S2: this place and look at this rationally and through the
8:46
S2: specter of what the processes that have been agreed for
8:49
S2: over 100 years in the coalition, and the bill was
8:52
S2: not presented to us till 6:13 a.m. on the Tuesday morning.
8:55
S2: We were expected to vote on it by lunchtime that day,
8:59
S2: when amendments to that bill were being handed to us.
9:03
S2: As it was being introduced into the House, there was
9:04
S2: no shadow cabinet to have a look over that bill.
9:07
S2: There was no leadership meeting over that bill, and there
9:10
S2: was no joint party room over that bill. So with
9:13
S2: with respect, there was no forum that we were afforded
9:15
S2: the opportunity to to vote against. Now, Susan disagreed. She
9:19
S2: believed passionately that that there was a breach of shadow
9:22
S2: cabinet solidarity. If we did, if we didn't vote for
9:25
S2: this bill made it very clear we didn't. And out
9:27
S2: of respect to her. And when we got to our position,
9:30
S2: she asked us not to vote in the House of
9:33
S2: Representatives because we hadn't undertaken our amendments. And that out
9:38
S2: of respect to her, we said we haven't changed our position,
9:40
S2: we haven't breached any cabinet solidarity. We'll put our amendments
9:43
S2: in the Senate. When they come back, we will be
9:45
S2: voting against it as well in the house. Uh, she
9:48
S2: had that strong belief, but I made it very clear
9:50
S2: when the three I sent three letters of those those
9:53
S2: those shadow ministers out of respect to her and the coalition.
9:56
S2: The fourth letter that accompanied that was from me and
9:59
S2: the party room that the party room instructed me to send,
10:02
S2: to make it explicitly clear that if she accepted those resignations,
10:06
S2: she is sacking us, and she would be sacking us
10:08
S2: all because we were all made that position of where
10:10
S2: the National Party position and we weren't afforded, we weren't
10:13
S2: afforded due process.
10:14
S1: There's no doubt the Prime Minister's timelines and all this
10:17
S1: forced a lot of this, and there's a question about
10:19
S1: his intent and all that, and that's for him to answer.
10:21
S1: But why didn't you abstain in the Senate to avoid
10:24
S1: breaching shadow cabinet solidarity? Is that not a sign that
10:26
S1: you actually wanted to precipitate this crisis?
10:29
S2: Well, you've made the you've made the presumption that we
10:31
S2: breached shadow cabinet solidarity.
10:33
S1: Your ministers acknowledged.
10:34
S2: That. No, they did that out of respect to Susan
10:36
S2: and the promise.
10:37
S1: That they made that.
10:37
S2: Up. No, out of respect to her and the position
10:40
S2: she had, we didn't agree with that position. Um, and
10:43
S2: so this is we've acted with utmost integrity all the
10:47
S2: way through this. And I know there's been a lot
10:49
S2: of backgrounding by a lot of the liberals about what happened.
10:52
S1: You're seeing your nationals colleagues do.
10:54
S2: Well and saying exactly how it is. The reality is
10:57
S2: this we didn't agree with the premise that we had
11:00
S2: breached any cabinet solidarity because that bill didn't go to
11:04
S2: shadow cabinet. There is no party leader on the conservative
11:07
S2: side that would ever agree to a bill from a
11:09
S2: labor prime minister without seeing it. I mean, that's absurd
11:13
S2: to think that anyone would go down that path. So
11:15
S2: we acted with integrity all the way through, and we
11:17
S2: made it very clear that there was no malice in this.
11:20
S2: But when you're talking about something as serious as freedom
11:24
S2: of speech, when there was an opportunity, I think there
11:26
S2: was a clear opportunity. And we expressed that. Why haven't
11:28
S2: we just been prescriptive and we did it.
11:31
S1: With who were you just on? Sorry to interrupt, Natalie
11:33
S1: into your concerns about that, Bill. What could the unintended
11:38
S1: consequences been here? Which groups were you worried that these
11:41
S1: hate groups laws which could effectively just shut down a
11:44
S1: group and prosecute people for being part of them. Which
11:46
S1: groups were you worried that it could capture?
11:48
S2: Well, it's not just the groups now, it's in the future.
11:51
S2: This is the difficulty in that you, if you have
11:54
S2: far reaching laws and society continues to move, that it
11:58
S2: can have an unintended.
11:59
S1: A hypothetical concern.
12:00
S2: Definitely. And we've seen that society shifts and it's shifted.
12:03
S2: It's shifted over the last decade and a decade before that.
12:06
S2: What you've got to do is make sure and I
12:08
S2: think there's a precedent that this Parliament demonstrated less than
12:11
S2: 12 months ago when the Nazi symbols, we all were
12:14
S2: very prescriptive about that. We went in and said, yes,
12:17
S2: they shouldn't be used in terms of the of the
12:21
S2: original intent that they were created in the 1930s. And
12:24
S2: 40s shouldn't be used on the streets. That was a
12:27
S2: no brainer. In fact, the states do this all the time.
