One Nation promised to stand up for ordinary Australians against wealthy elites but its choice of landlord raises a number of questions. Pauline Hanson’s party is preparing to move into an $8 million Brisbane office building owned by Gina Rinehart’s company, while Barnaby Joyce insists One Nation will pay commercial rent. But the price of the lease answers only one question: the bigger issue is what this relationship says about money, access and political power in Australia.
Anti-establishment politics becomes compromised when one its champions find common ground with the country’s wealthiest business figures and promotes policies that suit powerful commercial interests.
One Nation’s opposition to climate action, support for fossil-fuel industries and emphasis on migration and national identity expose that contradiction. Culture wars can then channel economic frustration towards migrants and other supposed outsiders, leaving the distribution of wealth and corporate power completely untouched. Voters are then offered an enemy to blame, while the people with the greatest economic influence remain very well looked after.
Paying market rent does not, by itself, establish political independence and, equally, a commercial tenancy doesn’t establish any wrongdoing. But what voters deserve is transparency about the arrangement and scrutiny of whose interests the party’s policies serve: how convincingly can a party fight the wealthy establishment when it is moving into premises owned by one of its most prominent members?
