Introduction
Australian politics has always rewarded audacity, but rarely has a single career demonstrated quite so vividly the elasticity of conviction as that of Barnaby Joyce. Once the thundering voice of agrarian conservatism, twice Deputy Prime Minister, and for years a persistent critic of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, Joyce spent the better part of a decade warning voters that the minor party would lead Australia “down the toilet.” He dismissed One Nation’s politics as “belligerent and xenophobic,” and declared Hanson’s response to the 2017 London terror attacks – in which she described Islam as a “disease” requiring “vaccination” – to be “bat poo crazy” and “plain dumb.”
Yet in December 2025, Joyce crossed the floor of Australian politics in the most literal sense possible: he resigned from the National Party, briefly sat as an independent, and formally defected to One Nation. He cited “philosophical alignment” with Hanson, praised her capacity to “drive the political agenda,” and accepted her invitation to lead One Nation’s New South Wales Senate ticket. The transformation was complete. Yesterday’s most quotable critic had become one of the party’s most prominent recruits.
This essay examines that arc in full. It reconstructs Joyce’s public attacks on One Nation during the mid-2010s, situates them within the political conditions of the time, and then traces the personal ruptures, structural discontents, and electoral shifts that made defection not merely possible but, from Joyce’s perspective, rational. The argument is not simply that Joyce is a hypocrite – though that charge is not without foundation – but that his journey illuminates something more systemic: the accelerating decomposition of Australia’s conservative mainstream, the maturation of populism from protest vehicle to governing contender, and the particular way in which personal ambition finds ideological cover when the political weather changes. To understand Joyce’s pivot, we must first understand the man he was – and the party he spent three decades helping to build, then abandoning.
The Nationals’ Maverick: Joyce Before One Nation
Barnaby Joyce’s entry into federal politics in 2004, as a Queensland National senator, established the template for everything that followed: independence performed loudly, pragmatism concealed shrewdly. He crossed the floor twenty-eight times during his Senate career – a record that attracted both admiration and the sardonic nickname “Backdown Barney” from those who noticed that his rebellions often concluded with quiet concessions extracted and positions quietly reversed. Born in Tamworth in 1967, trained as an accountant, raised in the rhythms of rural New South Wales, Joyce cultivated an image of the plain-spoken bushman navigating the absurdities of Canberra with commonsense stubbornness.
By 2013 he had moved to the House of Representatives, winning the seat of New England. His ascent through the National Party hierarchy was rapid: Deputy Leader by 2013, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and then, after the 2016 federal election, Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister under Malcolm Turnbull. He held that office again under Scott Morrison between 2021 and 2022. It was a career of genuine achievement, marked by an instinctive understanding of what rural Australia wanted from its political representatives: visible advocacy, combative theatre, and a willingness to be difficult in the councils of power.
But Joyce was also a politician who generated controversy with almost mechanical regularity. His 2017 disqualification from parliament under Section 44 of the Constitution – he held dual Australian-New Zealand citizenship without knowing it, a fact that stretched credulity even at the time – was resolved through a by-election he won comfortably, but the episode damaged his authority. A public affair with a former staffer, Vikki Campion, became national news, eroding the social-conservative credibility that had been central to his political brand. Leaked text messages in which he described then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison as “a hypocrite and a liar” confirmed what many in Canberra already suspected: that Joyce’s loyalty was ultimately to Joyce.
None of this diminished his effectiveness as a regional advocate, but it did clarify the nature of his political personality. Joyce was a transactional conservative: he held views with genuine conviction, but he also understood that politics rewarded positioning, and he was not above repositioning when circumstances demanded it. His attacks on One Nation in 2016 and 2017 must be read with that understanding firmly in mind.
One Nation’s Resurgence and the Threat to the Coalition
To appreciate the intensity of Joyce’s criticism, it is necessary to understand the political moment in which it was delivered. Pauline Hanson had founded One Nation in 1997 on a platform of anti-immigration nativism, economic protectionism, and resentment toward what she called the political elite. Her 1996 maiden speech, with its warning that Australia was being “swamped by Asians,” had made her briefly one of the most discussed politicians in the country before a period of legal difficulty and internal party chaos reduced the movement to a rump. By 2016, however, she was back – and more consequential than before.
