Liberal senator Andrew McLachlan warns party against adopting One Nation rhetoric
The Farrer by-election result is cited as evidence of lost voter confidence following the departure of Sussan Ley
Liberal Senator Andrew McLachlan has publicly criticised the Coalition's decision to preference One Nation in the Farrer by-election, describing the move as a strategic error that damaged the Liberal brand. Writing in an opinion piece for The Guardian on 12 May 2026, McLachlan argues that adopting One Nation's language and outlook on specific issues risks the party's long-term survival.
The senator contends that the preference decision signalled to the electorate and the broader Australian community that the Liberal Party accepted One Nation's rhetoric. He warns that being perceived as fellow travellers alongside One Nation within a broader conservative movement would be a betrayal of Liberal values and lead to the party's demise in inner-city electorates.
McLachlan points to the dramatic decline in the Liberal vote in Farrer following the departure of Sussan Ley as evidence that voters no longer feel tethered to the party without her leadership. He notes that while Sussan Ley held the seat comfortably through nine election cycles, the result demonstrates that electors did not remain connected to the Liberal Party in her absence.
Central to his argument are recent policy shifts, specifically the abandonment of net zero targets and the use of excessively strong language regarding migration. McLachlan asserts that these initial steps down a particular path have failed to win back city voters and further alienated the party from the seats required to form government.
He urges the Liberal Party to reject any coalition with One Nation and return to its core values to rebuild public trust. McLachlan states that the Liberal movement has historically defined itself by aspirational goals rather than opposition to specific groups, contrasting this with an approach he describes as seeking to divide the nation into warring tribes.
The senator concludes that the party must define itself by what it aspires to achieve for the nation rather than adopting the language and ways of One Nation. He writes that if the party chooses this path, it allows One Nation to set the agenda and write the script for its own demise.