12:30
S2: States did this with bikie gangs, the bikie colours. Why
12:33
S2: wouldn't we be prescriptive around that so that we as
12:36
S2: legislators and this is the thing is, despite what the
12:40
S2: gallery thinks, it's not all about politics. It's about doing
12:43
S2: the right thing, coming down here with the values and
12:45
S2: principles and standing up and saying, you know what? This
12:47
S2: is an overreach, and I have real concerns, and I'm
12:49
S2: not one that wears the tinfoil hat, but I could
12:52
S2: see that this was an overreach, that we didn't.
12:54
S1: You didn't say that in the shadow cabinet meeting, though.
12:56
S2: Well, with due respect, how would you know what I
12:58
S2: said in the joint party room?
12:59
S1: Because I spoke to all my colleagues about it.
13:00
S2: Yeah, well, with all due respect, I know what I said,
13:03
S2: and I know what my colleagues, if you read Darren
13:05
S2: Chester's letter of resignation, you see very much what was said.
13:08
S2: And I know what I stand for. I'm not going
13:10
S2: to run around and say what was said. And I
13:12
S2: think that's a more a reflection on the people that
13:13
S2: come and tell you people what they say, because they
13:17
S2: come with a motive and an intent to try and
13:20
S2: cover a position.
13:21
S1: Do you never background journalists?
13:23
S2: No, not on shadow cabinet? Definitely not. Why would I
13:25
S2: go and say what I said in shadow cabinet or
13:28
S2: the party room? I respect the processes and that's why
13:32
S2: we acted with integrity when that process wasn't reciprocated to
13:35
S2: us and was made very clear in that letter that
13:38
S2: if you accepted those three, then you sack us all.
13:41
S2: And you know I don't resign from that. It's not
13:44
S2: something I enjoyed. But you've got to stand for something
13:48
S2: in this place. And we aren't a faction of the
13:51
S2: Liberal Party. And that's what this cultural mindset that has
13:56
S2: come across the gallery here, of these commentators that want
14:00
S2: to look down at the National Party and think that
14:02
S2: we're just some bunch of hicks. Um, look at look
14:06
S2: at the policies that are on the books at the
14:08
S2: moment for the coalition.
14:09
S1: You've led the agenda on a lot of them. I
14:11
S1: don't accept that's the gallery's perception. And in fact, the
14:13
S1: National Party's, you know.
14:14
S2: Well, when you look.
14:15
S1: At commentary.
14:15
S2: When you look at commentary.
14:16
S1: Well, they weren't they weren't talking about your right to
14:18
S1: not differentiate. That's not what they were on about. But anyway, um, no.
14:21
S2: But no, but they don't appreciate the fact that in
14:23
S2: our moment, when we stand up and we show the
14:26
S2: courage that the Australian people send us here to show
14:29
S2: that we should do it, because there's a consequence on
14:31
S2: the other side that we should just we should just
14:33
S2: roll over, because in the, in the benefit of the coalition,
14:37
S2: We shouldn't we shouldn't have that courage in that moment.
14:39
S2: That's the problem. And that's what gets people that we
14:42
S2: represent back up about a bubble in Canberra, not understanding
14:47
S2: what it means when you walk back. And I looked
14:48
S2: at people in the eye when I walk back to
14:50
S2: my electorate, they all looked at me and said, good
14:53
S2: on you, brother.
14:54
S1: Interesting. Uh, you and certainly didn't see eye to eye.
14:57
S1: I don't want to. I don't want to delve into the,
14:59
S1: you know, years of contest between you and her, but
15:02
S1: it's notorious in the coalition that you guys were didn't
15:06
S1: have the best working relationship. You know, there's one argument
15:09
S1: on your side that she had quite an insular office
15:11
S1: that was difficult to deal with, that she didn't consult that.
15:14
S1: She actually was a contributor to this. There's another school
15:17
S1: of thought that you were very harsh to her, that
15:18
S1: you split the coalition, uh, the first time when she
15:22
S1: was dealing with her mother's death, uh, that you as
15:25
S1: a National Party person, was always offended by her winning
15:27
S1: far off the National Party. She. She told you.
15:30
S2: I wasn't around.
15:30
S1: Then? Yeah, you weren't around. But there's a long, long,
15:32
S1: long lasting.
15:33
S2: Only just alive. Probably.
15:34
S1: You're just alive. Yeah. Yeah. No, she's, um. She's been
15:36
S1: around for a while. Um, in one of the tourist
15:39
S1: phone calls that you had with her during this split,
15:41
S1: I understand she effectively said to you, and I know
15:43
S1: you won't go into the details. She effectively said you're
15:46
S1: not a real leader. Matt Canavan really leads your party.
