The Liberal-National coalition, the opposition group in the Australia Parliament, has split up over the Liberals’ support for the government’s new hate speech laws, introduced after the Bondi Bay shooting.
The split was announced on the National Day of Mourning for the shootings.
Terrible timimg aside, is this a one-off, or does it presage a long-term split?
The Nationals are the political lobby for the mining industry, rather than the rural industries as they were originally formed to represent. Big on subsidies notwithstanding otherwise tinder dry economics.
They have been a waning force, and an increasingly disfunctional rabble for decades.
Being from a regional farming family, they are my political heritage. At our local polling booth at the one room primary school, it was typical that only one vote, (some times unanimous) out of about 150 ballots not to be cast for the Country Party/National Party). We always had suspicions that the school teacher had leftist tendencies.
Then the mining lobby, especially coal became the major funder and benefactor. The regional farming populations have fallen precipitously and regional electorates became town based where the Liberals and Labor perform better. Once the Nationals lose an electorate they rarely get it back.
The Nationals power base is Queensland (Australia’s Florida) where concern of white shoes, rednecks and gerrymander fuel the factional warlords intrays. The “Joh for Canberra” movement in ‘87 fractured the coalition and condemned them to four consecutive terms in opposition and a coushy run for Bob Hawke. The relationship has barely been functional since. The Pauline Hansen One Nation infatuation chips away at their conservative economic/conservative social base. Are now naturally antipathetic to the global warming movement, though their residual farming based constituency has crossed over to thinking it might be a good idea, The Nationals think in terms of “dig it, ship it, burn it”. Continually agitate to weaken the national gun laws. Some of Australia’s most deadly reptiles live in the National Party caucus.
That the Libs are currently lead by a woman (Susan Ley) doesn’t help, even if she has an intractably small needle eye to fit. She can’t hold them together. Doubt there’s anybody who could. Waiting in the wings for a comeback is Josh Freudenburg, whose political rise was skewered by the Teals. The Libs will struggle to be a coherent opposition until that environmental rift (on their left) is healed and that will further repel the Nationals.
The current spat notionally over hate speech … the Nationals want to be able to scream racist abuse back at the imams … is a pretext. They are the antipodean MAGA or UKIP. But structurally they will never have the electoral support to be anything other than a minority spoiler.
A split coalition means continual electoral success for Labor. But even when in government they were nowt but a ginger group minority and essentially feral.
Fuck ‘em.
An updated post that possibly only one person on The Dope might read, but what the hell … 
On May 9th 2026 there was a by-election in the Australian Federal seat of Farrer in southwest NSW following the resignation of former Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley. The by-election had zero impact on the make-up of Federal parliament, but it did shape as a measure of where the Australian centre/right political block was.
Farrer is the electorate where I grew up and the vast majority of my family still live within its boundaries.
The electorate is much transformed since it was created in 1949, growing substantially towards the west but always with the regional centre of Albury within its boundaries. It’s 127,000 km2 with 126,000 registered voters. It’s roughly 800kms east-west and 250km north-south at it’s widest point. The Murray River and NSW/VIC border forms its southern boundary. It’s the second largest electorate in NSW and the 10th largest in Australia. Fun fact: Farrer and the 9 larger electorates cover 89.4% of Australia. In terms of land area Farrer is larger than North Carolina, New York or Mississippi.
Almost 60% of the electorate lives in the greater Albury area at the southeast corner of the electorate. The character of the electorate ranges from regional to rural to remote.
Since 1949 there have been only 4 members elected, all of them conservative and who have through persistence, patience and longevity all managed to rise to posts in Federal Cabinet.
David Fairburn; member for 25 years, winning 11 elections
Wal Fife; member for 17 years, winning 4 elections
Tim Fisher; member for 16 years, winning 6
Sussan Ley; member for 24 years, winning 9 elections
Both Fisher and Ley were leaders of their political party.
So, what does all that context have to do with the OP?
