Clare O Neil backs Hume’s One Nation line with 80-year Coalition split
Jane Hume used clare o neil’s framing to shut down suggestions the Liberals could lean on One Nation, telling the ABC the party is not One Nation and never will be. The deputy Liberal leader called the idea of a Liberal partnership with One Nation to take on Labor “nonsense.”
Hume’s comments add a clear line to a debate that has been building around Coalition preferences and partnership talk. They also came after Bridget McKenzie invited Pauline Hanson to join her in campaigning against Labor in Queensland.
Jane Hume and One Nation
Hume said the Coalition has been in place for 80 years and has served Australians well for generations. She then drew the boundary in plain terms: “We are not One Nation. We will never be One Nation.”
That message went beyond broad distancing. Hume said her instinct is always to preference last the party or person that would do the most damage to the country, but she said the decision depends on the particular candidate in the particular seat. She said a party could preference the Socialist party, the Greens, Labor, or another candidate last depending on who was the worst for the country.
Preference calls in each seat
Her comments matter because they leave room for seat-by-seat tactical choices while rejecting any suggestion of a broader alignment with Hanson’s party. Hume did not present One Nation as a partner; she presented it as one option among several that could be ranked last, depending on the local contest.
That is the friction inside her position. Hume closed the door on any formal or implied partnership, yet left preference decisions tied to the candidate rather than the party label alone. For voters watching the Coalition’s relationship with One Nation, that means the line is ideological but the ballot-box decision is local.
Clare O Neil and Labor
article said Hume’s final line echoed comments from Labor’s Clare O’Neil earlier that day. In the same broader political cycle, Ed Husic said the backlash to his criticism of the Aukus agreement is unhealthy for Labor and designed to suppress dissent, while Mark Butler said Husic’s comments were just those of one backbencher and Pat Conroy called them disingenuous.
Hume’s position leaves little ambiguity for Coalition voters in places where One Nation is on the ballot: she is rejecting the idea of a shared political vehicle and keeping preference decisions tied to who she says would do the most damage in a given seat. That is the line she chose to draw, and it is the one that now defines the Coalition’s public stance in this row.