The 2016 federal election delivered One Nation four Senate seats and a genuine crossbench presence. The party’s platform by this point had shifted its targeting: where the 1990s version had been primarily anti-Asian, the 2016 iteration was primarily anti-Muslim, anti-immigration in a broader cultural sense, and viscerally opposed to climate action, foreign ownership of agricultural land, and the bipartisan consensus on multiculturalism. Hanson’s rhetoric retained its characteristic bluntness. When Islamic State-inspired attacks occurred in Europe, she used them to advocate a ban on Muslim immigration. When challenged on her language, she doubled down. This was not the politics of the National Party, which operated within a governing coalition that required at least nominal adherence to the norms of democratic pluralism.
For the Coalition – and for Joyce specifically – One Nation posed a double problem. Electorally, it was competing for the same disaffected rural and regional voters the Nationals regarded as their natural constituency. Politically, its presence in the Senate made it a potential crossbench negotiating partner, but one whose associations carried reputational risk. Joyce’s public attacks on the party during this period were partly genuine – he had real objections to Hanson’s style and some of her substance – but they also served a clear strategic function: to draw a sharp line between responsible agrarian conservatism, as represented by the Nationals, and irresponsible populist provocation, as represented by One Nation.
The Attacks: What Joyce Actually Said
Joyce’s criticism of One Nation reached its peak between mid-2016 and early 2017. His remarks were not casual asides but deliberate public statements, delivered in his capacity as National Party leader and, for a period, Acting Prime Minister.
In July 2016, speaking during the federal election campaign amid speculation about a hung parliament and the crossbench influence One Nation might wield, Joyce was explicit. He refused to countenance One Nation’s approach, describing the party’s politics as “belligerent” and “xenophobic.” He acknowledged that One Nation’s Queensland polling reflected genuine community anxieties about immigration and cultural change, but insisted the Nationals would address those anxieties through “temperance” rather than division. The Coalition, Joyce argued, had to maintain governing credibility; a party that inflamed rather than resolved community tensions was not a serious partner in that project.
The most memorable remarks came in March 2017. Speaking at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics outlook conference in Canberra – an audience of economists, industry figures, and policy professionals – Joyce was asked about One Nation’s growing national standing. His answer was unambiguous:
“This is not a soap. This is not some game show, not My Kitchen Rules… This is running a country. You’ve got to ask yourself where do you think your nation will go … (if they) were to run the country… As an accountant, as a farmer I can tell you exactly where it’s going to go, and it’s going to go down the toilet.”
It was Joyce at his rhetorical best – self-deprecating in register, pointed in content, invoking his professional credentials to dismiss One Nation’s fitness for government as an empirical rather than merely ideological judgment. He was not, he implied, making a political attack; he was simply doing the arithmetic, and the arithmetic was damning.
The same month, Hanson’s response to the London terror attacks gave Joyce a second opportunity. When she described Islam as a “disease” from which Australians needed “vaccination,” Joyce was withering. “This bat poo crazy stuff does not help anybody,” he said. “It was just stupid, it was plain dumb.” He went further than the Prime Minister in his condemnation, framing the remarks not merely as insensitive but as actively counterproductive – the kind of language that hardens communities against cooperation and makes the legitimate work of governance harder. The implicit message was clear: One Nation was not serious, and its leader’s instincts were unreliable.
These criticisms landed with force. They were widely reported, frequently quoted, and cited as evidence that the Nationals, whatever their differences with Labor and the Greens, remained committed to a politics of basic decency and institutional respect. They also became, in due course, an embarrassment.
