Photo by Ieva Brinkmane on Unsplash
After nearly four decades of strained ties, the National and Liberal parties have gone their separate ways, announcing a ‘not unanimous but quite conclusive’ split. Spearheaded by Nationals leader David Littleproud, the decision came after negotiations stalled over four key policy directives within the Coalition agreement – most notably regarding nuclear energy commitments and divestiture powers targeting supermarkets. Overall, this move has cast further doubt on future campaign prospects of the federal opposition, as it seeks to rebuild following an extraordinary defeat during the recent federal election.
How we got here
This divergence is not without precedent. Tensions last divorced the Coalition in 1987 after the fallout of the ‘Joh for PM’ campaign, seeing then PM Bob Hawke secure a third term against Liberal leader John Howard. Despite this, they reassembled in time for the next election – a scenario that may yet repeat as talks continue amongst both parties.
At the time of writing, the Liberal party room has shifted its position again, with members reportedly agreeing ‘in principle’ to a commitment on actionable nuclear energy policy and enforceable divestiture powers – both pivotal issues at the recent election. Two additional policy demands originally held at ransom during agreement talks have also been freshly considered – retention of a $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund and a promise to impose service obligations on telecommunications providers operating in remote and rural areas. These policies are not new to the Liberal platform, but their renewed analysis signifies that this split is less of a permanent rupture, but rather a tactical play. Littleproud is making it clear to new Liberal leader Sussan Ley that his decision to walk out leaves behind an open door that may eventually close, should Liberal party members not endorse mutual commitments.
While the parties appear to be taking a step back for the time being, their decoupling is indicative of broader tensions playing out beyond the domestic stage, between traditional conservative parties and populist agrarian factions.
Rural rebellion and populist pushback
Although the Nationals represent a unique example of an agrarian party playing a significant role in national government for much of the last century, agrarian movements themselves are not uncommon, nor are the tensions they experience with established conservative and liberal parties. In recent years, particularly across much of the developed world, there has been an eruption of pro agrarian movements and protests. These trends notably represent not just a rejection of many governments across the globe, but a growing discontent between populist interventionist and anti-climate ‘pro farmer’ movements and traditional fiscally conservative establishment parties, whether in government or opposition.
The justifications for these protests are as widespread as the protests themselves. In farmers’ protests that gripped the EU in 2024 and 2025, the stated reasons often differed between emissions caps, stricter regulations, and ongoing trade negotiations particularly with Australia and MERCOSUR (a free trade bloc in South America). In the United Kingdom, farmers descended on London in tractors in protest of changes to inheritance laws which would have reduced tax exemptions carved out for farmers. In Canada, protests erupted over interest rate and trade regulations, and in India, farmers protested to request the government impose minimum prices for crop purchasing. These protests are not only varied in reasoning but also often fail to fall within the left-right dichotomy many people use to easily orientate themselves on the political spectrum.
Regardless of the reasoning, the biggest losers of many of these movements are often the establishment conservative parties for which farmers traditionally represent a strong voter base. In France, the Yellow Hat Revolt saw the protest of farmer unions, FNSEA and Young Farmers (JA). These groups historically were often aligned with the moderate centre-right parties of Les Républicains and President Macron’s Renaissance party. However, the major winner of these protests was Marine Le Pen’s far right populist Rassemblement National (RN), seeing the most substantial boost in the polls among farmers. Similarly, the Dutch populist ‘new-right’ party BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB, Farmer-Citizen Movement) which emerged following the Dutch Farmers protests in 2019, saw significant electoral gains from the traditional Christen-Democratisch Appèl (Christian Democratic Appeal).
The tensions between populist farmer movements and conservative parties seem unlikely to abate any time soon. Underlying trends in these protests, including the Nationals’ decision to split the coalition, can often be linked back to a mix of climate scepticism and successful mobilisation of broader farmer organisations by emergent or established ‘new-right’ populist parties. Populist policy that claims to ‘challenge’ the burdens placed on farmers by bureaucracy, climate change, environmental protection policy and/or free trade practices, aims to seize this key voter base from establishment parties, which struggle to address these challenges while maintaining their support bases among urban populations.
Growing apart: a coalition of divergence
While this breakup looks to be a temporary one, like in all relationships, fights can only ever be forgiven, not forgotten. There will be lasting consequences to this spat, and the dynamics at play did not start in Australia, and won’t end with the Nationals.
Regardless, if the Liberals and Nationals decide to recommit, the foundations will be unstable. Dr Jill Shepherd, a senior lecturer in politics at ANU, notes that, “there’s always been […] mistrust,” between the two partners, but one can imagine that the last week has only made this worse. Developing leadership and teamwork can prove difficult without trust, even on a personal basis. Whilst seemingly minor, the small ripples of personal relationships can create waves in organisations, and that’s most true in government. Petty disputes between individual National and Liberal politicians that have occurred in the past few days seem to indicate this is indeed the case. A lot of trust-building (and maybe a healthy dose of couples therapy) may be needed for a renewed coalition.
Additionally, if international examples of party collapse are indicators, the ideological divide between the establishment right and the populist right is growing. Following Australia’s 2025 federal election, the two former coalition partners are in vastly different situations, but the ideological divisions were visible long before. Many Liberals are anxious about their party’s position, and want to pitch towards the centre to regain legitimacy. But others within the Liberals and Nationals disagree. Former Nationals leadership-hopeful Senator Matt Canavan has publicly argued the Nationals’ best option is a pitch to the right.
The style of politics that arose from the BBB in the Netherlands or Rassemblement National seems to be echoing in the Nationals. Opposition to renewables (such as wind farms) were both a prominent RN Policy and a belief of Senator Matt Canavan. Similar comparisons can be made between the Nationals’ approach to net-zero and the agrarian BBB in the Netherlands. Even in a reunited coalition, these newly emboldened figures, riding on waves of populist and agrarian rage may create a church so broad that the roof falls in.
Going it alone
Coalition breakups tend to set a precedent, and could indicate an entrenchment of a multi-party set-up in Australia. International examples of populist split-offs have built in a more diverse political arena, such as in Germany, or what seems to be occurring currently in the United Kingdom. The Nationals are of course a unique force; they are decades old and a familiar face in Australian politics, but as populist movements with agrarian grievances spread in other parts of the globe, we may see a very different National party.
After all, no one’s the same after a breakup.
Eamon Somerville
Eamon is a 5th Year Politics and IR student alongside his secondary study of Engineering. He has a deep interest in the analysis and comparison of state political structures across the globe as well as the study of populist politics around the world. He is a long-time member of MIAS and outside of academics enjoys reading, theatre and board games.
Lakmalie Wijesinghe
Lakmalie Wijesinghe is a 4th year Laws (Honours) and Global Studies student, specialising in international relations. She is especially passionate about politics in the Indo-Pacific, Australian foreign policy and the role of digital technology in global affairs. Outside of uni, she enjoys engaging in local law reform, reading and curating her Spotify playlists.
Thomas (Toyo) White
Toyo is a student activist, community advocate, and former New Colombo Plan Scholar for the Philippines in 2024. They are a 5th year PPE and Commerce student with particular focuses on sustainability, youth, and community empowerment. Regarding international relations, Toyo has a particular interest in non-traditional, post-structuralist, and provocative new ways of understanding the world that we live in, with a particular specialty on Southeast Asia.