15:49
S1: Did you ever consider, uh, stepping down during this process?
15:51
S1: And how did you go with Susan Lee in that period?
15:53
S1: Were you were you were you trying to blow her up?
15:56
S2: No. And and I don't accept the premise on her
15:59
S2: office or either we could work professionally with them. We've
16:03
S2: had a very professional relationship with them. Uh, and I
16:06
S2: don't accept the premise that we blew the coalition up
16:09
S2: after the election. Again, coalition convention for over 100 years
16:13
S2: is that after an election, all policies are maintained, all
16:17
S2: policies are kept and are removed by exception. Susan wanted
16:21
S2: to remove them all made it very clear there was
16:23
S2: four hard fought policies that the nationals had fought for
16:26
S2: for a long time divestiture, nuclear power, uh, universal service
16:30
S2: obligation reforms so that mobile phones might work in our
16:32
S2: part of the world and the regional Australia Future Fund,
16:35
S2: so that we can train our own doctors and have
16:37
S2: some childcare centres. And we made it very clear, I
16:41
S2: accept the fact you might want to get rid of
16:43
S2: the rest of them, but these we're not going to. Um,
16:45
S2: and so she broke the convention. Not not the National
16:48
S2: Party and the National Party. Party room, not me gets
16:50
S2: to this position. I supported our position to say that
16:53
S2: until we got what we were looking for. And I'm
16:55
S2: glad the Liberal Party got to a position where they
16:57
S2: accepted our terms, because that laid the foundation stones for
17:00
S2: us to reform net zero. And look, in terms of
17:04
S2: Susan's mother's death, we made it very clear from the
17:06
S2: start that we'd work at her pace of what she
17:10
S2: was comfortable with, and we're very respectful around that. So
17:13
S2: we had a professional working relationship and I know there's
17:17
S2: a gossip. And he said she said what? But the
17:19
S2: reality was we work professionally and we got back twice
17:25
S2: together because and Susan's credit, she came back to us twice, uh,
17:29
S2: wanting to get the coalition back together. We wanted the
17:31
S2: of the coalition together, but not at any cost, not
17:34
S2: at the people we represents. Cost. Um.
17:37
S1: And what do you want out of this? How's the
17:39
S1: National Party? Want out of this? What's the benefit?
17:41
S2: Well, we've now got policy that means so much to us.
17:45
S1: Which policy?
17:46
S2: Well, have you ever been?
17:48
S1: No, no, no, I'm talking about the most recent split.
17:50
S2: Well, it insured those, but it meant that we were
17:55
S2: able to to come back to coalition when we were mistreated.
17:59
S2: We left because we were sacked. We were sacked because
18:03
S2: we took a principled stand and we weren't afforded the
18:05
S2: opportunity to to vote on a bill that wasn't debated
18:10
S2: through the proper process now. So are you saying we
18:13
S2: should just roll over and just let that one go
18:15
S2: when it meant something to our party room? We didn't
18:17
S2: make this decision lightly. Our party room. It was a
18:20
S2: difficult position to get to because our party room knew
18:23
S2: the consequence that, uh, if if Susan continued to see
18:27
S2: this as a, as a breach of cabinet solidarity, that
18:30
S2: there were consequences. We all knew the party room went
18:32
S2: through that, and it was a very detailed conversation that
18:35
S2: we went through. And I'm proud of the way that
18:36
S2: our our guys went through it, but we couldn't walk
18:40
S2: past it. So, I mean, this is the thing it
18:44
S2: meant it meant something to us that we stood for this,
18:48
S2: for this principle. And while many.
18:51
S1: Come in principle.
18:53
S2: To the values of what we've been sent here for,
18:55
S2: like there's plenty of people that come here and just go,
18:57
S2: you know what? For expedience, I'm just going to roll
18:59
S2: over and let that go. And I've got to say,
19:01
S2: there's some things that we let go through the joint
19:04
S2: party room that are very important to the Liberal Party,
19:06
S2: and I've got to say, they do it for us
19:08
S2: as well.
19:08
S1: They do it for you a lot.
19:09
S2: Yeah, well, I wouldn't say.
19:11
S1: I wouldn't say they've voted for the gun. Uh, they
19:14
S1: vote against the gun gun back for you guys. And
19:16
S1: I mean the labor hate the hate group legislation. Usually
19:21
S1: when you guys differentiate the National Party, it's because it's
19:24
S1: on an issue, particularly of interest to a rural and
19:27
S1: regional voters. This this bill was not.
19:29
S2: So how do you know that?
19:30
S1: Well, because there's no. When's the last time?
19:32
S2: When's the last time you lived in a can?
19:34
S1: Appreciate. It doesn't differentiate regional and metro. It's got no, uh,
19:37
S1: no increase bearing on one group or the other. It
19:40
S1: was around prohibiting hate groups, but.
