The faultline within the Coalition
The Coalition faces a deeper strategic reckoning than many observers realise. Inside the Liberal and National parties sits a conservative wing pressing to scrap net zero targets and tighten immigration, alongside a more moderate faction seeking to regain ground with voters who prioritise stability and practical policy outcomes. Recent public moves by Andrew Hastie and Barnaby Joyce have spotlighted this faultline, suggesting the Coalition could be more competitive if it prioritises the concerns of teal voters—centrist Australians often associated with climate action, openness to immigration, and a pragmatic, policy-first approach—over traditional or hard-right nationalist appeals tied to One Nation.
Teal voters and the policy pivot
Teal voters in Australia—while not a formal bloc—are generally urban, educated, and engaged on climate and integrity in politics. They tend to react against perceived extremism or disjointed policy swings, favouring steadier leadership and detailed policy plans. For the Coalition, courting teal voters means articulating coherent climate policy that doesn’t abandon jobs or regional commitments, while also presenting credible immigration settings that balance security with humanitarian obligations. The risk for the moderates is clear: if they lean too far into technocratic comfort, they risk alienating the party’s traditional base. Yet a targeted shift toward teal priorities could unlock a broader electability dividend by expanding the Coalition’s appeal to suburban and regional swing voters who want credible action without the polarization often associated with partisan extremes.
Policy flashpoints: net zero and immigration
Two headline policy areas are likely to shape the coming cycles: climate commitments and migration. The drive to roll back or slow net zero targets is a touchstone for the conservative wing, who argue that aggressive climate policy risks jobs and regional industries. Moderates counter that sustained, transparent climate action paired with practical energy policy can protect regional economies while advancing long-term resilience. On immigration, the faultline intensifies: One Nation offers a hardline stance that resonates with a portion of conservative voters, while teal-leaning voters expect a humane, orderly system underpinned by rules and an evidence-based intake framework. The Coalition’s challenge is to present a policy mix that secures borders and public support without sacrificing the broader economic and social benefits of a well-managed migration program.
Moderates vs. conservatives: winning the middle ground
The core strategic question is whether the Coalition can win enough of the middle ground to build durable majorities. Moderates argue that the electorate is tired of extreme positions and seeks government that can deliver. Conservatives insist that the party’s core values—economic prudence, national security, and respect for regional communities—must drive policy, even if that means courting fewer voters in some urban seats. If the Coalition leans into teal priorities—clear climate policy, practical migration settings, and transparent governance—it could reduce the volatility caused by single-issue parties while strengthening its position in key regional battlegrounds. A successful approach would pair policy clarity with regional investment plans, ensuring that both city and country feel heard.
Risks and opportunities for the Coalition
There are undeniable risks to chasing teal voters. Overemphasising centrism can alienate traditional supporters who expect a strong conservative stance on sovereignty and security. Conversely, leaning too hard into culture-war messaging risks energising minor parties and pushing away moderate voters who crave steadiness. The best path, many analysts argue, lies in a policy-driven strategy that foregrounds economic growth, energy reliability, and pragmatic migration reform. If the Coalition can demonstrate tangible policy outcomes—jobs growth in regional Australia, affordable energy, and a transparent, orderly immigration system—it stands a better chance of translating teal sentiment into durable electoral advantage.
What this means for the next election
As the political terrain shifts, the Coalition’s ability to translate internal faultlines into a cohesive electoral strategy will be tested. The ongoing tension between moderates and conservatives is not simply a debate about policy preferences; it’s about whether the party can present a united front that appeals to voters who want responsible governance with practical, evidence-based solutions. If the Coalition adopts a forward-looking agenda that prioritises climate resilience, a viable energy mix, and sensible migration governance, it could build broad-based appeal that outpaces One Nation’s more singular proposition. The street-level takeaway for voters is straightforward: choose a coalition that offers credible, policy-driven leadership designed to balance regional livelihoods with national priorities.
Conclusion
Chasing teal voters could provide the Coalition with a pathway to greater electoral viability by reframing the debate around credible climate policy, practical migration rules, and governance competence. The party’s success will depend on translating internal factions into a coherent platform that meets the expectations of urban and regional voters alike—without surrendering core conservative principles. If done well, the Coalition can outpace One Nation not by chasing a single chip on the board, but by presenting a balanced, capable alternative voters can trust.
