Back to Back Barries: Dissecting the One Nation voting blocs

- This is The Guardian. - I'm Tony Barry, - And I'm Sean Rackliff. - And this is Backed Back Barry as a Guardian Australia podcast. Sean, great to have you on the show, long time listener, first time guest. - Thanks for having me, Tony, excited to be here. - Sean, for our listeners, or Dr. Sean Rackliff, is the principal at Accent Research, and we collaborate on many polls, particularly for the Fin review. - And he is a data scientist, but a data nerd is my preferred description. - That's the official title. - Yes, that's my title. We've been having a lot of email requests, trying to understand better the one nation voter profile, which of course has its cousins in America with the Trump movement and Farage and the reform movement in the UK. And there are some commonalities there, which is that anti-establishment voter segment. So I thought we'd get Dr. Sean on to talk more about what we're seeing with the one nation voter, because it's not a homogenous voting group. It's important to remember that on current polling, which is in the high 20s, they're abouts in an electorate of 18 million registered voters, there's about five million Australian voters who are currently voting for one nation, if an election ought to be held this weekend. So they're obviously all those five million voters are not all the same. They're all very different. But I think in this current environment, where we've seen the RBA this week announce another interest rate hike, the fifth for this year, which is putting enormous pressure on the government, cost of living is the number one issue. And then we've also had this extraordinary election result in America where Polsters expected the Republicans to be trounced in the Congress and the House. They thought the Senate was going to be very tight, but in the end, some of the Senate race victories for the Democrats were extraordinary, particularly in the Southern States, but obviously Michigan was another one. Texas was incredible, and South Carolina. So we're going to spend this program talking more about the one nation voter in Australia, where are they, and what do they look like? So Dr. Sean and I have put together sort of four different cohorts of one nation voters, and we've labeled them the red meat cohort, which is very much about cultural grievance. There's the precarious, which are very much economic grievance. The triple haters, which is the political grievance, and the handsome enthusiast is the final grouping. Now there's obviously some other very smaller cohorts, but they're the sort of four broader ones that we've identified in quantitative and qualitative research. So Sean, can you talk us through the first voter cohort, the sort of red meat voter cohort? Yeah, so these are the voters that are attracted to one nation due to what we might describe as cultural grievances. So this is, I think, what people think of when they think of one nation voters. Obviously, the actual support base is a lot more complex, but these are the voters that are attracted to one nation due to their concerns around things like immigration. They believe immigration is too high. They are generally what we might describe as cultural conservatives. When we poll them in our surveys, they mention things like they're opposed to woke nonsense when we've asked them open-ended questions in our surveys. So they're generally driven by these cultural grievances rather than economic issues or other matters. So what we might describe as cultural or social conservatives? Yeah, and this is the one group that we see in focus groups, which are actually animated by issues like welcome to country. So a lot of one nation voters are bothered by that. It's not a big issue for them. They shrug their shoulders. Some are like, "I'll come find with it." Some are sort of like, "I don't really care." But this particular cohort is the one that does get animated by it. Yeah, so when we asked one nation voters to explain why they were voting for one nation in their own words, immigration was one of the main reasons they brought up. So about 15% of one nation voters mentioned immigration is the main driver for their support for one nation. That was followed by 12% who described something that we've coded as Australia first nationalism. So these are people that said that they're voting for one nation because either one nation or Paul Enhance and are putting Australia first. And then a lot of them actually use those words. And that's clearly inspired by the MAGA movement in the United States and Donald Trump. And then another 5% mentioned something along the lines of opposition to woke culture or woke nonsense. So these concerns around either immigration or that Australia's political elite or business elite aren't putting Australia first. And then to a lesser degree, pursuing what they might describe as overly progressive policies not that they would use those words, but that's what they mean. Other main drivers for supporting one nation. So that's sort of these are the voters that make up what we would describe as this sort of cultural grievance or red meat group of one nation voters. And what sort of proportion are they of the entire one nation vote, which is, you know, high 20s, 25% of the voting population, you know, what sort of percentage are they make up of the one nation vote? So I would say these groups overlap a little bit, but probably some of the 20 quarter and a third of one nation supporters. Yep, yep. So in other words, there's around two thirds, two three quarters of one nation voters aren't as animated by these sort of issues as the red meat cohort. Yeah, I would say most of them are to various degrees, but not always as their main issue. So for instance, in the last AFR poll we did in September, 63% of one nation voters ranked immigration as one of their top three issues that are driving their vote. So almost two thirds, which is probably less than a lot of people assume when they think of the stereotypical one nation voter though. And this red meat cohort, that is really their base. Like that's what they had before the election, isn't it? They've stuck with them. These are the people who voted one nation in previous elections, which, you know, typically was around six, seven, eight percent. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, and they've stuck with them. And their reasons are much the same. But what we've seen is more cohorts join the one nation voter segment in recent times. And since about September last years, when we started noticing they broke double digits, isn't it? Yeah, yeah. So since the election, there's been a, I would say, a phase shift where one nation has gone, bit gone from bouncing around between three and six percent of the primary vote federally to first year breaking double digits last year, and then obviously breaking into the 20% or higher this year, or actually over 30% this year. And then the second cohort of one nation voter is the precarious, those who are animated by economic grievance. And what we've seen here is a realignment. This is the group that has pinched soft labor voters, and obviously quite a lot of soft liberal voters as well. What can you tell me about that cohort? Yeah, so this is a group that we might describe as being underpinned by either a sense of economic insecurity or inequality. But I think it's really important to note that's not necessarily meaning that this is a disadvantage group. One nation, since the election, since the 2025 federal election, one nation is tend to do better with older homeowners. So these aren't necessarily disadvantaged voters, but they are voters that either have a sense that they're not doing as well as they used to or they're concerned about their children or the next generation's future. Or in many cases, I think a lot of these voters come from regional areas that aren't doing as well as they used to do. So they're seeing a sense of decline in their community. So a good example is the electorate of Hunter, which is currently held by Labor. A lot of voters there are doing okay, coal mining is a big industry, but there's a number of communities in the Hunter that perhaps aren't doing as well as they were doing 30, 40 years ago. And so you've got these voters in these areas, that they themselves might be doing okay, but their community isn't. And they see this sense of decline, this shift, and that makes them concerned about the future of their community and the country as a whole. And this concern that perhaps the economy is no longer providing for people like themselves or their children or their grandchildren, and that's creating a real sense of disillusionment, which is turning these voters away from the major parties. They believe aren't able to or aren't willing to look out for their best interests any longer. - Yeah, and whilst there are some commonality between all four groups in their thinking and their perceptions about politics and their political model, we also probably most see in this group the most frustrated with the institutions, institutional distrust, whether it be government, media, or corporates. Particularly corporates where they feel they're getting gouged, they feel that they're all about profits and putting their interests secondary. And so we're seeing from them this sort of, a bit of a wrecking ball about the institutions, particularly the political model, which they feel no longer works for them. - Yeah, and I think one thing we see across one nation voters generally is that they have a really strong sense that Australia has. as elites, both political and business, can't be trusted, don't share their values, aren't working in their best interests, and in the case of political elites aren't competent. So this is one of the big problems that I think the leaders of both major parties, the Labor Party and the Liberal National Coalition, this is the trouble they have with these voters and trying to win them back, is that a lot of these voters have completely lost faith in political elites, it's one thing to believe, these political elites maybe aren't working in my best interest, but if they're competent, I might be willing to put up with them, but if you feel that they're not working in your best interests, they don't share your values and they're not competent, then all of a sudden alternatives, in a lot of our research, many of these voters aren't that enthusiastic about one nation. There are some that certainly are, there's a group that are very enthusiastic, but they're not all enthusiastic and in some of the open-enders we've run, we've actually had voters say, I'm actually terrified of voting for one nation, but the alternative is even worse. And this is the big problem that Australia's political elites on both sides have, that there's a group of these voters that have just lost faith in them. And so they're willing to look at alternatives, they maybe wouldn't have considered in the past, and that's why we've seen one nation go from, you know, sub-6% to, in some polls, over 30%. Yeah, in my view, this is the softest of the voter cohorts for one nation, the economic grievance cohort, because they're looking for hope. Yep. And if they recognise in either major party a plan that they think is genuine and could work and will appeal to them and help them and their families, they're the ones who will like to come back home, whether that be to be to the Labor Party or the Coalition. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, it's important to remember that if one nation's primary votes in the high 20s right now, that means that probably something like 80% of those voters maybe didn't vote for one nation at the last election. That group of voters obviously voted for another party less than two years ago, they're going to be willing to do so again in many cases. They just got to be given the value proposition that makes that vote look attractive. Yeah. So that's the softest vote cohort that we've discussed so far. The next cohort, the third one is the triple haters. They don't like the Coalition, they don't like Labor and they don't like the Greens. And so, enhanced and they found a vehicle to vent those frustrations. This is, you know, a bit of the very anti-establishment and, you know, we've talked a lot about their wrecking ball, their truth teller, against the current political model. This is not a particularly soft voter cohort in my opinion. Sean, what can you tell us about this cohort? Yeah. So these are related in some ways to the last group in that they clearly have a fairly low opinion of Australia's political elites, but in particular, the leaders of the major parties. And well, we might describe these as anti-establishment or anti-system voters. They don't believe that the current system is working for them or people like them. So in many cases, they're either sending a message, things need to change or I'll support this very different option, or they do actually want to see major change and they're willing to vote for the party that they believe will bring about that change. In this case, one nation has been out of position themselves as a party that's not of the political establishment and is potentially going to make a radical change to improve these people's lives. And this is a little bit similar to the pitch that Donald Trump was making, obviously, when he was running for president. Yeah. Yeah. That was a very strong theme in all the messaging in 2016. The anti-establishment. And in fact, you did a couple of ads where they didn't explicitly mention Hillary Clinton, but they talked about the establishment and there was lots of overlays if you know our nations. The swamp. Yeah. They also looked at imagery of the Clintons, but never just Hillary, sometimes Hillary and Bill Clinton, to demonstrate that she wasn't changed because all these elections, whether be the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, have been changed elections. And the reason why the incumbents have then been getting into a bit of trouble, including Albanese here in Australia, is that voters don't feel they're getting the change that they voted for. And so there's this sense of, well, things haven't changed that dramatically. Albanese has announced some significant policies, including some of the taxation changes he made at the last budget, but we're not yet seeing in any research that voters are recognising that that's the change they wanted. So they're the three grievance groups, so red meat being cultural grievance, precarious being the economic grievance, the triple haters being the political grievance, and then the final group is what we called the Hanson enthusiast. And this group, there's positive personal attachment. They sort of feel that she's not only their truth teller, but the entire identity their party is built around poor Hanson. Yeah, certainly compared to any other major Australian political party, one nation is very much a personalised party based around Hanson and her particular political identity. So when we asked voters in their own words why they're voting for one nation, 14%, responded with Paul Hanson, something about liking her or believe she was the only politician that was telling the truth or the only politician that represented her. But even more significantly, her favourite ability numbers are much better with one nation voters than Albanese numbers are with Labour voters or any of the other major party political leaders are with their own voters. For the most part, voters in Australia, they tend to like the leader of their party that they're voting for, but they're not particularly enthusiastic while one nation voters tend to be very enthusiastic about Paul Hanson, which is obviously a strength for Hanson and one nation right now, but it obviously also is a weakness for one nation in that it begs the question, what happens to one nation after Paul Hanson? And eventually she presumably will retire or step aside, and it will be a big challenge for one nation to continue on without her. Yeah, it's almost sort of, we saw in America with almost cultist around Trump. Trump was the brand and Trump predictably, and you know, I mean, I think the election result was very much a referendum on Trump personally, and he really endorsed some of these candidates and campaigned very vigorously for them. In fact, he did sort of say, imagine it's my name on the ballot paper to try and get out the vote. But he is also correct when he says his name was not on the ballot paper, because in terms of getting out the vote, he has actually been successful in the past in getting people out to vote for him. Now, you know, you argue that like most cults, you know, they're on their way to Jonestown, but that is also sort of what we're seeing with Farage and Hanson, these people who, you know, and we've seen and focused groups with Poin Hanson, this authenticity, as you said, 14% who just like her as a leader. And we see where they sort of, even where they don't agree with some of their sentiments, and she has said some pretty shocking things about particular groups of Australians, but we've seen in groups where they just go, oh, well, I don't agree with that. But you know, at least she speaks her mind because they're looking for that sort of sincerity or the intensity where policies don't change