19:42
S2: But it was about the principle of overreach, of freedom
19:44
S2: of speech. That's just as important to someone living in
19:46
S2: Chinchilla as it is here in Canberra.
19:48
S1: Exactly. That's my.
19:48
S2: Point. So? So why wouldn't we stand for that? There are.
19:51
S2: So this is what you've got to understand. The National Party. Yes,
19:53
S2: there are very, very more broader principles that we believe
19:57
S2: in and and are passionate about and will stand up for.
20:00
S2: There are more localised issues that I talked about at
20:03
S2: the start with about getting our fair share and making
20:05
S2: sure that that aspiration and challenge is addressed for those
20:09
S2: people that live out there. So to sit here and say, no,
20:13
S2: there's no differentiation. It is that's and it's important to
20:16
S2: people in the capital cities about their freedom of speech. Yeah.
20:19
S2: And this is where we're the same in. And we
20:22
S2: shouldn't have this big differentiation between country and city, because
20:25
S2: much of our values and principles are the same, the
20:27
S2: Assign the values we should stand up for. But when
20:29
S2: we need that bit extra to make that amenity of
20:32
S2: life for us, that that little bit more livable, we'll
20:37
S2: go and fight.
20:37
S1: We spent way too much time on the coalition split.
20:40
S1: It's my fault. So let's go on to some other issues.
20:44
S1: If there's a person who embodied that old school version
20:46
S1: of the nationals that we talked about before with Barnaby Joyce,
20:49
S1: he blames you for leaving the National Party. I've no
20:53
S1: doubt that's self-serving to some extent on his part. Uh,
20:56
S1: but no matter who's to blame, the most recent Redbridge
20:59
S1: poll this week has the One Nation party at 39%
21:03
S1: in the regions, the coalition of 20. A recent poll
21:05
S1: has the National Party vote nationally across the whole country 2.5%
21:10
S1: this is a disaster. No?
21:11
S2: Well, just just be careful. On the National Party vote.
21:14
S2: At 2.5%.
21:15
S1: You only run in certain seats.
21:16
S2: Well, I think this is this is where everyone in
21:18
S2: this place needs to cool their jets a little bit.
21:20
S2: We can test effectively 20, 22, 23 seats. We win
21:26
S2: 15 to 17 of them. I think that's a pretty
21:28
S2: good win loss ratio compared to any other player. We
21:30
S2: don't run in the seats with the Liberal Party are.
21:33
S2: So for those to make commentary about National Party national vote,
21:37
S2: when we don't run in the vast majority of seats
21:39
S2: of the 151 seats, we're not we're not in there
21:42
S2: probably 125 of them. Fair enough. Take a deep breath.
21:45
S2: Fair enough. So I think what the national polls show
21:48
S2: is no one likes any of us. Not one nation.
21:50
S2: They don't like Labour. They don't like us. You know what?
21:53
S2: They're angry because they're poor. And that poses an opportunity.
21:57
S2: And that's where I think the opportunity for us is.
22:00
S2: And I think Angus has hit the ground running in defining,
22:04
S2: redefining those values and principles of the coalition, restoring our
22:09
S2: standard of living, protecting our way of life because people
22:12
S2: feel poorer and they don't feel safe. And that's about
22:16
S2: making sure we have a proper migration policy, that one
22:20
S2: that we've seen already that has been too high and
22:23
S2: had to lower standards, that hasn't gone to address the
22:25
S2: problems of giving hope to young people about our own home.
22:28
S2: Why wouldn't we? When we're given the greatest gift we're
22:30
S2: giving to any person on this planet a ticket here?
22:31
S2: Why wouldn't over the last four years we prioritise, you know, builders, plumbers, electricians, tilers, roofers.
22:38
S1: We'll get to.
22:38
S2: The dog instead of dog groomers and martial arts instructor.
22:41
S2: So the reality is, is, um, you know, I think
22:44
S2: the polls show that there's an opportunity. There's a lot
22:47
S2: of work for us to do. You can't be ignorant
22:48
S2: to that. But I think there's an opportunity for for this,
22:52
S2: for those that are here to stand for something, to
22:55
S2: show that what they believe in to the constituent they
22:58
S2: stand for. And that's what I'm proud of. For the
23:01
S2: nearly four years I've been leader of the National Party.
23:03
S2: Whereas The voice all the way through the National Party
23:06
S2: I've led stood for something, and we've changed coalition policy
23:08
S2: for the better. Um, that that is what my party
23:12
S2: room as a collective has achieved in four years. More
23:15
S2: probably since, uh, since McEwen. And that's because we've had
23:20
S2: the courage and strength of our conviction in those moments
23:23
S2: to stand up.
