Good afternoon.
Pinning down One Nation on the facts and figures behind their policy proposals has never been easy.
But this week it has felt like something even beyond the bounds of the usual Trump-like playbook from Hanson, raising questions about just how far the party is prepared to go on vibes-based policy design.
Asked about costings and economic modelling, Hanson has dismissed the role of experts and economists and insisted her policy prescriptions reflect the will of the voters.
Dismissing experts
Releasing One Nation’s policies on early access to superannuation a week ago, and on major cuts to immigration on Monday, Hanson and her colleague Barnaby Joyce dismissed questions about the economic effect of the plans.
On Tuesday, when she was challenged over whether One Nation’s plans to cut 750,000 overseas arrivals over three years would push Australia into recession, Hanson said she didn’t really care.
“Do you trust these economists, what they come out and say? Because I don’t,” she said. “I don’t believe they always get it right as well.” Soon she conceded the policy could reverse economic growth for a couple of months but argued it was worth it to stop traffic jams and ease housing shortages.
Hanson was silent on the warnings of universities, the agriculture sector and aged care providers.
Badly misguided
Despite the limited logic of Hanson’s vibes-based politics, it’s not hard to see why dismissing experts might be a winning political position.
Many voters - especially those who are attracted to One Nation’s scorched earth style - don’t care what experts or economists say. On proposals like cutting immigration or easing cost-of-living pain, they trust Hanson to deliver, much like Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters don’t care about the chaos he creates.
But, longer term, the approach is badly misguided. Look out for my full analysis on the Guardian, first thing tomorrow morning.
<strong>Richard Marles</strong> says reporting that OpenAI has issued an ultimatum to Australia – that the government must water down copyright protections or the company will refuse to invest in domestic AI training or renewable energy – is overstated. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
