It’s being touted as one of the most dramatic realignments in Australian politics: a former deputy prime minister, once leader of the rural conservative National Party of Australia (“the Nationals”), now flirting with the orange ranks of One Nation. For supporters of Hanson-style politics, the arrival of Barnaby Joyce could feel like reinforcements have arrived – a heavyweight from regional Australia ready to give the Coalition a real run for its money. But is it a real long-term political marriage, or is this just a strategic dalliance that could blow up before it even begins?
On the surface, the appeal is obvious. Joyce has name recognition, experience and a rural voter base; Hanson has the populist brand and a fast-rising minor party with momentum. And with many voters disillusioned with the bigger parties – particularly in the bush – this pairing could shake up the map.
Yet the gulf between them is deeper than most realise. For this “marriage” to work, both Barnaby and Pauline must change – or at least compromise – in ways that would make even the most loyal partisan uneasy.
What Barnaby Joyce must do to fit in
1. Embrace the One Nation culture – not just the optics.
Joyce has spent decades as a Nationals man: a party of constituency-based rural conservatism, tied to local branches, traditional agriculture, and institutional moderation. One Nation, by contrast, lives on bold populist gestures – noise, media spectacles, and hard-right stances that sometimes verge on the theatrical. The famous “steak dinner cooked on a sandwich press” by Hanson to court Joyce might make headlines – but for a serious politician, gestures don’t cut it.
If Joyce expects to simply slide into the One Nation brand while keeping his Nationals-style approach – quietly representing regional interests, working through committees, building rural policy – he will find himself out of step. Over time, he would need to shift toward the performative politics that energises the One Nation base: media hits, cultural warrior messaging, and policies that appeal to anger and identity grievances rather than small-‘p’ conservative pragmatism.
2. Show unwavering loyalty – something his critics doubt.
The backing-and-forth over his future has already generated plenty of cynicism. Critics inside and outside the Nationals see his flirtation with One Nation as opportunistic.
To win over One Nation’s activists – and to capitalise on any momentum – Joyce will need to commit decisively. That means not just declaring for One Nation, but resisting any temptation to drift back or hedge his bets. For long-time One Nation loyalists, the worry will be: is he here for principle, or for personal preservation and power? To silence those doubts, Joyce would need to re-brand: adopt the party’s identity wholesale, not just its convenience.
3. Accept limited influence – especially in early days.
In the Nationals, Joyce was once party leader and deputy PM. In One Nation, the top job belongs to Hanson, and the structure is fragile. Many past MPs have come and gone. Even supporters of the pairing are warning that this could be a “short honeymoon.”
If Joyce expects to come in and shape policy as he once did – or to bring serious legislative power to One Nation – he may be disappointed. Unless there is structural reform inside One Nation (which currently looks unlikely), his influence could be constrained, meaning lots of heat but limited actual power.
What Pauline Hanson and One Nation must do to make it work
1. Be ready – but not too eager.
Hanson has already made overtures, including that infamous steak-dinner stunt. But One Nation’s history of internal instability is well-documented: high turnover, defections, and ongoing leadership tensions.
If One Nation rushes to crowbar Joyce into a leadership role – or piles on unrealistic expectations – they risk internal fractures and disillusioning grassroots that joined for a different style of politics. Hanson must moderate the hype, integrate Joyce slowly, and preserve the core identity that has made One Nation popular, not dilute it with too many compromises too soon.
2. Offer real policy substance – especially in regional and rural areas.
One Nation has thrived on protest politics, culture wars and high-drama. But if Joyce brings with him a constituency of regional Australians who expect meaningful representation – not rhetoric – Hanson needs to move beyond the theatrics. That means developing real policy platforms on rural health, agriculture, economic security, and infrastructure tailored for regional voters.
Done well, that could broaden One Nation’s appeal beyond the usual protest base; done poorly, it will feel like empty pandering – and drive away both Joyce’s supporters and long-term One Nation loyalists.
3. Prepare for internal tension — and manage egos carefully.
Joyce and Hanson are each, by all accounts, political heavyweights with big personalities. As critics warn, this could be “the greatest train wreck of all time.”
Hanson will need to be magnanimous – letting Joyce hold influence without feeling threatened, and giving him room to lead in areas he’s credible (e.g. rural policy, agriculture, regional voters) while she maintains her national brand. If she tries to dominate or micromanage, the result could be a clash of egos and public disillusionment.
Could Joyce’s arrival help — or hurt — One Nation?
On paper, there’s upside:
Joyce gives One Nation renewed credibility among rural and regional voters who may have seen the party as too “urban protest.”
His name recognition and long record could attract voters who want “experience” – not just outrage.
It sends a strong signal to disenchanted Nationals and Liberals: that there is a serious alternative to the Coalition in the regions.
But the risks are equally real:
If Joyce comes across as simply drifting for convenience, that could feed the long-held narrative that One Nation is opportunistic and unstable.
If internal clashes emerge – which seems likely – the public could view the alliance as chaotic rather than a serious alternative.
If policy delivery lags behind rhetoric, the “hope” could quickly turn into disappointment, alienating both old One Nation supporters and new converts from the Nationals.
In truth, this “marriage” is less like a stable union and more like a high-stakes affair – full of passion, risk, and the chance for dramatic fallout. For it to succeed, both parties have to be willing to change: Joyce shedding his old loyalties and ego, Hanson acknowledging that adding gravitas means compromise.
If that happens, One Nation could emerge stronger – not just as a protest movement, but as a credible force in regional Australia. But if it fails, it could cement the very criticisms its supporters most fear: opportunism, instability, and political theatre over substance.
The Bottom Line
Joyce’s flirtation with One Nation – and Hanson’s overtures – may thrill the base. But the hard politics of alignment, loyalty and delivery are far less glamorous than wagyu on a sandwich press. For this “marriage of convenience” to become a meaningful political realignment, it will require discipline, humility, and policy focus – two traits that, historically, have been in short supply for headline-grabbing populist politics.
If I were advising Joyce or Hanson, I’d tell them: slow down, manage expectations, and build real substance before you chase the next headline. Because if this implodes, it won’t just be a betrayal of ambition – it will be a betrayal of hope.