23:23
S1: Did you make the wrong call? Letting Barnaby go and
23:26
S1: not managing that relationship even though he was troublesome on
23:28
S1: the backbench. Did you make the wrong call not keeping
23:30
S1: him in the tent?
23:30
S2: No. That was a decision for Barnaby to leave.
23:32
S1: You couldn't influence.
23:33
S2: Him. Well, we've made it very clear he had a
23:36
S2: role to play. Um, but, you know, Barnaby is a
23:40
S2: grown adult. He made that decision after what the National
23:43
S2: Party had provided him. He still had a role to play.
23:45
S2: We made it very clear to him. But because I
23:47
S2: think he rationalised in his head that the party room
23:49
S2: would never vote for him again to be leader, that
23:52
S2: he decided to leave, and that was a decision for him.
23:54
S2: It's disappointing. We're saddened by it, particularly when you think
23:57
S2: of what the party has provided him.
24:00
S1: I want ego, relevance, deprivation.
24:03
S2: I want to be judged when I leave the leadership
24:05
S2: in what I can, how I how I conduct myself
24:08
S2: and what I give back to this great party, this
24:10
S2: great movement of regional Australia that has given me everything.
24:14
S2: And I think you should be judged when you're gone
24:18
S2: or you sent rather than in that moment, because that's
24:21
S2: when you see the true the true leadership is, is
24:25
S2: whether that whether that movement that's giving you everything, whether
24:28
S2: you're prepared to stand by it through thick and thin and,
24:31
S2: you know, I'm going to bleed green and gold until
24:32
S2: I die.
24:33
S1: Is it, um, the by elections coming up? Obviously you'll run,
24:37
S1: the libs will run. Um, one nation will run at
24:39
S1: an independent. Is that will that be a leadership test
24:41
S1: for you? If the nationals don't poll ahead of One
24:43
S1: Nation or the liberals?
24:44
S2: Oh, I think it'd be very hard for us to
24:46
S2: poll ahead of any of those. To be candid with,
24:48
S2: you haven't been there for 25 years. I mean, it's
24:50
S2: been a Liberal seat since the 1940s when it was established.
24:52
S2: We had it under Fisher 25 years ago. Um, we
24:56
S2: haven't got any state seats apart from a slither of Cootamundra, um,
25:01
S2: in Farrer that has any national party infrastructure. But we've
25:04
S2: got strong membership there that want to run and we'll
25:07
S2: have a candidate.
25:08
S1: Do you know who that is yet?
25:09
S2: No nominations closed on Monday, so we'll work through that.
25:13
S2: But I think we'll have a role to play as
25:15
S2: a coalition candidate to try. And I believe our role
25:18
S2: will be to try and garner some of that one
25:20
S2: Nation vote back to our side and to the coalition,
25:23
S2: and then hopefully be able to siphon that off preferences
25:26
S2: with the liberals. We'll be preferencing the Liberals. And Gus
25:28
S2: and I have been very explicit about this, that we'll
25:31
S2: work together to make sure that we get we get
25:33
S2: one of our candidates up, but it's going to be difficult.
25:36
S1: One nation ahead of them. Independent. The independent and.
25:38
S2: Labor. I mean, I don't know where the where the
25:40
S2: polling will be, but people are angry in Farah that
25:43
S2: they're going to have to go back to the polls.
25:44
S2: That's always difficult for the side of politics that causes that.
25:48
S2: So we're going to be constructive and proactive in working
25:52
S2: with the libs to to try and get a coalition
25:54
S2: member of Parliament. It'll be difficult for us. I've been
25:57
S2: upfront with Angus about that. We haven't been there for
25:59
S2: 25 years, but it doesn't mean we're not going to
26:02
S2: swing hard because I think we do have a role
26:04
S2: to play that we can show that you can have
26:06
S2: that conscience within the coalition that actually can get outcomes,
26:10
S2: rather than just being a professional complaints desk outside yelling
26:13
S2: and screaming, but can never affect change. Whereas you park
26:17
S2: your vote boat with the National, you know you're going
26:19
S2: to have a strong voice inside a coalition that can
26:21
S2: get things done.
26:22
S1: Well, you say they're a protest party.
26:24
S2: Would you say that, then?
26:25
S1: Oh, almost. Why would you? There's clearly widespread concern in
26:31
S1: the community about migration. And you guys are trying to
26:33
S1: tap into that. And they've lost trust with the electorate
26:35
S1: on that issue. One nation is clearly doing very well
26:37
S1: on it because they're very simplistic in their messaging. But
26:39
S1: we saw Pauline Hanson say there are no good Muslims.
26:41
S1: The other week is, is Pauline Hanson and her party
26:44
S1: a racist party? Do you think?
26:45
S2: Oh, I don't think so. I think that's harsh. I
26:48
S2: think Pauline's had trouble in, in in messaging sometimes and inarticulate. Articulate. Yeah.
