Laurie Oakes interviews Barnaby Joyce, Senate National Party Leader.

LAURIE OAKES: Senator, welcome to the program.

BARNABY JOYCE: Thanks Laurie thanks you for having me.

LAURIE OAKES: It was a total fiasco on the Coalition side in the Senate in the early hours of Friday morning, on that vote on infrastructure. What went wrong? What happened?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well, Laurie, it starts with the Telstra enabling legislation where we made a promise to the Australian people that they could trust us because we had put aside money that was going to deal with the issues of remote and regional Australia. That was a contract, it was a warrant and I believe we went to the election with it and we had to abide by it.

Then the vote went to the Senate and proved we had the numbers to extract that package because both the Coalition, the National Party, the Liberal Party, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding voted so we proved that we had the numbers to extract it. It went to the Lower House then and that point in time we had a lot of speeches reinforcing the requirements and the need to extract that $2.4 billion and keep it quarantined.

Then it came back to the Upper House, back to the Senate, and we were expected to pass it at 10:22 we were voting against it and at 11.15 we were voting to give the Labor Party access to this money which, of course, they would be squandered because they're talking about a package that will only cover 80 percent of Australia, so the whole purpose, and the whole meaning of that fund would then therefore be lost.

But you, that's the life of politics. It's clear there was a concern that the infrastructure funds would not be passed in total if that amount was extracted.

We got advice from the Senate as to whether that was the case. They said, quite definitively, that the package can go forward, that the $12.6 billion in the infrastructure and communications fund would just become $10.2 or - and we would still be able to put that infrastructure package forward with the other $5 billion with the other whatever it was - $8.7 billion and life would go on. So we covered our bases and obviously there was only one decision - not just the National Party, but anybody who had a speech, saying how important that infrastructure fund was - there was only one way you could vote and that was to honour your trust and commitment to the Australian people and try and maintain that fund.

LAURIE OAKES: Well, in that vote you and three other Nationals crossed the floor along with two Liberals, but the rest of the Liberal Party either voted with Labor or abstained. How do you think rural voters will view that action?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well, funnily enough, I don't see it as crossing the floor. I see it as staying exactly where we were supposed to be. We were maintaining the Government policy. We were maintaining our position in opposing the Labor Government's decision to get rid of that. We were supported by a whole range - by other Liberal Party senators and also a whole range of other people who knew quite well that you wouldn't have the capacity to go back to your community and hold a straight face because they'd look at you and say, look "You're unbelievable."

LAURIE OAKES: Well, the National Party members on the Coalition frontbench went along with the decision to vote with Labor when it came back to the Senate. What's your view of their action? Did they sell-out?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well. No, I understand the role of certain people, and the executive, who have to do certain, you know have to abide by decisions that are made. I was actually quite humbled by the support that we got from our Liberal Party colleagues on this issue. The only reason they got that support is not because we were the National Party, because the decision we made was right.

LAURIE OAKES: But, Warren Truss, the leader, and other members of the frontbench who are Nationals, didn't object to this decision, of the Shadow Cabinet, what's going wrong with the National Party, it's dysfunctional, isn't it?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well,I don't know whether that's the case. I mean, my clear understanding of the intent, unless it was a mimic, was what happened in the lower house. That was the expression of interest that they gave to the Australian people about how they saw this legislation. And quite clearly, in the lower house, and I watched the monintor to see how the lower house acted, they voted in support of the same position that we had. That was to keep that $2.4 billion quarantined for regional Australia. That's the way they voted, they gave some great speeches as to why they should do it and I reflected their views when the legislation arrived back in the Senate.

LAURIE OAKES: But, the Shadow Cabinet had decided days earlier, I think on November 24, that when it went back to the Senate, that they would allow the Labor Party to have its legislation, now, what do you make of that decision, when were you told about it, and who told you?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well, there were discussions around it obviously. I made my position quite clear to Senator Minchin that if, - I'm not in Shadow Cabinet and that's one of the good reasons I'm not - that when that came back, we would have obviously honour our commitment to the Australian people, especially the people of regional Australia. That would have to be consistent in the way we voted.

That we would vote the way we voted in the Senate, especially now it was determined we had the numbers to excise it. Yes, there was, that is the role of the Senate. You would have to, if I was in the Shadow Cabinet then, I suppose I would have a greater insight in to what the machinations were there, but that is not my position. My position was to look at the commitment we gave to the Australian people. Look at the consistency of how we voted in both the Senate and in the Lower House within the last 12 hours. And try and maintain that package. It was an election commitment after all.

LAURIE OAKES: But, why won't you join the Shadow Cabinet? If you'd been in the Shadow Cabinet you could have argued your case in there?

BARNABY JOYCE: Well, there's obviously a belief and quite rightly that there will be a sense of consistency that you'll maintain your position, discipline. I do believe that it would be a way of basically circumventing, you know, the capacity of myself and others in the National Party to properly fulfil our role as senators, especially on some of these regional issues. We had the carbon sync legislation earlier on that was of a similar issue. My contract to the Australian people and the other senators' contract to the Australian people is that if it's wrong, you express it in how you vote.

LAURIE OAKES: The Liberal argument expressed by Andrew Robb, among others, is that if they had rejected the Government's legislation, that would have blocked $26 billion of infrastructure spending, the Labor Party would have gone to every seat and said you're not going to get your dam, you're not going to get your bridge because the evil Coalition blocked the money. That would have been suicide for you, wouldn't it, for the Coalition?

BARNABY JOYCE: No, well the point is that I'd be happy to stand in front of yourself Laurie, and any other person from the fourth estate and say well, that is a lie because it is not blocked. We had the advice. All that would have happened is the infrastructure fund would have gone forward without the $2.4 billion which is the $2 billion we got plus a $400 millio