Should One Nation and the Coalition strike a deal to win office? There are huge risks for both parties

Liberal frontbencher Tony Pasin has sparked debate by suggesting the Coalition and One Nation should avoid contesting the same seats at the next election to maximize their chances of defeating Labor. His proposal follows One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s demands for any potential agreement, while newly installed Liberal Party President Tony Abbott has signaled support for a preference deal with the populist party. The Coalition faces pressure to convert anti-Labor sentiment into electoral victory, but historical vote-splitting risks persist. Before 1918, Australia used first-past-the-post voting, which allowed conservative parties to lose despite winning more votes—prompting a shift to preferential ballots. This system allows voters to rank candidates, reducing vote-splitting but also enabling preference flows from smaller parties to larger ones, such as Greens preferences flowing to Labor at nearly 90% in the 2025 federal election. Pasin’s proposed arrangement mirrors past Coalition strategies to prevent internal vote-splitting, but preference discipline between One Nation and the Coalition remains unstable. While One Nation to Coalition preferences reached 74.5% in 2025, they were as low as 50% in 2016. Similarly, Coalition voters preferenced One Nation at 59% (Liberals) and 70% (Nationals) in the 2023 Farrer byelection, where Labor did not field a candidate. The uncertainty over preference flows raises questions about whether a formal pact would strengthen or weaken the right’s position. If One Nation and the Coalition split anti-Labor votes, Labor could retain power despite lower primary support. The debate highlights the challenges of aligning right-wing parties under Australia’s preferential voting system, where historical precedent shows vote-splitting can cost conservative governments elections.