26:56
S2: Is probably the word and I don't think I like,
27:00
S2: look to see the good in people and I think
27:03
S2: there is good in Pauline Hanson. I know her personally.
27:05
S2: I think, um, she has good intent. She doesn't always
27:09
S2: communicate it the way she should, but obviously there's more
27:11
S2: conflict within one nation about that than there is outside it. Obviously,
27:15
S2: Barnaby doesn't agree and there was a conflict around that.
27:18
S2: They can sort themselves out.
27:19
S1: Will that blow up, do you think?
27:21
S2: I don't know. I'm not interested in one nation. I'm
27:23
S2: interested in saying to the people we want to represent,
27:25
S2: the people that we represent. Now that we're going to
27:29
S2: be a constant, stable force of common sense in Canberra,
27:32
S2: a conscience within the coalition that gets your fair share,
27:35
S2: particularly when you live outside a capital city. That's the Annunciation,
27:39
S2: a message that I think we can prove and we
27:41
S2: will continue to demonstrate with the policies we take forward.
27:44
S1: If that message doesn't start to draw back One Nation supporters,
27:47
S1: and it looks like they might obliterate the coalition, would
27:50
S1: you be open to a leadership change down the track
27:52
S1: in this term to a to a Matt Canavan or
27:54
S1: a Bridget McKenzie?
27:55
S2: That's the party room determines that. I mean, I'm comfortable
27:58
S2: in my own skin. I put my record for nearly
28:02
S2: four years.
28:02
S1: You've talked you you've talked a lot about your record
28:05
S1: and you have a leg to stand on, I accept that.
28:07
S1: But I know that. I know the itemized list is
28:09
S1: all I'm saying.
28:10
S2: Yeah. No. It's good. I'm happy for you to go
28:11
S2: through them again. But, you know, I'm relaxed. I'm comfortable
28:15
S2: in my own skin. I know the rules in which
28:17
S2: you sign up to. I'm not. I'm not worried about that.
28:20
S2: What I'm worried about is the contribution that I get
28:23
S2: to make, the influence I get to make, and the
28:25
S2: legacy I get to leave. If you start worrying about
28:27
S2: all this other stuff, it sounds great in here. It's
28:30
S2: all great. And we all run around the corridors making
28:33
S2: texts and phone calls and oh, isn't this great? You
28:36
S2: know what? That's if you start worrying about that, then
28:39
S2: you lose sight of what you're here for. That. That's
28:42
S2: not what I came to this place to do. I
28:45
S2: came to make sure that next generation don't go over
28:47
S2: the range. They come home and they stay home. That's
28:50
S2: the legacy I want to leave for the people I
28:52
S2: represent in regional Australia.
28:55
S1: Well, you won on the voice you want on net zero.
28:57
S1: You want a divestiture. They were big wins. What are
28:59
S1: your next three big policy priorities in the coalition?
29:01
S2: Well, I think importantly the regional Australia Future Fund is
29:04
S2: is so important to us. It's $1 billion every year
29:07
S2: above and beyond. These are the things that people in
29:09
S2: capital cities take for granted. They can get a childcare place.
29:12
S2: We we're in regional and rural and remote Australia. It's
29:15
S2: not about childcare affordability.
29:17
S1: What does this fund do?
29:17
S2: So it'll be $1 billion a year and we will
29:21
S2: set up out of that every year. That dividend will
29:23
S2: go into creating more childcare places in regional, rural and
29:26
S2: remote areas that we don't have because we we it's
29:28
S2: not about affordability, its accessibility. There's simply I've got towns
29:32
S2: with childcare centres that have got waiting lists for three years.
29:35
S2: So I've before I come into Parliament, I mean, I
29:39
S2: manage some rural bankers. I'd lose a whole lot of my,
29:44
S2: my female managers because they couldn't get a childcare place.
29:47
S2: You saw the opportunity, loss and costs that we had
29:50
S2: because they didn't have the amenity that people in cities
29:53
S2: had to go and have a career. I mean, that's
29:55
S2: not how this country should operate. So I'm passionate about
29:58
S2: making sure we get that right about making sure we've
30:00
S2: got some doctors that 250 Commonwealth supported places to change
30:05
S2: doctors in regional universities. So they'll go and be out
30:07
S2: there in the bush. These are the heart and soul
30:10
S2: issues that we need and to fill in some potholes
30:12
S2: above and beyond the money we get. That's about making
30:15
S2: sure we get our fair share. It's about when in
30:17
S2: that moment, when you're on the side of the road
30:20
S2: and you've you've broken down or you've had a car accident,
30:23
S2: you might be able to use your mobile phone to
30:25
S2: ring 000. That those mobile phone towers that you paid
30:28
S2: for as a taxpayer are used, and the telcos are
30:31
S2: held to account. That's important to me that in our
30:33
S2: moment you get that amenity of life. You're protected about
30:37
S2: supermarkets not just treating farmers right, but treating you right.