their mind or they don't bend to a media pile on. And so for those reasons, you know, even when they don't agree with her, they like what they see in her. Yeah, I think one of the weaknesses of most modern Australian politicians is they're very scripted. And when you listen to the interview live or unedited, it's almost painful because they're clearly just using the lines and it doesn't always fit the question they're asked. It works well in the, obviously, the sound bites that come later and that's why it's done. But it is very inauthentic and it makes it hard to like a lot of these politicians. They're not really, it's not an effective way of communicating. Hanson is obviously not the best communicator. But yeah, she sounds like a real person and for a lot of voters, they appreciate that. And it does make them feel like she is telling the truth. She's giving her genuine opinion. And that is something that a lot of voters like, obviously it doesn't work with every voter. And one nation probably has a lower ceiling in support than labour or the coalition does. But it does, there is a niche there for a party like one nation and a politician like Paul and Hanson. And after many, many years, they're finally filling that niche right up. Yeah, I think if you look at the federal budget early this year with Albanese, he introduced those measures, which were clearly pitched at younger voters about housing affordability and changes to the taxation treatment of assets. You wouldn't say they've been popular at the moment. They might, by the election, produce electoral dividends for the government where voters get to see it in operation. I think no, actually this is working out well. I'm a skeptic on that theory, but time will tell. But I think if he had of, after the budget, back down to the controversy around it and said, I actually, we're not going to do that after all, even if he did sort of say it now, you know, over the sort of coming Christmas break, if you sort of said, look, we've reviewed it and we've decided to go back. I think he'd get smashed by the electorate. I think he'd get rewarded for saying, oh, he's listened. I think they'd sort of say, we're hanging on a sec, the inauthenticity. You know, you said we didn't need it. And then you suddenly said, we did need it. [BLANK_AUDIO] saying, "I actually know I was wrong, we don't need it after all," and that is where I think Hanson capitalises on other leaders, is that she has perceived rightly wrongly by voters to be sticking to her guns for 30 years now. We get that a lot in focus groups. They say she hasn't changed her opinions. She's been the same Pauline Hanson and she hasn't wilted under media sort of pressure on some of her positions. Yeah, well, I think that's right. She has been very consistent with her messaging, whether you like it or not, and a lot of voters don't like it as well. She's a very polarising figure. There is obviously a part of the electorate that does, and there's obviously been a few shifts in the environment since the 2025 election, or probably a bit earlier, that have then allowed her to gain the support. So I think one is the high levels of inflation we've had since the pandemic, which has increased financial stress and created a segment of the electorate that's looking for answers that aren't being provided. The second is obviously the weakness of the coalition after the last two elections, which probably makes the Liberal Party and the National Party look like a less sure bet for conservative voters at the moment. Obviously, if the coalition starts to look more effective, that may change that particular part of the equation. And then the third thing that I've found looking at polling since the last election is the bond I shooting. So one of the biggest predictors that sort of indicates when attitudes or support for one nation shifted over the last, actually since 2016, was the bond I shooting. In a lot of our models, it increased one nation's primary vote by 4%. So there was a group in the electorate that I think found Hanson's position on immigration after the shooting as something they agreed with, and consistent. Yeah. Well, that's what she's been saying the same thing since the 1990s. So it struck a chord with a small part of the electorate, but when you add these different groups together, you're getting somewhere in the high 20s or low 30s. Yeah. So all these full groups, as we discussed, the softest group is the precaried to the economic grievance cohort. What would you estimate? What proportion of the one nation voted blocked today make up of? So the precaried group, the voters that are voting for one nation due to their concerns about the economy is probably once again about quarter to a third, I would say. And once again, the areas overlap between these groups a bit. But yeah, they're probably somewhere in that ballpark. Yeah. So I think, now, if you're looking at, you know, if you're the Labor Campaign Director and, or the Liberal Campaign Director, and I think it's probably worth pointing out that you worked on a Federal Labor Campaign some time ago, which one was that? That was. I worked on now the 2019 and 2022 campaigns. Yeah. And that was in a, when you're at UGUP. Yeah. Yeah. What would your advice be to the campaign directors about targeting this softest vote cohort? How do you win them back? But get inflation down. Yeah. Which is probably a little bit beyond their capabilities. Obviously, there's not, there's only so much the government can do. It can obviously do certain things. But inflation and then the interest rates that follow that, the higher interest rates that follow that, are probably the biggest single driver of that particular part of one nation's support. And the government obviously is aware that that's a pain