Coalition at Crossroads: Why the Liberal-National Partnership Needs a Final Break
In a stark assessment of Australian conservative politics, former Liberal senator and ACT chief minister Gary Humphries has declared it's time for the Coalition to finally settle its divorce. Writing in February 2026, Humphries contends the decades-long partnership between the Liberal and National parties has become a stale, unhealthy relationship that hinders the Liberal Party's capacity to speak to a broader Australia.
A Marriage of Convenience That Has Outlived Its Purpose
Humphries describes the Coalition as fundamentally a marriage of convenience, originally designed to secure government benefits rather than representing genuine ideological alignment. He argues that in recent years, this partnership has resembled a loveless marriage maintained only for practical advantages, with the affection long since dried up.
The core problem, according to Humphries, lies in the National Party's identity as a party of vested interests, primarily representing agrarian concerns despite its 1970s-1980s rebranding from the Country Party. He notes that except in Queensland, the Nationals never successfully transitioned to representing urban Australians, remaining essentially the Country Party in all but name.
How the Partnership Damages Liberal Prospects
Humphries presents several compelling arguments about how the Coalition arrangement harms the Liberal Party:
- Policy Compromise: On critical issues like net zero emissions by 2050, the need to accommodate National Party priorities has damaged the Liberals both in perception and reality.
- Alliance Limitations: The mechanistic alliance with the Nationals has ironically hindered the Liberal Party's capacity to form alliances with other political groups, while Labor has proven more adept at cross-party deals.
- Historical Evidence: Humphries cites the failures of the Kennett government in 1999 Victoria and the Abbott opposition in 2010 to secure support from rural independents, while Labor successfully negotiated governing arrangements in both cases.
The Changing Political Landscape Demands Adaptation
Humphries emphasizes that political culture is transforming across Australia and democratic nations worldwide. Support for traditional major parties continues to decline, with Australian Election Study data showing that while 80% of Australians voted for the three major parties in 1967, this had fallen to just 55% by 2025 and continues dropping.
This trend suggests that majority governments will become increasingly elusive, requiring parties to negotiate supply agreements or form coalitions with unlikely partners. Humphries points to European models where multi-party coalitions frequently include partners from across the political spectrum, with green-right alliances sometimes demonstrating surprising durability.
A Path Forward for the Liberal Party
The former senator argues that the Liberal Party faces a critical policy deficit, with voters uncertain about what the party represents. Having lost its traditional advantage over Labor as the better economic manager, the party urgently needs comprehensive policy renewal to address alienation among younger voters, women, and migrants.
Humphries suggests that with the National Party increasingly focused on competing with One Nation to the right, the Liberal Party cannot afford the drag effect of its coalition partner on this renewal process. He advocates for Liberal policy to stand independently rather than representing anaemic compromises with narrower National Party interests.
From Trial Separation to Final Resolution
Humphries acknowledges that the Coalition attempted a trial separation less than a year before his writing, but notes that differences proved irreconcilable once the Nationals returned to the partnership. He warns that maintaining a facade of unity risks leaving the Liberals walking away penniless from a messy divorce when the inevitable separation occurs.
Rather than complete cessation of cooperation, Humphries proposes casual arrangements might better serve both parties than a formal, steady relationship. This approach would allow the Liberal Party greater flexibility to negotiate with emerging political forces like the teal independents when forming future governments.
The former senator concludes with a simple prescription: Change the locks, move on. His analysis presents a sobering assessment of a political partnership that may have outlived its usefulness in Australia's evolving democratic landscape.