30:40
S2: They're stitching you up as well when you go down
30:41
S2: to Coles, stitching you up. So that's that's the stuff
30:46
S2: that we fought for and that's why it was important
30:49
S2: after the election. I didn't want.
30:51
S1: Is divestiture still your policy now? Yeah it is, it is.
30:53
S2: That's well, that's I'm about to say that's why after
30:56
S2: the election, we didn't want to.
30:57
S1: Yeah, I remember it got stuck in there and I
30:58
S1: just we haven't heard about it since then. And I
31:00
S1: wonder how Angus Taylor is a free marketer. Thinks about it.
31:02
S1: I think he did a thesis on it.
31:03
S2: No, Angus Taylor was actually was the one. He and
31:05
S2: I created. The bill that we put in in the
31:07
S2: last parliament on divestiture of the supermarket.
31:09
S1: And I think he studied at university.
31:11
S2: So what we didn't want to do is to go
31:13
S2: backwards for three years and to be fighting for these
31:15
S2: four key policies. So after the election, that's why we accepted,
31:19
S2: despite it being against coalition convention, to remove all the
31:23
S2: policies that if we got those four, we'd stick around
31:26
S2: because I didn't want to waste three.
31:28
S1: Are they in the new coalition agreement?
31:29
S2: Yes they are. That's part of the reason we came back.
31:31
S1: And so divestitures in it. The new one with Taylor.
31:34
S1: That's exactly. Anything else in that agreement?
31:36
S2: We haven't asked for anything other than what we we
31:38
S2: wanted after the election. We're not being greedy. We just
31:42
S2: want to be respected.
31:43
S1: Anything more on solidarity? Was there any tweaks to how
31:45
S1: that language is.
31:46
S2: In terms of where we are? We've got a really
31:48
S2: good working relationship, and I've known Gus since I got here.
31:52
S2: He's an intellectual powerhouse. I actually respect his intellect and
31:57
S2: and what I like about it is that he's got
31:59
S2: a country lens to that, because he grew up in
32:01
S2: the bush. So I'm comfortable with where we are and
32:05
S2: his understanding of the National Party. And, you know, I
32:09
S2: think that there is great alignment there. And the nationals
32:12
S2: aren't asking for anything more than those core policies that
32:15
S2: actually go to the heart of giving our people some
32:19
S2: hope out there that they, you know, they can have
32:21
S2: the amenity of life and have that career that we
32:23
S2: take for granted in a capital city.
32:25
S1: There's a lot of interest in where you'll go in
32:26
S1: the migration policy. Josh Frydenberg said last week at a
32:30
S1: conservative conference called aspire that Australia should be looking to
32:34
S1: some European, uh, countries and other models where those countries
32:38
S1: are put in new rules to for migrants to have
32:42
S1: a longer period before they can become permanent residents, to
32:44
S1: look at things like employment, whether they've broken the law
32:47
S1: effectively to ensure that there is a greater level of integration.
32:50
S1: Is that a model that Australia should be looking at?
32:52
S2: Yeah, and we'll come out with our final policy. But
32:55
S2: just cast your mind back to the last election. We
32:57
S2: had quite a quite a harsh migration policy in the
33:00
S2: eyes of many pundits. Uh, what Peter Dutton and I
33:03
S2: took to the last election. In fact, it's probably pretty
33:05
S2: close to where one nation got to now. So we're
33:08
S2: going to look at this also around values and principles
33:11
S2: about the people we're bringing in, the standard of people
33:13
S2: we're bringing in. But you know before we lost government
33:16
S2: in 22, uh, the visa that the nationals fought hard
33:20
S2: for and we negotiated and got it was part of
33:23
S2: that was around, um, saying to people who come to
33:26
S2: this country, we can come, you can come and live
33:28
S2: in a particular area and work in a particular industry.
33:30
S2: You have to do it for five years. Then if
33:32
S2: you stay for another two after that, that's your first
33:34
S2: pathway to permanent residency. And I think there's a lot
33:36
S2: of merit in that. And I see that already in
33:39
S2: places in my electorate like Charleville, we've got an abattoir
33:42
S2: out there, about 150 Vietnamese that are there on a
33:47
S2: workforce agreements. They've been there 5 or 6 years. Their
33:50
S2: kids are the dux of the school. They're the captains
33:52
S2: of the school. They're not hanging out at the pubs
33:54
S2: of a Friday night causing fights. The first are church
33:57
S2: on a Sunday or the first to set up for
33:59
S2: the school fete. These are great people that personify the
34:03
S2: values and the standards that we would expect in this
34:06
S2: country that's built this country on migration that we should
34:09
S2: be bringing. We do need migration, understand that, but we
34:11
S2: need to have a fewer number with higher standards, and
34:14
S2: we need them to go to where we need them
34:16
S2: to to make that contribution. And that's the that's the
34:19
S2: that's the power that we have without costing the Australian
34:22
S2: taxpayer fortune, because that's just a lever of common sense.
