The dramatic fracture within the Coalition has plunged the Liberal Party into a profound crisis, yet simultaneously opened a door to unexpected opportunity. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described the partnership as "smouldering wreckage," asserting that the Liberals cannot secure government without their traditional allies. Nationals leader David Littleproud echoes this sentiment, claiming his party's support is essential for a Liberal-led administration.
A Question of Leadership and Legacy
However, the credibility of these warnings is questionable. Turnbull himself lost the prime ministership due to an inability to manage internal party dissent. Littleproud is currently witnessing defections to One Nation and struggling to maintain control of his own party room. Neither figure has established a record of sustained leadership success, placing them in a weak position to lecture others on political strategy—especially when their own tenures contributed significantly to the very divisions they now lament.
I propose a counterintuitive thesis: the Liberal Party cannot achieve electoral victory with the Nationals, but it could very well win without them. This split forces Deputy Liberal Leader Sussan Ley to confront a critical choice, one previously faced by two former leaders named Malcolm in starkly different ways.
The Two Malcolms: A Study in Contrast
Malcolm Turnbull attempted to preserve party unity by accommodating reactionary conservative elements. This strategy ultimately cost him both his authority and his leadership. In contrast, Malcolm Fraser championed a vision of liberalism for a modern Australia, drawing inspiration from philosopher John Stuart Mill. He advocated for multiculturalism and progressive social policies—positions that elements within the contemporary Coalition now actively oppose.
Regardless of one's view on his role in the 1975 dismissal, Fraser's application of liberal principles in government provides a potential model for the party today. Since his era, the party has steadily drifted from its liberal roots. Paul Keating successfully labelled the Liberals as "the conservatives," a tag John Howard appeared comfortable with, if not pleased by.
The Cost of Coalition and Conservative Drift
The dynamic with the Nationals has historically constrained Liberal policy. The Nationals, while effectively representing their rural base, hold a limited number of electorates. Their voters are unlikely to switch to Labor, but they do not deliver the additional seats necessary for a Liberal majority government. Their real influence has stemmed from an ability to veto policies that challenge their core constituencies.
This arrangement has increasingly left Liberal MPs out of step with their own electorates, accelerating the loss of seats to independents and minor parties. The recent defection of Barnaby Joyce to One Nation exemplifies the problem. One Nation's platform, defined by opposition to immigration, a narrow national identity, and a propensity to blame elites, offers no credible agenda for governing a diverse, modern nation.
Seizing the Regional Opportunity
While One Nation's profile has risen in recent polls, its prospects in lower-house contests under Australia's preferential voting system remain limited. A clearer, more confident Liberal Party could view One Nation's advance not as an existential threat, but as a test. It presents an opportunity to offer rural and regional Australia a different centre-right vision—one based on serious, long-term regional development, infrastructure investment, and support for farmers and small businesses.
Both One Nation and the Nationals often patronise their supporters by assuming regional Australians are driven primarily by resentment. In reality, most want the same things as everyone else: a fair go, local job opportunities, business success, affordable housing, and a peaceful country. A modern Liberal Party could meet these aspirations directly, rather than ceding representation to parties that trade on grievance.
A Timid Government and a Divided Opposition
Meanwhile, the Labor government is squandering the political capital of its massive majority, governing with notable timidity. Major reforms from the 2008 Henry tax review gather dust, housing affordability worsens, and the nation still lacks a sovereign wealth fund from its mineral resources. A competent opposition would hold Labor rigorously to account for this waste. Instead, the Liberals are too consumed by internal division to mount an effective challenge. This internal strife does Labor's work for it, and the nation is poorer for the lack of robust debate.
The Path to Revival: A Fraser-inspired Future
There is an alternative path. A revived Liberal Party could reflect Malcolm Fraser's outlook: embracing progressive social and environmental policies, recognising that diversity strengthens the country, and committing to shared standards of opportunity and fairness. Its agenda would include tackling long-delayed tax reform, addressing housing as a home rather than a speculative asset, defending accountable government within fair market rules, and advocating for a referendum on four-year parliamentary terms.
Rebuilding on these principles would take time and involve costs. Some party members and voters would depart. It would require candidates and policies aligned with contemporary Australia, with sustained focus on economic reform, climate and energy, housing, tax, and the practicalities of a multicultural society. Yet a coherent Liberal Party focused on governing, rather than protesting, could become competitive again in lost seats, gain new ground in regional Australia, and offer voters a credible alternative to Labor.
The alternative is clear: continuing to manage internal division and reactive politics will lead to further electoral decline. Malcolm Turnbull faced this choice and compromised until he lost everything. Malcolm Fraser applied liberal principles to introduce forward-looking policies. One Malcolm backed down; the other stood up. The question now rests with Sussan Ley and the Liberal Party: which path will they choose?