point and they are trying to do things about it. But obviously, the solutions to higher inflation, as in so far as they're under the government's control, painful in their own right there, there's short-term pain for the long-term gain, really. But obviously, the problem the government has is any cost of living measures they bring in that involve spending like more Medicare spending or free childcare can potentially be inflationary. So this is the problem. I have the kind of court and advice where anything they do to try and address cost of living, unless it's offset with things like higher taxes on other groups, will potentially increase inflation and then the reserve bank will have to put interest rates up. And the best antidote to Hanson and Peter Castillo says this frequently is good economy. Yes. You know, that's in 2004 when the economy was humming along well. There was interest rates were low. Inflation was low. Unemployment was low. And we had a wage growth of, you know, averaging around 24.6%. One nation did win a single Senate seat, including in Queensland. And remarkably, the coalition won four out of six Senate seats, which included a young Barnaby Joyce, but Russell Trude picked up the fourth one for the Liberal Party. So in that sort of environment where the economy was going well, that sort of grievance in the electorate, particularly the economic grievance of the precarious class, you know, they're happy with either there's a sort of a coalition government or a Labour government if things are going well. So advice to Labour is have a good economy. Oh, that's all they have to do. Simple. Easy. We're about to take a break. And when we come back, we're going to answer some emails from Jake and David. So why don't we so enthusiastically contribute to Guardian Australia? Well, I do it for the same reason that I devoted more than 40 years to the ABC. The ABC is not a privately owned company. It's a public broadcaster. It has none of the commercial pressures, none of the conflicts of interest of the rest. And so it can be true to itself as a public broadcaster. And I think likewise with Guardian Australia, unlike the rest Guardian Australia has no private owner, no billionaires, no commercial interests, pulling the string for trying to influence their coverage. And like the ABC, then they can be true to themselves and true to their audience. So that's why I'm asking you to support Guardian Australia's end-of-year appeal. If you value the journalism at Guardian Australia and I certainly do, then the details are on the website. Well, welcome back. Two emails to get through. One is from Jake. And Jake asks about polling methodology and polling sample data for 2026. And he's specifically talking about the Victorian election. He has concerns and doubts about response rates, that is whether it's accurately reflecting the electorate, particularly some of the voting patterns we're seeing. Sean, what can you tell us about without giving away your copyright? What can you tell us about polling methodology? Yeah. So Jake, he's worried that we're not accurately representing Victorian electorates and regional patterns in polls. And I might be vindicating Tony's accusation that I'm a nerd here. So I'm about to get really nerdy. So warning to the listeners out there and the viewers. So we do use a number of quotas when we sample. So we have location quotas to make sure that we've got an accurate sample that accurately reflects the distribution of voters in sort of inner city. If we're looking at Victoria, inner city Melbourne, there are the outer suburbs of Melbourne, regional cities and rural parts of the state. So we try and accurately sample the different parts of the state. And then we also have quotas on things like age to make sure we've got an accurate age breakdown both across the state and within those regions, gender and also education. So we try to make sure that the samples we collect actually look like the electorate or the population we're trying to measure. Because obviously it wouldn't be very helpful if our sample didn't look like the population because the numbers would be very different. So obviously we never know until election night how well we've done and that's always fun. But we do certainly we are aware of these sort of problems and we do our best. We we spend a lot of time making sure that our sample does look like that population so that any results we get any findings we get should be reflective of in this case the vote intention of the Victorian electorate. And the waiting I find is the hardest part of the process. The collection of samples is actually quite easy but it's the waiting with a technical aspect comes in. But there's also of course it's worth pointing out an undecided vote. And that vote is actually growing over the elections. But I've got a theory which is almost impossible to test quantitatively but I've got a theory that a lot of these undecided voters when they walk into the polling booth they just whether it be their sentiment or the mood they mostly break the same way. And I saw this in 2007 there was a big undecided vote and we thought in that final sort of track that we did that if that undecided vote mostly broke towards Howard and the coalition we'd get back in but as it turned out they they really broke much more towards Rudd and Labour. So it do almost seems to be a thematic thing. And I think I think we're going to see that in Victorian state election actually I think when voters walk in they're either going to go no I think the coalition done enough to deserve my support they seem fresh they seem like they've got some new ideas we need to change or they're going to mostly break the other way you know we're talking two thirds but that's significant in that growing cohort. Yeah we've