The Long Unravelling: From Critic to Candidate
The distance between Joyce’s 2017 condemnations and his 2025 defection is not easily collapsed into a single moment of calculation. It was, rather, the product of accumulating pressures – some structural, some personal, some ideological – that eroded both his position within the Nationals and his conviction that the party was the right vehicle for what he wanted to do.
The personal dimension was significant. By the early 2020s, Joyce’s relationship with the Nationals’ leadership had calcified into mutual toleration at best, quiet antagonism at worst. His successor as leader, David Littleproud, represented a more managerialist, less combative style of country politics – the sort of politics that suited Canberra’s corridors but was less effective, Joyce believed, in the pubs and farm sheds of regional Australia. His removal from the frontbench and deliberate marginalisation during the 2025 election campaign confirmed what he had suspected for some time: that the party he had served was no longer the party he had joined, and that those now leading it had little use for him.
He described resigning from the Nationals as “the greatest relief” of his political life. The analogy he reached for was telling: it was, he said, like ending a marriage that had run its course. The language of relief rather than regret suggested that whatever ideological hesitations Joyce might once have had about One Nation, they had been overtaken by his disenchantment with the institution that had previously kept those hesitations operative.
There was also a structural explanation. By late 2025, One Nation was no longer the fringe agitator of 2016. Polling consistently placed the party ahead of the Liberals in some states, and its influence on the national conversation – on net-zero targets, immigration levels, foreign ownership of land – was undeniable. Joyce himself acknowledged this. He credited Hanson with having “driven the political agenda” on several key issues, including climate, where sustained One Nation pressure had complicated the Coalition’s already fraught internal negotiations. A party capable of that kind of leverage was not the governance catastrophe Joyce had warned about in 2017. Or at least, that is the case Joyce made to himself – and, in December 2025, to the public.
The proximate catalyst for the defection was a publicised dinner in Hanson’s Parliament House office: wagyu steak, red wine, and what both parties later described as a frank conversation about the direction of Australian conservative politics. Whatever else was said, the meal ended with an offer on the table. Joyce accepted it within weeks.
The Defection and its Reception
On 27 November 2025, Joyce resigned from the National Party to sit as an independent, citing an “irreparable breakdown” in his relationship with the party’s leadership. Eleven days later, on 8 December 2025, he formalised his transition to One Nation, announcing simultaneously that he would not recontest his seat of New England but would instead lead the party’s New South Wales Senate ticket at the next election.
The reception was predictably polarised. Hanson welcomed him with undisguised enthusiasm, describing Joyce as an experienced voice who would strengthen the party’s team and its claim to governing seriousness. Littleproud, by contrast, was cutting. He accused Joyce of abandoning a party that had supported him through multiple public scandals in favour of a “party of protest,” and suggested the move said more about Joyce’s personal bitterness than about any genuine philosophical evolution. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers read the defection as a symptom of Coalition dysfunction – evidence that the conservative side of Australian politics was fracturing in ways that would take years to repair.
Media coverage was dominated by a single question: how did the man who said One Nation would drive Australia “down the toilet” now propose to help lead it? Joyce had answers, though not everyone found them convincing. He argued that One Nation had changed – that the party of late 2025 was a more mature and substantive force than the protest movement of 2016. He argued that he himself had changed – that years of watching the major parties fail regional Australia had sharpened his sense of where genuine political will resided. And he argued, with characteristic bluntness, that the Nationals under Littleproud had simply ceased to be a credible home for the politics he wanted to practice.
Each of these arguments, taken individually, has some merit. Taken together, they are less persuasive than Joyce needs them to be. The claim that One Nation has ‘changed’ is not one he can make with precision: the party’s core platform – on immigration, Islam, climate, and foreign ownership – has shifted remarkably little since 2016. What has changed is One Nation’s electoral weight and its capacity to pressure the major parties. That is influence, not moderation. Equally, the claim that Joyce himself has evolved philosophically is complicated by the timing: the evolution appears to have accelerated sharply in direct proportion to his marginalisation within the Nationals. A conversion that coincides so neatly with professional disappointment invites scepticism, even from sympathetic observers. The most honest version of Joyce’s defence – the one he has not quite articulated – is simpler: One Nation had simply become a more effective vehicle for the outcomes he wanted.
