The Unlikely Alliance: Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson, and the Fractured Soul of One Nation
There’s something almost Shakespearean about the current saga unfolding within Australia’s One Nation party. Two larger-than-life figures—Barnaby Joyce and Pauline Hanson—have found themselves in an alliance that feels less like a marriage of convenience and more like a temporary truce between rival warlords. Personally, I think this partnership was doomed from the start, not because of ideological differences, but because both Joyce and Hanson are cut from the same cloth: ambitious, stubborn, and utterly convinced of their own indispensability.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how Joyce’s defection to One Nation last December was framed as a strategic move to reclaim leadership. In my opinion, Joyce saw One Nation as a vehicle to bypass the Nationals, where his chances of a third stint as leader were slim. But here’s the irony: he’s now in a party where leadership isn’t up for grabs—it’s Hanson’s fiefdom. One thing that immediately stands out is how Joyce, a seasoned political operator, underestimated the autocratic nature of One Nation. As one of his former colleagues put it, ‘It isn’t a democracy, it is an autocracy.’
This raises a deeper question: Can a party built around a single personality ever truly accommodate another alpha figure? What many people don’t realize is that One Nation’s structure is tailor-made for Hanson’s dominance. The party’s constitution even allows her to hand-pick her successor, which makes Joyce’s leadership aspirations look like a pipe dream. If you take a step back and think about it, Joyce’s frustration isn’t just about policy differences—it’s about realizing he’s not the kingmaker he thought he’d be.
A detail that I find especially interesting is Joyce’s growing discomfort with One Nation’s extreme elements, particularly Malcolm Roberts. Roberts, with his conspiratorial views and praise for figures like Vladimir Putin and Alex Jones, has become a liability for the party. What this really suggests is that Joyce understands One Nation’s survival depends on broadening its appeal, but Roberts’ antics are doing the opposite. In my opinion, Joyce’s attempts to distance himself from Roberts during TV interviews only highlight his powerlessness within the party.
Meanwhile, Hanson seems more focused on grooming her daughter, Lee, as her successor. This, to me, is a masterstroke of political dynasty-building. What many people don’t realize is that Hanson’s move isn’t just about family—it’s about ensuring her legacy outlives her. Joyce, on the other hand, must be seething at the prospect of being sidelined in favor of someone with no political experience. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just a power struggle—it’s a clash of egos and visions.
Then there’s David Farley, Joyce’s lower house colleague, who seems to be quietly distancing himself from One Nation. His social media branding, devoid of the party’s signature orange, speaks volumes. Personally, I think Farley is hedging his bets, positioning himself for a potential exit. What this really suggests is that One Nation isn’t just fractured at the top—it’s a party where even its members are unsure of its direction.
If you take a step back and think about it, One Nation’s current turmoil is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing populist parties worldwide. They thrive on strong personalities but struggle with cohesion and succession. In my opinion, Joyce’s defection was a gamble that’s now backfiring spectacularly. He wanted to lead, but he’s finding himself increasingly marginalized.
What makes this saga even more intriguing is the schadenfreude of Joyce’s former colleagues in the Nationals and Liberals. After years of cleaning up his messes, they’re now watching him struggle in a party that’s arguably more chaotic than the one he left. One thing that immediately stands out is how Joyce’s move to One Nation has turned him into the ‘janitor’ he once mocked others for being.
Looking ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if Joyce starts exploring a return to the Nationals, especially with Matt Canavan now at the helm. But here’s the kicker: would the Nationals even want him back? In my opinion, Joyce has burned too many bridges, and his defection to One Nation was seen as a betrayal.
As for One Nation, the party’s future hinges on whether it can outgrow its founder. Personally, I think that’s unlikely. Hanson’s grip on the party is too tight, and her vision too ingrained. Joyce, Farley, and even Roberts are just players in her game.
In the end, the question isn’t whether One Nation is big enough for both Joyce and Hanson—it’s whether it’s big enough for anyone but Hanson. And from my perspective, the answer is a resounding no.
