I move:
That this House:
(1)Notes that, for the first time ever, One Nation has won election for a seat in the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament.
(2)Notes that the NSW Liberals and NSW Nationals decision to preference One Nation helped One Nation to win the Farrer by-election.
(3)Calls on the NSW Liberals and NSW Nationals to rule out a preference deal with One Nation.
This public interest debate should not have had to have been brought to this House. I am astounded that we are in this position. What happened last weekend has shifted the politic landscape and changed our politics. Make no mistake, this was not a by‑election like any other. This was a by‑election that the Liberals and The Nationals—desperate to cling onto relevance—handed One Nation its first ever seat in the House of Representatives. This was not an accident. They made a choice. They printed the how-to-vote cards. They directed the preferences. They created the pathway. Now One Nation has walked through the door. They made a choice. Only a few short years ago, this debate would have been unthinkable because we all understood the danger that One Nation poses as a party simply too extreme for government.
The party of John Howard understood that when he was Prime Minister. He said, "My view on One Nation preferences is very clear. They should be placed last on every Liberal and National how-to-vote card around Australia." The party of George Souris understood it, too. He said, "I'll be putting One Nation last ". Peter Costello, Dominic Perrottet and Kerry Chikarovski—people of conviction—all ruled out preferencing One Nation. The leading lights that Opposition members lionise all recognise that sometimes principles matter more than politics. But members opposite have walked away from those principles. When threatened over their right shoulders by One Nation, they shifted shamelessly on every principle that they stood for—just for a chance at electoral success. They have trashed their own electricity and infrastructure road map, walking away from longstanding principles on renewable energy.
The shadow Minister declared that, if the Opposition is elected next year, it will review the energy policy. He wants to review a 20-year plan that the Opposition described as the most ambitious in this country. But we all know what ''review" is code for; it is code for ''dump the renewable energy transition" and code for energy infrastructure. Opposition members have broken the gun control commitment that their party made decades ago. Luminaries from both the Liberal Party and the National Party have maintained a bipartisan consensus on that for decades. The Coalition leader went from calling for the toughest gun laws in the country in December to undermining them, calling for more "fairness" in April.
We all know what "fairness" means—it is the member for Goulburn lobbying the shadow Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, calling on the Coalition to reverse our legislation on gun reform. Members opposite are also walking on both sides of the street on antisemitism. They say how much they deplore it and join in motions condemning it, but what their leader said this morning on ABC gave the game away. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts refused to rule out what happened on 14 December as being a false flag operation. What is a false flag operation? Simply put, it means an attack orchestrated by a group that is designed to disguise the perpetrators of the attack and pin the blame on an innocent party.
In other words, Senator Roberts could not rule out that the Jewish people conspired to attack themselves on 14 December. Shame! When asked about her opinion on the matter, the Leader of the Opposition said, "That's disgraceful", but it is evidently not disgraceful enough to rule out preferencing One Nation at the next election. That election is only 10 months away. The people of New South Wales will exercise their most precious of civil rights: to decide who governs in their name. Like us or lump us, people know where members on this side of the House stand on renewable energy, gun reform, antisemitism, and immigration and diversity.
But where do Opposition members stand? What do they stand for anymore? Are they so desperate for power that they are prepared to throw out whatever principles they have left, just to grasp a chance at success at the ballot box? It will not work for them. The people of the State can see right through it. They can see the desperation and fear. National MPs Wes Fang and Paul "the Tool" will not even rule out switching to One Nation. The question must be asked: Who else on the opposite side of the House is considering a switch? Who else is watching One Nation's rise and wondering whether that is their political future? Who else is treating One Nation not as a threat to be resisted but as a fallback point? How many wolves in sheep's clothing are in this Parliament?
The question for the member for Vaucluse is simple: Where is her leadership? Where is her direction? The question for all Opposition members is also quite simple: Are they comfortable campaigning under a how-to-vote card that helps One Nation into Parliament? Are they comfortable with that? Will they rule out doing a preference deal, or will they keep using them as a political life raft?