When the Liberals lost BIG under ScoMo the electoral core of the coalition fragmented. The inner city economically conservative, socially progressive electorates went to a new grouping of independents termed “The Teals”. Increasingly the LIBs lost a large chunk of their city-based constituency to the left of their platform. Conversely the NATs lost a large chunk of their regional constituency to the far right i.e. Australia’s MAGA/Reform equivalent of One Nation, led by our very own political hydra Pauline Hansen.
To reconcile this near impossible marriage the LIBs elected Susann Ley as leader. Ley is earnest enough but frankly had few credentials save longevity and lack of viable alternatives going for her. Her relationship with the on/off partnering NATs was dysfunctional from the beginning. It was Buckley’s that she could last the 2-3 terms in opposition necessary to rebuild the coalition back to a position of being a government in waiting. Her period as leader lasted 276 days before the rats, the finks and the reptiles revolted and after losing a party leadership spill she resigned as leader and from parliament at the end of Feb-26. Ergo the by-election.
To maximise the political infighting within their opposition, the Federal Labor Party did not stand a candidate. They had no chance anyway and the opportunity to watch safely by as the disunited and fractious centre, right and far right of domestic politics tore at each other’s eyes was political schadenfreude.
A Melbourne Cup field of 12 stood. None had held State or Federal office. Most were first-time candidates. While the media hoped for fireworks and column inches, it was a largely mundane campaign of gaffs and local issues rather than high oratory and national policy. It boiled down to a race of two, The One Nation candidate David Farley and independent Michelle Milthorpe. The LIB and NAT candidates whose parties had held the seat for 77 years were marginalised and resorted to preferencing One Nation.
Out of the 94 polling booths operating, Milthorpe won the booths around Albury, Farley won the others. Another fun fact: Farrer ran 8 mobile polling booths that visited every hospital/hospice/retirement home in the electorate so patients and residents could cast their vote. Primary votes gave Farley a comfortable 39.5% lead over Milthorpe with 28.1%. After distribution of preference (i.e. IRV) Farley was declared duly elected with 57.6% of the two party preferred vote.
So, Australia’s far-right nationalist/populist party gets its first candidate into the Federal House of Representatives. To give a measure of that achievement, The Greens only have one. What remains of the conservatives is disorganized, dysfunctional, feuding rump.
Notionally this is a champagne and caviar result for Federal Labor. At a time when it is global open season against parties holding office, they have won two elections and are now a lay-down misère of winning the next two by commanding or even landslide margins.
Where it gets interesting is that Farley is not one of the stereotypical One Nation reptiles. I met the guy briefly once. Interesting bloke with a solid ego. He has already announced he will display the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in his offices alongside the Australian flag. This will certainly fire up the racists in One Nation. He has already said that the current Australian immigration policy is “about right”. The One Nation xenophobe will fall out of their tree. He is progressive enough to rile the fundamentalist white Christian thugs in One Nation. He’s talking with the ABC (Australian (public) Broadcasting Corporation who were banned from One Nation events during the campaign. Regional Australia really loves the ABC with its commitment to local affairs, albeit with a touch of leftie bias, that urban Australia who rely on more on commercial media simply do not understand.
I suspect he has seen a gilt opportunity, has held his nose and rode the prevailing populist horse into parliament, then likely within months when he gets carpeted and kicked out by the One Nation hierarchy he will sit as an independent for Farrer as long as he aspires.
Am rather sanguine about the whole affair, actually.
Interesting. In some respects not unlike what’s happening in the UK, where voters have been shifting within broad left/right blocs (and I think something similar has been happening on the Continent).
The idea of parties/coalitions as “broad churches” doesn’t seem to apply any more (certainly our own extreme right is just as fissiparous as yours, and even more than the extreme left used to be).
I think the parallels with the UK are rather strong.
In both cases this populist/nationalist right wing has risen to a prominence on appealing to the worser angels of our nature.
I don’t know the chances of Farage holding his crew together.
Pauline will need to scrape the dregs to find sufficient candidates to contest in any election. They will be an impossible clowder of cats to herd.
