A Trump impersonator and opera singers: CPAC was a spectacle, but the right still can’t agree how to take down Labor

CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Conference. In Australia, it acts as a meeting place for conservative politicians, campaigners, commentators and supporters. The event mixes formal speeches with entertainment, political jokes and culture-war arguments. Its importance is political as well as theatrical. The right is divided, so its groups need somewhere to debate whether cooperation can defeat Labor.

The Brisbane conference brought together Monica Smit, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson and Angus Taylor. Speakers discussed lower taxes, welfare, net zero, immigration and cultural issues. CPAC messages identified preferences as the central problem: supporters of One Nation and the Coalition could help reinstall Labor if they refused to preference each other.

The conference showed both cooperation and distrust. Hanson signed a pledge to work together, but also criticised the Coalition. Taylor avoided directly explaining how the parties should cooperate. With the next election due by May 2028, CPAC may become a sign of whether conservatives rebuild or remain splintered.

In an Australian election, preferences are voters’ backup choices. If a candidate does not receive enough support to win immediately, that candidate is eliminated and votes are transferred according to the next choices marked on ballots. A party gives another party preferences when it recommends that supporters place the other party higher in their ranking.

The CPAC debate focused on whether One Nation and the Coalition should help each other this way. The conference warned that voters supporting one party but refusing to preference the other could help Labor remain in office. Hanson signed a pledge to work together, while also saying conservatives should not automatically trust the Coalition.

The key mechanism is cooperation between parties and their supporters. A preference recommendation can improve a rival conservative candidate’s chances of surviving later counting. It does not guarantee a transfer, because voters control their own ballot choices. The article presents this cooperation as unresolved.

Labor holds 94 seats, according to the article. That figure gives Labor a substantial parliamentary position and explains why conservatives view defeating it as difficult. The article does not state how many seats the Coalition and One Nation hold, so their combined numerical strength cannot be calculated from the provided text.

The challenge comes from the right’s fragmentation. Angus Taylor’s diminished Coalition opposition is being hit by Pauline Hanson’s surging One Nation. Both parties compete for conservative voters, candidates and influence. Their division can prevent a single anti-Labor candidate from benefiting fully from support across the right.

At CPAC, conservatives recognised that cooperation was necessary but had not solved how to achieve it. Hanson signed a pledge to work together and challenged Taylor and Matt Canavan to do likewise. Taylor avoided questions about cooperation. The article therefore measures the challenge through political division, not a combined seat total.

Preferences matter when several parties compete for the same broad voting bloc. Labor holds 94 seats, while the conservative vote is divided between the Coalition and One Nation. That split can make it harder for an anti-Labor candidate to win, even when many voters oppose Labor. Preferences can help combine those votes during the count.

The article’s clearest example is its warning to One Nation and Coalition supporters. It says refusing to preference the other side risks reinstalling Labor. Hanson’s pledge to work together was intended to address that problem. Taylor, however, dodged questions about cooperation, and Hanson had already told the conference not to trust the Coalition.

The immediate consequence is strategic uncertainty. Conservatives may need to exchange preferences to turn divided support into victories, but the parties are also competing against each other. With the next election due by May 2028, the right has time to negotiate, yet the article says it remains splintered.

The Coalition and One Nation are separate forces on Australia’s conservative right. The article describes Angus Taylor’s Coalition opposition as diminished and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as surging. Both oppose Labor, but they are not one organisation. Their rivalry matters because conservative voters may divide their support between them rather than backing one challenger.

At CPAC, Hanson said she would no longer be the Coalition’s “bridesmaid”. She signed a pledge to work together, yet also said people should not trust the Coalition and criticised its leader. Taylor was booed after dodging questions about cooperation. These moments showed that shared opposition to Labor did not remove competition.

Their central conflict is strategic. Cooperation could improve conservative candidates’ chances through preferences, but each party wants more votes, seats and authority. The article says One Nation’s rise is pressuring the Coalition and that the right faces a third successive election defeat. Their relationship remains unresolved before the next election.

The article does not explain the historical operation of Australia’s preferential voting system. Under the established system used for federal lower-house elections, voters rank candidates rather than choosing only one. Counting begins with first preferences. If nobody has enough support, the lowest candidate is eliminated and that candidate’s ballots move to their next marked choices.

This process can change the result. A candidate who starts behind on first preferences may receive enough transferred votes from eliminated candidates to overtake a rival. The winner therefore depends on both initial support and later preference flows. Party recommendations can influence those flows, but voters decide their own rankings.

That mechanism explains CPAC’s concern. If Coalition and One Nation candidates divide conservative first preferences, one may be eliminated or weakened. Transfers could then help another conservative candidate, or Labor, depending on voters’ choices. The article gives no named historical election example, so its evidence here is the current strategic debate.

Australia’s parliamentary system turns votes into government through individual seat contests. Voters choose candidates and rank preferences. Each seat is counted using first choices and, when needed, transferred preferences. The candidate who ultimately wins a seat contributes to that party’s total in parliament. The party or grouping able to command the required parliamentary support forms government.

The article connects this mechanism to Labor’s 94 seats and the divided right. Coalition and One Nation candidates can compete for the same voters. If they fail to cooperate, their preferences may not help one another, and Labor may retain seats. CPAC therefore focused less on policy detail than on how parties could exchange preferences.

The current reality is unsettled. Hanson pledged to work together but criticised the Coalition, while Taylor avoided cooperation questions. The next election is due by May 2028. Until then, negotiations, voter choices and the distribution of seats will determine whether conservatives rebuild or Labor remains in office.