Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan flatly ruled out a coalition arrangement with One Nation on Sunday, telling ABC's Insiders that the idea was "not even being talked about" and that the Liberals had no interest in entertaining it.

"We do not want to be part of a coalition with One Nation," Tehan told Insiders. "We want to be part of a coalition with the Liberal party and the National party." The formulation was deliberate — a three-peat denial designed to close down the question. "We're not entertaining or discussing or being part of a coalition with One Nation."

The problem is that Tehan's colleagues haven't been reading from the same sheet. In recent weeks, Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie vowed "war" on Pauline Hanson's party, while junior shadow minister Tony Pasin floated a seat-sharing arrangement — the opposite posture — and Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie indicated she'd campaign for Hanson in Labor-held seats. Former prime minister and Liberal party president Tony Abbott has backed preference deals with One Nation outright. That's four different positions from four different figures inside or adjacent to the opposition, ranging from outright conflict to effective partnership. Tehan's clean denial sits atop a caucus that is visibly unsettled on the question.

The context that makes this more than internal noise: a Guardian Essential poll published in the week of 30 June put Labor's primary vote at 30%, One Nation at 26%, and the Coalition at 23%. Broader polling through early July had One Nation in the high 20s to low 30s and the Coalition in the high teens to low 20s. By those numbers, One Nation is not a minor irritant to be swatted away — it is, on primaries, outpolling the official opposition. That is a structural problem for opposition leader Angus Taylor that a single Insiders appearance doesn't resolve.

Tehan also appeared on ABC Radio National Breakfast earlier in the week, reiterating that Labor — not One Nation — is the party's primary adversary. The logic is straightforward: every vote One Nation bleeds from the Coalition is recoverable through preferences if the two parties preference each other back. A formal coalition arrangement, by contrast, would reshape the Liberals' brand — and not in a direction that plays well with the moderate metropolitan seats the party still needs to win government. Tehan's position is strategically coherent, even if his colleagues haven't uniformly landed there.

Across town — or rather, across the conference hall — Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was at the NSW Labor Party Conference doing what oppositions-in-government do when their opponents are visibly tangled. He branded the Liberals, Nationals, and One Nation an "axis of grievance" and warned of a "race to the bottom" — language calibrated to tie them together regardless of what Tehan says on Insiders. It's decent politics. The more the opposition's internal debate about One Nation stays on the front page, the longer Albanese gets to frame it on his terms.

The deeper issue for the Liberal Party is one of sequencing and credibility. Ruling out a formal coalition is the easy part — no serious internal voice is actually proposing cabinet seats for One Nation. The harder questions are preferences, seat-level campaigns, and whether the Nationals continue to freelance. McKenzie's willingness to assist Hanson in Labor marginals is a real operational fact, whatever Tehan says about formal arrangements. The distinction between a coalition and a de facto preference alliance may be legally and constitutionally meaningful, but it's a fine one to prosecute from the opposition benches when your own polling is behind a party you're notionally competing against.

Tehan's line is the right one for the Liberal brand. Whether the rest of his party holds it is another matter entirely.