And like Reform, One Nation has some dubious financial connections.
A while ago a couple of them went to the US trying to obtain $20mil from the NRA but “got on the sauce” and were exposed by an undercover al-Jazeera reporter.
If they actually do get their snouts near the Treasury benches it will be manna from heaven for the political cartoonists.
BTW love “fissiparous” … I’m going to steal it!
He has a record of falling out with his successive fan clubs. He thinks they’re a business of which he’s the sole proprietor, they think they’re a political party, of sorts.
The sudden influx of Reform local councillors has created some additions to the gaiety of nations, as some clearly weren’t expecting to be elected, let alone having any idea about what that would involve. So there has been a small rush of resignations from those who didn’t like the idea of turning up for meetings/reading papers/thinking about financial problems, etc. To be fair, the same problem’s hit the Greens as well.
Meanwhile, the Reform candidate in an important upcoming by-election is falling foul of the curse of social media archives.
The latest The Australian Financial Review /Redbridge Group/Accent Research poll now “reveals” primary support for One Nation is now at 31% and exceeding Labor Government support at 28%. For an astounding 25% of that poll, Pauline Hanson is preferred Prime Minister.
Having never held a political office or run anything more complex than a fish & chip shop and her diligence to the limited committee role she has shown by a level of absenteeism that marks her as a freeloading truant.
There must be hordes amongst the Queensland white shoe brigade she commands who fantasise about Pauline in thigh length black leather boots, naked to the waist, auburn lock flowing, riding in a chariot and wielding a stock whip. You sick fucks.
Labor’s lead over One Nation on a two party preferred basis is now 51-49.
Hanson’s net favourability is now zero versus Prime Minister Albanese’s net favourability of -19%.
We collectively have absolutely lost our chewie, gone troppo, are going off like a frog in a sock and patently not the full 43 beans. Well maybe not.
If you took every one of the 31% of the 1005 surveyed One Nation would just have sufficient bodies to nominate and second candidates for the 152 electoral divisions. Contrary to popular (and polled belief) there are just not that many certifiable nut cases with political aspirations in the country to fill the vacancies. Serial pest and professional litigant Clive Palmer couldn’t find that many in his several attempts. Australia’s wealthiest billionaire Gina Rinehart will likely bankroll them, just to show they really do have the common touch.
At worse will be a bloody violent storm in a teapot. But then again I thought 45/47 was unelectable on much the same basis before he became 45.
I just wanted to say a “thank you” for an insight into Australian politics that is sadly lacking in any US-facing news. It was a wonderful read.
Gazooks … I’ve won a erundite readership??? … whodda thunk that possible?
Frankly this update was trying to attract to attention of the OP @Northern_Piper who hasn’t been seen for a while and @Spoons and I are getting a tad concerned. Come on down you excessively polite wig-wearing shyster, you are being missed.
but back on theme…
As their first policy announcement post their by-election triumph, One Nation sent out Barnaby Joyce to spruik a populist housing initiative.
Now Australia has long had a housing problem. Everybody wants to live in the big cities and the costs are bloody prohibitive. Owning your own home is a core Australian dream, and about 70% do, down on historical highs. To foster this aspiration we have favourable capital gains tax arrangements. Getting yourself hocked to the gunnels on residential property is the Great Australian way of getting rich. And seeking these green rivers of tax advantage, investors, both local and overseas, are now the primary buyers. Which is really, really good for the estates of the folks in my generation and much less so for our kids who are now close to economically locked out and queue around the block to rent a 2 bedroom unit.
And a fair proportion of these investors are Chinese, which ties in neatly with One Nation xenophobia as to “something needs to be done”. At the last Federal Budget, Labor bit the bullet and proposed some unwinding of this capital gains largess. Understandably self-interested voices erupted. Labor approval plummeted. One Nation saw an opportunity to capitalise as the voice
Now Barnaby would be as good a retail politician as we have. Be even better if he could keep his zip zipped. So he gets his briefing notes and fronts a press conference where One Nation announces that to relieve the housing crisis all non-Australian citizens would be banned from the residential property market and those who own property will be required to divest and sell to an Australian buyer within two years. Even the hint of resumption, eminent domain or compulsory acquisition is floated. The press gaggle goes wild.