Whether these arguments satisfied the voters of New England is a separate question. What is clear is that they satisfied Joyce, and that his defection was not impulsive. The evidence suggests a considered, if accelerated, process of ideological migration – one in which policy convergence on the big issues (immigration, climate scepticism, foreign ownership, resource development) made the formal party label increasingly secondary to the underlying alignment.
One Nation Grows Up: The Mainstreaming of Populism
Joyce’s defection cannot be understood apart from the broader transformation of One Nation as a political force. The party of 1997 was, in significant respects, a different institution from the party of 2025–26. The earlier version was built around a single charismatic figure, prone to internal turmoil, and ultimately unable to convert protest sentiment into durable electoral organisation. The version Hanson led into 2026 retained Hanson at its centre but had developed organisational depth, policy consistency, and a donor base capable of sustaining serious campaigns across multiple states.
More importantly, the issues One Nation had championed – often in language that mainstream politicians found too crude to engage with directly – had moved from the margins of Australian public debate to its centre. The question of net migration levels, which One Nation had raised stridently for years, was by 2024 being discussed by Labor ministers and business economists alike. The question of net-zero targets, which One Nation had opposed as economically reckless, had fractured the Coalition’s internal unity and complicated its relationship with regional voters. The question of foreign ownership of agricultural land, a perennial One Nation preoccupation, had attracted genuine legislative attention. In each case, Hanson’s party had helped shift the Overton window, even if it rarely received credit for doing so.
This is the political context in which Joyce’s 2017 remark about governance “going down the toilet” must now be re-examined. His critique was partly about substance – he genuinely believed One Nation lacked the policy sophistication to govern responsibly – but it was also about style. The “bat poo crazy” language was, for Joyce, a marker of the kind of political immaturity that disqualified a party from serious consideration. By 2025 and into 2026, One Nation had demonstrated a capacity to influence policy outcomes without holding government, and Hanson had proved more durable and more strategically shrewd than almost any of her critics had anticipated. The question of style remained, but the question of substance had shifted.
Joyce’s move accelerated a dynamic that was already underway: the normalisation of One Nation as a legitimate component of Australian conservative politics rather than its embarrassing fringe. His presence on the Senate ticket lends the party a credibility it could not have purchased with advertising, and his experience in government gives it something it has always lacked – a plausible claim to administrative competence. Whether that claim survives contact with the reality of Senate politics is a different matter, but the reputational benefit of his recruitment is not trivial.
Analysis: Opportunism, Evolution, or the Collapse of the Middle?
The simplest interpretation of Joyce’s trajectory is opportunism: a career politician, sidelined and resentful, jumping to the vehicle most likely to keep him relevant as his original party declined. There is enough truth in this reading to make it uncomfortable for Joyce’s defenders. His 2017 attacks on One Nation were not ambiguous. He did not say the party was imperfect or needed reform. He said it would destroy the country. To then join that party eight years later, citing philosophical alignment, requires a degree of revisionism that strains credibility.
And yet pure opportunism is too thin an explanation. Joyce’s ideological profile – sceptical of climate action, hostile to foreign ownership, protective of resource industries, suspicious of metropolitan cultural assumptions – had always been closer to One Nation’s instincts than to those of the urban Liberal moderates who had increasingly dominated the Coalition’s identity. His attacks on One Nation in 2016 and 2017 reflected the institutional constraints of leading a junior coalition partner, not a fundamental philosophical disagreement with everything the party stood for. Remove those constraints – as his estrangement from the Nationals eventually did – and the ideological convergence becomes visible.
There is also a structural argument worth taking seriously. Australian conservatism is fragmenting. The Liberal-National coalition, which served as the organisational vehicle for right-of-centre politics for most of the postwar period, is under pressure from multiple directions: from the teal independents in prosperous inner-metropolitan seats, from One Nation and the populist right in regional and outer-suburban seats, and from internal ideological incoherence on the questions that matter most to contemporary voters. Into this fragmentation, Joyce’s defection fits not as an anomaly but as a logical extension – a data point in a longer series that suggests the Coalition’s centre may not hold.
