When One Nation leader Pauline Hanson addresses the National Press Club on June 17, there will be landmines everywhere.
It’s her first formal speech to the club in her 30-year (on and off) parliamentary career. How times have changed. When she spoke at a One Nation meeting there in July 1997, a contemporary report said the gathering was held at the club “after being refused permission to use other venues. The Press Club decided to host the meeting on the basis that it is a forum for ‘free speech’”.
For Hanson, this month’s address a big opportunity. It’s also a big risk.
Come across well, and it’s another step forward for one of the most unlikely major political figures of our time. Stuff it up, and all her flaws will be on national display.
And there are multiple potential pitfalls. Making a thin address that lacks any credibility. Giving bad answers to questions, or not being able to answer them. Most dangerous of all, a firecracker loss of temper with journalists, for whom she has disdain.
A leader appearing at the NPC faces a higher-than-usual bar. Those who have to prep Hanson, including Barnaby Joyce, have their work cut out.
There’ll be a few landmines for the journalists to avoid, too. They’ll be detonated if questioners come across as snide or arrogant.
It’s the time for the deep dive not just on Hanson but, importantly, on how her rapidly expanding party is behaving on the ground.
Margo Kingston, who as a reporter covered Hanson in the 1990s, last month attended a One Nation branch meeting in Taree, New South Wales. Margo is (sort of) retired but old habits die hard, and she recorded proceedings and took some photos of what had been advertised as a “public event”. She was accosted (she hadn’t realised she was supposed to register) and a branch official gave her a hard time.
This comes after the ABC was banned from a press conference in Farrer.
With One Nation surging past Labor in polling published this week, Hanson’s role as a disruptor in federal politics has echoes – despite the very many differences – of the “Joh for Canberra” push by then Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Finally that imploded, but not before it split the Coalition and helped Bob Hawke win his third term in 1987.
While Labor is increasingly concerned about the potential longer-term threat of Hanson, this week its attention was squarely on more immediate problems.
Attacks on the budget have not abated. (In a sort of black joke, former treasurer Joe Hockey was one of those taking pot shots; Hockey knows a thing or two about unpopular budgets, having delivered a doozy in 2014.)
Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ task is to get the legislation through for the shakeup of capital gains tax, negative gearing and the treatment of trusts before parliament rises on July 2 – while keeping compromises as limited as possible.
The debate currently centres on what carve-outs will be made to the new CGT regime (still being discussed with stakeholders), and the discretionary powers the legislation gives the treasurer (the government stresses their use can be disallowed by parliament).
The government’s big budget pitch was promoting home ownership for the young. But this has been muddied by the falls in auction clearance rates. The earlier preoccupation with rising prices suddenly switched to talk about the danger of falling prices that could mean those who’ve borrowed with small deposits (thanks to the government’s “help to buy” scheme) could find themselves with negative equity in their property.
The legislation passed the House of Representatives on Thursday. There’s a brief Senate inquiry, but with only two days for public hearings and a report that will be written along party lines. There could be some haggling at the margins with the Greens in the Senate.
With the furore over its tax changes, and very ordinary economic growth figures in Wednesday’s national accounts (0.3% for the March quarter, 2.5% annual), the re-eruption of the AUKUS issue was unhelpful for the government.
Former minister Ed Husic urged that AUKUS be reconsidered, after an announcement Australia will receive three used (pre-loved?) Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines rather than the earlier expected two used and one new boat.
The predictable criticisms of AUKUS that followed from the usual voices might be less noteworthy than how the issue again demonstrated the government’s commitment to secrecy (or its lack of command of detail).
Lukas Coch/AAP
Appearing on the ABC on Wednesday, Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed that the Australian government had all along preferred the three ships to be secondhand – “it makes it easier”.
There would be a difference in firepower between new and old boats. No matter, it seems, because “there is a big premium on the consistency” (interchangeable crews and the like).
Old boats have shorter lifespans than a new one. So what will be the lifespan of the old ones? “I can’t go into the specifics of that,” Marles said. Ten years, 15 years of life left? “More than that, but I’m not going to go further than that in answering your question.”
The used boat will be cheaper. So how much will be saved? “I’m not in a position to go into the detail of that. […] There’s a process to be worked through here.” The third boat will be “significantly cheaper” than a new one but that will make little difference to the cost of the overall $368 billion AUKUS program, Marles said.
Husic would be happy to see Marles on the spot. The deputy prime minister was central in ousting Husic from the ministry after the election, in a factional power play. Husic at the time called Marles a “factional assassin”.
Albanese can’t control Husic, but he retains, for the most part, his tight grip on the rest of his caucus. One of Albanese’s greatest strengths is his ability to keep his troops in line. Without that solidarity, the government would be in much more trouble.
A number of caucus members have reservations about aspects of the budget but have held their tongues.
Husic on Thursday said that a lot of colleagues had privately welcomed his AUKUS comments.
But “all these ministers lined up this week to respond to the things I’ve said, and it’s designed to sort of put a heavy blanket, heavy layer, to stop people from doing exactly what I’ve done,” he told the ABC.
´
“I think the sort of emphasis on rigidity and the emphasis on compliance is not healthy for the party.”
And, in a well-directed jab, he added that he didn’t think Albanese “would have tolerated this when he wasn’t leader. You know, he often spoke up on things that he cared about, and good on him, when it was big enough for those calls to be made.”
