Internal divisions have emerged within the Liberal party regarding potential electoral cooperation with One Nation, following a suggestion from a shadow minister that the two conservative parties should align to defeat Labor. While some members advocate for strategic seat-sharing to consolidate votes, senior leadership, including Angus Taylor, have explicitly rejected the proposal, citing a focus on re-establishing the party’s own credibility with voters.
Did You Know? Former Liberal prime minister John Howard historically maintained a firm stance of placing One Nation last on Liberal party preference cards during his tenure, a strategy that contrasts with the more fluid discussions currently occurring within the party ranks.
Why the debate over seat cooperation matters
The discussion reflects growing anxiety within the Coalition regarding the electoral threat posed by One Nation, which is currently polling ahead of both major parties. Tony Pasin, a Liberal shadow minister representing the rural South Australian seat of Barker, argued that the two parties should “work hand-in-glove” to identify which seats are best targeted by either the Coalition or One Nation. Pasin, whose own seat saw One Nation poll strongly during the 2025 election, suggested this could allow the parties to “get two seats for the price of one.”
Expert Insight: The friction between Pasin’s local survival strategy and the central party’s national brand management highlights a classic political dilemma. By potentially “hitching their wagon” to the One Nation brand, as Liberal Senator James Paterson warned, the party risks alienating moderate voters, even if such a deal might prevent the splitting of the conservative vote in specific rural electorates.
How the Liberal party leadership responded
Angus Taylor, a senior Liberal figure, dismissed the possibility of a formal arrangement during an interview with the ABC on Thursday. “No, there’s no plan to carve up seats. We won’t be doing that,” Taylor stated, emphasizing that the party’s priority is to critique the current Labor government on issues like housing, taxation, and immigration. James Paterson echoed this rejection on Radio National, describing any talk of preference swaps as “premature” and questioning the quality of One Nation’s candidates.
What could happen next
One Nation is continuing its campaign independently, with Pauline Hanson recently identifying several Labor-held seats as primary targets. While One Nation claims to have raised over $1.7 million for these efforts, the figure remains unverified as the party does not disclose donations in real-time. If the Liberal party maintains its refusal to cooperate, the two groups may end up competing for the same voter base in key seats, a scenario that historically risks splitting the conservative vote and potentially aiding Labor’s re-election chances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who suggested the Liberal party and One Nation should work together?
Tony Pasin, a Liberal shadow minister from South Australia, proposed that the two parties should coordinate to determine which seats each should target to maximize their electoral success.
What is the official position of the Liberal party leadership?
Angus Taylor has explicitly rejected the idea of “carving up seats,” stating that the party is focused on its own platform and re-earning the trust of the electorate.
Why does James Paterson oppose the idea?
Paterson argues that the Liberal party should run in every seat, believes the discussion is premature, and has expressed concerns about the “calibre” of One Nation’s candidates.
How do you think a formal preference deal between the Liberal party and One Nation would influence your vote in the next election?