What Joyce’s story ultimately reveals is the degree to which party loyalty in Australian politics is contingent on personal advancement and institutional capacity. When the Nationals could offer Joyce relevance, influence, and a platform for the issues he cared about, he was a loyal if difficult member. When it could no longer offer those things, the philosophical objections to One Nation – which were always partly strategic anyway – dissolved more quickly than his public statements from 2017 would have suggested possible. The criticism was real; the commitment to that criticism was not unconditional.
Conclusion: The Pivot and What it Tells Us
Barnaby Joyce’s evolution from One Nation’s most colourful critic to one of its most prominent recruits is, on its face, a story about one politician’s willingness to contradict himself in pursuit of continued relevance. But it is also something more: a window into the structural pressures reshaping Australian conservatism, the mainstreaming of a populist politics that was once considered safely marginal, and the limits of institutional loyalty when institutions fail the people who built them.
His 2016 and 2017 attacks on One Nation were not fabrications. He believed, or gave every appearance of believing, that the party was unfit to govern, that its rhetoric was dangerous, and that its leader’s instincts were “bat poo crazy.” That he now leads One Nation’s Senate campaign in New South Wales does not erase those statements; it simply places them in a context that makes them look like what, on reflection, they partly were – the calculated interventions of a coalition politician managing an electoral threat, rather than the principled convictions of a man who would hold to them regardless of personal circumstance.
The broader lesson is less about Joyce’s character than about Australian democratic culture. In a political environment where the major parties have lost the confidence of substantial portions of the electorate, where minor parties have demonstrated genuine capacity to shift the national conversation, and where voters increasingly prioritise outcome over consistency, the kind of pivot Joyce has executed carries less political cost than it might once have done. Public memory is short. The people of regional New South Wales may forgive, or simply forget, what the man said in 2017.
What they will be less likely to forgive, if it comes to it, is a failure to deliver. Joyce’s recruitment is an argument that One Nation can be more than a protest party – that it can attract experienced legislators, develop serious policy positions, and exercise responsible power. It is a claim still to be tested. In the meantime, his journey stands as a case study in the particular arithmetic of Australian populism: the calculation that conviction, when it becomes inconvenient, can always be reclassified as evolution.
Postscript: The Dog that Didn’t Bark
One feature of Joyce’s defection has attracted less commentary than it deserves: the relative equanimity with which many regional voters appear to have received it. Polling in New England and across comparable Queensland and New South Wales rural seats in late 2025 and early 2026 did not register the surge of outrage that Joyce’s critics in the media and the major parties anticipated. For many voters in those communities, the calculation seemed less moral than practical. Joyce had delivered – or had tried to deliver – on the issues they cared about. One Nation was now, they reasoned, more likely to hold a government’s feet to the fire on those same issues than a rump National Party operating in permanent opposition. In that reading, Joyce’s flip was not a betrayal of principle but a change of instrument. Whether that judgment proves correct is a question the next Senate will answer. What it suggests, for now, is that the voters who matter most to Joyce’s future are applying a standard of effectiveness rather than consistency – and that in regional Australia, at least, the political memory for what was said in 2017 may be shorter than the metropolitan press assumes.
– – –
Bakchos is the founder of Blak and Black, an Australian media and advocacy platform established in 2010. Bakchos writes from the intersecting perspectives of Wiradjuri heritage, Jewish identity, and humanism.
© Bakchos, June 2026
Barnaby Joyce is without morals or genuine political convictions.
Fully agree Lady Margaret, Barnaby Joyce is totally without morals and principles.
Joyce’s recruitment is an argument that One Nation can be more than a protest party – that it can attract experienced legislators, develop serious policy positions, and exercise responsible power. It is a claim still to be tested.