Qualification are issued with unseemly haste, well panic. Six separate statements in 24 hours, not being conclusive or coherent. Permanent residents are exempt, it was just foreigners and temporary visa holders who would be “issued with a disposal order” and failure to comply resulting in major fines or imprisonment under the guise they were conducting a hostile foreign take-over. Really.
And this confuzzled, raddled and slatternly attention to detail comes from the notional senior figures within the party. It is true, although stretches belief considerably, that One Nation is now leading in the polls. But there is a long way to go before being recognised as a serious political outfit.
As described by veteran political commentator Barrie Cassidy, there is not so much a ceiling to One Nation support, but a wall.
Australia is an oversized but highly urbanised country. As noted upthread, 90% of the landmass fall into 10 of the 150 federal electorates. Even if One Nation could sweep it’s constituency esp Queensland, Western Australia and northern New South Wales rural, even provincial they don’t appeal to the cities and metropolitan areas to anywhere near the same degree and as shown by the AEC table below of electorates by demographics, that’s where the numbers are.
| States/Demographic | Inner Metro | Outer Metro | Provincial | Rural | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Capital Territory | 3 | 3 | |||
| New South Wales | 14 | 12 | 9 | 11 | 46 |
| Northern Territory | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Queensland | 4 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 30 |
| South Australia | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | |
| Tasmania | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Victoria | 11 | 12 | 6 | 9 | 38 |
| Western Australia | 6 | 7 | 3 | 16 | |
| Grand Total | 43 | 45 | 24 | 38 | 150 |
IIRC then, you don’t have any of the USA’s issues where very low population states have disproportionate influence due to equal representation by state in the Senate.
With the net effect that it’s at least more representational of the actual population.
Or did I misunderstand completely?
[ again, ignorant American getting a deep dive here into Aussie politics, I admit my flaws ]
Like the US the Australian Senate is a “States” house, though party allegiances here are much stronger than state ties.
All states get the same senate representation of 12, with the two territories each having 2, making the total Senate of 76. Consequently the Tasmania population of a bit over half a million gets equal Senate representation to New South Wales with a bit over 8 million. So there is significant disproportion, but generally less influence.
[States also have a legislated minimum of 5 seats. This only effects Tasmania so their HoR seats are smaller than for the mainland]
The Australian Senate is elected using proportional representation (the HoR uses preference voting) and according more closely represents the political leaning of the population than HoR. There are 17 minor party Senators and 2 independents in the 76. In fact they are well overrepresented. But this is a factor of parliamentary size. With 12 senators per state minority party representation is at it’s zenith. As population increases the number of HoR seats will increase. The Senate is by statute half the size of the HoR. At some forseeable point the Senate will increase to 14/state and at that point the minor parties will be likely wiped out.
| State/Territory/Commonwealth | 2021 Census | Senate Quota |
|---|---|---|
| New South Wales | 8,339,347 | 694,945 |
| Victoria | 6,503,491 | 541,957 |
| Queensland | 5,156,138 | 429,678 |
| Western Australia | 2,660,026 | 221,668 |
| South Australia | 1,781,516 | 148,459 |
| Tasmania | 557,571 | 46,464 |
Ah, that makes somewhat more sense. Okay, ignorance fought.
At some idealistic level, I do want everyone’s POV to be represented, in the ideal world where everyone is educated, capable of at least pragmatic idealism, plus able and willing to do basic research on politicians and topics.
In the real world of 2026… crazed cults of personality, Conspiracy theorists, and fringe wackos seem to be overrepresented and the ideal voter mentioned earlier vanishingly rare… so I’m more happy than I’m comfortable with seeing a number of fringe nutjobs being edged out.