34:26
S2: And that's where I think we can have a migration
34:27
S2: policy that gives the states time to build some homes,
34:31
S2: slowing it by slowing it down, but by lifting the
34:34
S2: standards on values and on skills that we need where
34:37
S2: we need them, then you give them that ticket and
34:39
S2: you can eyeball them. And once they're entrenched in a
34:41
S2: community and they're contributing to a community, they're contributing to
34:44
S2: our country. And that's what you've got to get back to,
34:46
S2: is understand the contribution not just migrants make, but we
34:50
S2: as Australian citizens should live by this. What are we
34:52
S2: contributing back to our community? Because what we contribute back
34:54
S2: to our community contributes to our great country. And that's
34:57
S2: a principle that I think many of us have lost,
35:00
S2: but particularly those that we're bringing to this country, we
35:02
S2: need to make sure they expire.
35:04
S1: Do you like that Frydenberg idea? I know it's not policy.
35:07
S2: There's value. Definitely. And I think this is where there
35:09
S2: is a real opportunity.
35:12
S1: Value in what?
35:13
S2: In looking at these types of these types of policy
35:16
S2: policy elements that could be adopted. And I think you
35:19
S2: shouldn't shut your mind to it. I think I think
35:21
S2: we had a very strong migration policy the last election.
35:25
S2: And I think now there's an opportunity to to refine that.
35:27
S2: And understanding the shift in geopolitical atmosphere that we're experiencing
35:32
S2: is to make sure we do get that right.
35:34
S1: How does how does that feed into the policy formulation?
35:37
S2: Well, again, it comes down to don't discriminate on race
35:41
S2: or religion. You discriminate on their values and principles they're
35:44
S2: going to bring to this country. Are they going to
35:46
S2: make that contribution to their community and their country? You
35:48
S2: don't need to overcomplicate it, but you need to eyeball them.
35:51
S2: And I think you need to make sure you understand
35:52
S2: where they're coming from and what they can contribute. But
35:55
S2: I think there's also that time element that makes sense
35:58
S2: around their their lived experience in Australia and how they
36:02
S2: want to contribute and the way they contribute to Australia,
36:04
S2: that it aligns with that great migration story that's built us.
36:08
S1: The Canadian government, another centre left government, is very explicitly
36:11
S1: linked the migration settings to housing. Is that something you
36:15
S1: guys will look at?
36:16
S2: Well, I mean this is where the missed opportunity. I mean,
36:18
S2: there has been abject failure of state and local government
36:21
S2: in planning. So the reality was we need to buy
36:25
S2: them time to rebuild and to build supply. What the
36:28
S2: federal government lever, they can pull this migration. And I
36:31
S2: think what we've got to do is make sure that
36:32
S2: we give young people hope because they've lost hope of
36:34
S2: ever owning home. And if you don't own something in
36:37
S2: this country, you're less likely to fight for it. So
36:39
S2: that's why I think it's important that we we look
36:42
S2: at this through a multifaceted lens and we get the
36:45
S2: numbers right. We get the settings right of who's coming
36:48
S2: and their values, their skills. And about the problem we're
36:51
S2: trying to solve, which is hope for homes.
36:54
S1: So explicitly linking, you know, getting the numbers down so
36:57
S1: that construction can keep up.
36:58
S2: You've got to buy time. I mean Labor's brought in
37:00
S2: 1.3 million people in the last three and a half years.
37:03
S2: They've prioritized dog groomers and martial arts instructors above roofers,
37:07
S2: Tyler's and builders electricians. I mean, if you've got a
37:09
S2: supply problem one you slow down the demand lever and two,
37:13
S2: you bring in the people that can actually help contribute
37:16
S2: to to build supply. That's just common sense. I mean,
37:18
S2: I'm not I'm not academically gifted. You know, Chinchilla stayed
37:22
S2: high in grade eight, taught me about demand supply. I
37:24
S2: didn't need to write 6000 word essay that Jim Chalmers
37:26
S2: did to work that principle out.
37:29
S1: You and Angus Taylor can have an academic. He can
37:31
S1: do some schooling for you.
37:32
S2: I think he'll tell me up pretty easy.
37:34
S1: Thanks for joining us, David.
37:35
S2: Thanks for.
37:35
S1: Having me. Cheers. Today's episode was produced by Josh towers
37:41
S1: with technical assistance from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is
37:45
S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcast are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
37:48
S1: and Tom McKendrick. Before we go, follow Inside Politics and
37:52
S1: leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm
37:54
S1: Paul SoCal, thanks for listening.