got to stick with I'm going to stick with the better the devil you know. Yeah we've got about I think most of our polls lately about seven to nine percent are totally undecided. So they can't nominate even with a leaner question they can't nominate a party they're going to vote for. So it's yeah not an inconsiderable number of voters now some of them won't vote or they'll you know just put in a blank ballot but yes some of them will vote and If they don't break evenly, that can obviously change the result. Yeah. The other email wants to touch on. David and Wager says just to add to context to what is driving the anti-establishment vote in the bush, we see that the Metropolitan Golf Club in the Prime Minister's electorate gets $6 million and the whole of New South Wales gets $12 million for health upgrades. And David says in his seat, 3.4 million to upgrade the overburdened emergency department is just inadequate in his opinion. What can you tell us about that anti-establishment mood that we're seeing, especially in the regions? Yeah, I think this is really relevant to what we've been talking about with one nation because a lot of what does drive one nation's support, which tends to be highest in the outskirts of the major cities and in regional areas. We often do see voters who are very, very angry about what they perceive as an under-resourcing of infrastructure and services in their electorates. So, you know, a lot of these voters do visit the major cities, whether it's Melbourne in Victoria or Sydney or Brisbane or Perth or Adelaide and they tend to see much better infrastructure and services in the major cities than what they often have in the regions. And for them, that feels a bit like, oh, the cities are sucking up all the resources, they get the services, they get the infrastructure. And then, yeah, my, in this case, in David's case, the emergency department at our hospitals under resourced or in some cases, it closes down entirely. And that's driving a lot of anger. So, what a lot of, you know, often, what's not realised is it's more expensive to provide infrastructure and resources in areas with low population densities. So, that's often why a road in Melbourne or Sydney might be better than a road in out near Wagar. But it is understandable that in a lot of these communities, they do feel like government doesn't work for them, that the resources that they get maybe aren't adequate and aren't providing them with the services or the infrastructure they need. Yeah. And you and Coz Samaras did a, some research on this with Mandela and Zurich on the Health and Resilience Index, which sort of very much tapped into this thing, didn't it, that there was a direct correlation between poorer health services and financial insecurity and the One Nation voter profile. Yeah. So, the Health Resilience Index in particular was highly correlated with One Nation's support at the electorate level. And a lot of that was about a combination of these are mostly older populations in these regional areas. And also, yeah, the health services available to them tend to be lower. If you're out in, say, Barnaby Joyce's electorate of New England, which is prime One Nation territory, with or without him having joined the party, you tend to have smaller hospitals with fewer services and fewer resources and also fewer doctors per capita. And that's largely a function of, you know, it's, it's a lot of population density more remote from the big cities. But obviously, you know, telling someone in those areas, oh, sorry, it's more expensive to provide these services because there's less of you in that large region. It's much more cost effective to provide big well-resourced hospitals in Brisbane or Sydney. Probably isn't of great comfort to a lot of voters in New England and similar electorates. So, it is understandable, I think, why some of these voters look at the taxes they pay and then the services they receive. And for them, it feels like those resources are going to the cities rather than the bush, whether or not that's the case. It's understandable why they get that impression. And then for them, they're like, well, what are what are the people that are running government doing for me? Is the system working for me and my family? And then they see their kids that this is what adds on to this. A lot of the time their kids leave the community to go find jobs elsewhere, which exacerbates the problem. And then you sort of have this recurring cycle where more and more young people leave these regional communities. The population in those communities becomes older and older, which obviously requires more health services. And those health services get harder to provide, because you don't have young people to work in the hospitals and work in the JPs. And it's a reinforcing cycle and that's when some of these voters feel like their communities perhaps going backwards. And it gives them a sense of decline. And so then when we ask these voters, what do you think that Australia is heading in the right or wrong direction? A lot of them say the wrong direction and it might not be that the country is getting worse, but they feel that community is getting worse because of these demographic and then service shifts on top of these demographic shifts. And it's a completely understandable feeling. Yeah. Sean, this has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you very much for coming in and standing in for Barry. Thank you for having me. Barry will be back next week to back to normal programming. This podcast was made on the sovereign lands of the Warrundry people. It was produced by Daniel Seymour and Rachel Heron. The executive producer is Joe Coney. I'm Tony Barry. And I'm Sean Rackliffe. And this is Back-to-Back Barry as a Guardian Australia podcast.