The Coalition Breakup: A Century of Political Alliance Hits a Sour Note
“I remember seeing footage, several years ago, of a jubilant Malcolm Turnbull, then prime minister and Liberal leader, speaking in Tamworth to loyal members of the National Party.” These were the grassroots campaigners who had worked tirelessly to re-elect Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce in New England after he was disqualified over dual citizenship with New Zealand.
It was a crucial moment. The Turnbull government clung to a fragile lower house majority, and Joyce’s defeat would have deeply shaken the Coalition’s numbers and morale. But Joyce triumphed. Turnbull celebrated by thanking voters for “getting the band back together,” praising it as proof of the Coalition’s strength.
While the band metaphor might seem generous, it holds weight. Like The Beatles or Simon and Garfunkel, the Liberals and Nationals thrived on synergy but succumbed to internal conflict. Today’s split is their Fleetwood Mac moment—a once-formidable duo choosing separation over compromise.
Born of Necessity: The Coalition’s Pragmatic Origins
At its heart, the Coalition was never a marriage of ideology—it was a pact born of arithmetic. In 1923, the Nationalist Party, under Billy Hughes, fell short of a majority. The newly formed Country Party emerged with 14 seats, instantly becoming kingmakers.
The Country Party demanded Hughes step aside. In his place, Stanley Melbourne Bruce became PM, while Country leader Earle Page claimed the Treasury and acted as de facto deputy PM. In that bargain, the DNA of the Coalition was set—power-sharing rooted in strategic necessity, not shared vision.
This uneasy arrangement endured for over a century. It weathered wars, depressions, and the rise and fall of political empires. But as Australia’s political terrain shifted, the partnership faced growing strains that have now boiled over.
When Convenience Outweighs Ideology
In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the UAP (United Australia Party) briefly governed without the Country Party. But losing its majority in 1934 pushed it back into coalition, reminding both sides that principles often take a backseat to political survival.
Menzies’ takeover after Joe Lyons’ death in 1939 triggered friction anew. His insistence on choosing all ministers angered the Country Party, prompting a temporary split. Only rising global tensions and fading electoral prospects forced a reluctant reunion.
Even the most “stable” Coalition periods were punctuated by tension. The 1949–72 Menzies era, the Fraser years, and John Howard’s long tenure masked internal discontent. Policy differences were routinely shelved or steamrolled in the name of unity.
Quiet Frustrations Beneath the Surface
The 1960s offered a stark example of how much sway the Nationals once held. Country Party leader John McEwen vetoed Billy McMahon’s path to the prime ministership after Harold Holt’s death, reshaping political destiny.
Under Fraser, Nationals were accused of being manipulated for votes. During Howard’s leadership, Nationals often complained of being overshadowed—even if they held cabinet posts. Over time, “Coalition” began to sound more like “Liberal with sidekicks,” sidelining rural representation in both policy and press.
Howard himself faced a near-collapse of the alliance due to Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s ambitions to lead from Queensland—a power grab that underscored just how vulnerable the Coalition always was to ego and ideology.
2025: Not the First Break, but Perhaps the Most Definitive
The current split, announced by Nationals leader David Littleproud, is far from unprecedented. But this time, it carries an air of finality, reflective of the increased polarization of Australian politics and the widening policy gulf between rural and urban conservatives.
What once served as a model of strategic alignment has now run aground on issues like climate policy, nuclear energy, and regional equity. With urban Liberals leaning green and Nationals doubling down on nuclear and rural spending, the centre simply couldn’t hold.
As the Nationals chart an independent course, the Coalition’s century-long “band” may not reunite for an encore. But like many legendary acts, their legacy—conflicted, complex, and enduring—will remain etched in the political history of Australia.
The Fall of the Coalition: From Joh’s Rebellion to a Fractured Right
As a poster boy for New Right populism, Joh Bjelke-Petersen distrusted the federal Liberal Party and doubted his own National peers had the resolve to confront Labor. His rogue campaign tore open deep divisions between federal and state factions, fracturing the alliance at a national level.
Nationals federal leader Ian Sinclair later described the episode—where Howard, Sinclair, and Bjelke-Petersen each launched separate election campaigns—as an “absolute farce.” It exposed the fragile nature of Coalition politics, especially across state boundaries.
In southern states like Victoria, it was once common for Country Party MPs to jump ship or align with Labor for tactical reasons. Queensland, by contrast, operated on its own political wavelength—often with the Nationals as the dominant force.
By 1983, Bjelke-Petersen formally ended the Coalition in Queensland. In the 1986 election, he won a clear majority. But by the time he exited politics in 1987, both parties were in disarray. Their future in Queensland would depend on reinventing themselves entirely.
Eventually, the Queensland Liberal and National parties merged into the LNP to prevent further breakdowns. But this solution introduced new challenges. Federal LNP members now grapple with representing both urban Liberalism and rural conservatism, often with conflicting demands.
A Split Framed as Principle—But Lacking Clarity
Fast forward to 2025, Nationals leader David Littleproud labelled the new split from the Liberals a “principled stance.” Yet the full scope of those principles remains vague. Deputy leader Kevin Hogan voiced optimism for a future reunion—but details are scarce.
The main policy divisions include a proposed $20 billion Regional Australia Fund, aggressive competition reforms, regional mobile infrastructure, and the controversial push for nuclear power. These issues now define the Nationals’ red lines.
While the nuclear policy might appear electorally risky, the other demands are rooted in long-held Nationals concerns—especially around the negative legacy of privatisation and deregulation that hurt regional services under past Coalition governments.
This platform is also shaped by an emerging fear: that the Nationals may lose relevance in the bush. The 1990s saw One Nation nearly dismantle their dominance, and that threat is back. Rural populism is surging again, reshaping political calculations.
The Populist Drift and the End of Automatic Alliances
Just days ago, Pauline Hanson floated the idea of a formal coalition between One Nation and the Nationals. That such a prospect is even plausible shows just how much the Nationals have shifted from their traditional role within the Coalition.
This latest break-up offers both parties time to rethink, but not to deflect. They will now face public scrutiny—and electoral pressure—without each other to blame. It’s a solo act in a much less forgiving political era.
“Breaking up the band is easy to do. Touring alone is hard.” Once a throwaway remark, the phrase now encapsulates the core challenge facing both the Nationals and Liberals. As the automatic Coalition era ends, they must define not just who they oppose—but who they are.
