The political press gallery is currently hyperventilating over Barnaby Joyce’s suggestion that One Nation might "go for government" and Ted O’Brien’s subsequent, predictable rejection of a formal Coalition. They are treating it like a scandal. They are treating it like a threat to the stability of the Right.
They are dead wrong.
The standard narrative—the lazy consensus you’ll find in every major masthead—is that Pauline Hanson’s outfit is a parasitic force that cannibalizes the LNP vote and makes the Coalition "unelectable" to the teal-leaning urbanites. The logic goes like this: any proximity to One Nation is toxic, and any ambition from One Nation to actually govern is a fever dream that only serves to split the primary vote.
Here is the truth the consultants won't tell you because it threatens their billable hours: One Nation’s pivot from "protest party" to "governing contender" is exactly the pressure valve the Australian Right needs. By demanding a seat at the table, One Nation isn't destroying the Coalition; it is providing it with a much-needed spine transplant.
The Myth of the Vote Splitter
For decades, the Liberal Party has operated under a delusion of "broad church" unity that has become a suicide pact. They try to be everything to everyone—centrist enough for North Shore Sydney, conservative enough for Central Queensland. The result? A beige, lukewarm policy platform that inspires nobody.
When One Nation claims they want to "go for government," they aren't just looking for leather seats in the front bench. They are signaling to the electorate that the days of the Coalition taking the conservative base for granted are over.
Critics argue that One Nation drives away "moderate" voters. This ignores the basic mechanics of preferential voting. In the Australian system, those votes don't just vanish into the ether. They circulate. A strong One Nation performance in regional hubs doesn't hand the seat to Labor; it forces the LNP to actually compete for those voters rather than assuming they have nowhere else to go.
I’ve watched campaigns spend millions trying to "sister" the vote, terrified that a strong right-wing minor party will trigger a landslide for the Left. In reality, the most successful periods of Coalition rule occurred when the fringe was vocal, active, and demanding. It keeps the majors honest. Without that friction, the Liberal Party drifts into a light-blue void where it becomes indistinguishable from the Labor Right.
Ted O’Brien’s Strategic Failure
When Ted O’Brien rejects the idea of adding One Nation to the Coalition, he thinks he’s projecting strength and "sensible" leadership. He isn't. He’s projecting fear. He is terrified of a headline in the Sydney Morning Herald or a sharp tweet from a teal independent.
Rejection is the easy path. It’s the "safe" play that satisfies the Canberra bubble. But it’s a failure of imagination.
The Coalition should be leaning into the tension. Instead of a flat "no," the response should be a challenge: "What do you bring to the table besides grievance?" By refusing to even engage with the premise of a broader conservative alliance, O’Brien is effectively telling a significant portion of the Australian electorate that their concerns about sovereignty, energy costs, and immigration are not welcome in a potential government.
Imagine a scenario where the Coalition actually negotiated. Not a merger—that’s a recipe for disaster—but a structured, transparent policy accord. You don't have to like Pauline Hanson to realize that her party represents a visceral, ignored segment of the working class. Shoving them into the "deplorable" corner only ensures that their energy remains purely destructive.
The Teal Delusion
The obsession with winning back the "Teal" seats has blinded the LNP to the massive erosion of their base in the suburbs and the regions. The media loves the Teals because they represent a comfortable, wealthy, urban aesthetic. But you don't win a majority in the House of Representatives by chasing the approval of people who find the concept of a coal mine offensive.
One Nation "going for government" forces the Coalition to look West and North. It forces a conversation about the cost of living that isn't filtered through the lens of ESG targets and "global citizenship."
The risk of a One Nation surge isn't that they win the Prime Ministership—they won't. The risk is that they become the only party talking about the reality of the Australian economy for the bottom 40% of earners. If the Coalition continues to treat One Nation as a pariah rather than a competitor for the soul of the Right, they deserve to lose.
The Hard Logic of Power
Let’s talk about the math. In a hung parliament—a scenario that is looking increasingly likely given the fragmentation of the Australian political landscape—the "rejection" of One Nation will last about as long as it takes to count the final preferences.
If One Nation holds the balance of power, the Coalition will deal. They will deal because the alternative is a Labor-Green-Teal alliance that would dismantle everything the LNP claims to stand for. O’Brien’s current stance is posturing. It’s a performance for an audience that won't vote for him anyway.
The contrarian move? Stop apologizing for the Right.
The Liberal Party needs to stop acting like a battered spouse, constantly trying to please a media class that wants them dead. If One Nation wants to move from the sidelines into the arena of governance, the Coalition should welcome the fight. A more aggressive, populist Right forces the "moderates" to define what they actually stand for, instead of just being "Labor-lite."
The Policy Spine
One Nation’s platform, while often crude, hits on the three things the Coalition is currently too scared to touch with a ten-foot pole:
- Energy Sovereignty: Real talk about nuclear and coal without the "net-zero" qualifiers that make Australian industry uncompetitive.
- Immigration and Infrastructure: A direct link between the rate of intake and the housing crisis, a topic the majors dance around with pathetic euphemisms.
- National Identity: A rejection of the creeping bureaucracy of "identity politics" that has paralyzed the public service.
When Barnaby Joyce says they will "go for government," he is acknowledging that these issues have a massive, untapped market. The Coalition’s rejection isn't a sign of moral superiority; it's a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. They have no answer to these points that doesn't involve offending someone in a corporate boardroom.
The Cost of "Safety"
The downside to my approach is obvious: it’s messy. It’s loud. It leads to ugly headlines. It makes the "sensibles" in the party room spill their lattes.
But the "safe" path—the Ted O’Brien path—leads to a slow, grinding irrelevance. It leads to a party that wins 35% of the primary vote and wonders why it can’t form a government. It leads to a party that is so scared of its own shadow that it lets the fringe set the agenda anyway, only from a position of weakness rather than strength.
The most successful conservative leaders in the world right now aren't the ones playing defense. They are the ones who co-opt the energy of the "insurgents" and channel it into a governing mandate.
One Nation is a symptom of a diseased political system. You don't cure the disease by ignoring the symptom. You cure it by addressing the underlying cause: a political class that has forgotten who it serves.
Stop worrying about whether One Nation is "ready" for government. Start worrying about why the Coalition is so afraid of the people who vote for them.
The era of the polite, two-party flip-flop is over. The future belongs to those who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in a coalition of necessity. If the LNP can't handle a bit of competition from the Right, they have no business trying to lead a country.
Quit the pearl-clutching. Start the negotiation.
