It was a difficult election for the Liberals, but even more so for the Libertarians.

Formally the Liberal Democrats, there was some concern that the name change might impact their future chances, and perhaps it has. Of all the minor parties on the right, their performance at the federal election was significantly lower than expected, even with their celebrity candidate of Craig Kelly in New South Wales and the odd partnership with other minor parties.

As former Senator for the Liberal Democrats, David Leyonhjelm, wrote on Facebook yesterday:

The final 2025 election results in the Senate showed most of the minor centre-right parties did poorly, including the Libertarian Party. Its highest vote, just 1.86 per cent, was in NSW where Craig Kelly was the lead candidate running on a joint ticket with two other minor parties. In Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania, the party’s vote was well under 1 per cent.

Leyonhjelm goes on to point out that the two exceptions to the rule were One Nation (which now holds four Senate seats) and Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots (which continues with one Senate seat as the United Australia Party). To be fair, Palmer might have done his dash at this election.

The former Senator, who appears to be concerned about the future of the movement, called the Libertarian result ‘abysmal’.

In 2016, when I was re-elected to the Senate in the double dissolution, the Liberal Democrats vote was 3.09 per cent. It was 2.85 per cent in Queensland.

What made the difference?

One obvious difference is the party name. This was the first general election fought as Libertarians. The vote for the Liberal Democrats always comprised both genuine supporters and some confused souls who thought they were voting for the Liberals. The loss of the latter reveals the party’s tenuous underlying support.

What impact, if any, this will have on future state elections is up for debate.

For the Libertarian Party, some deep reflection is obviously warranted.

From the outside looking in, the Libertarian Party is an odd creature. Whatever it may have been originally, today it is a party of (mostly) former Blue Ribbon Liberals promoting a range of libertarian policies to an audience of conservatives who like small government but not things like the legalisation of drugs.

It is often the case that voters want a very specific liberty. As a protest vote, it works. Becoming a movement is more difficult when there are more complete parties to choose from on both sides of the spectrum that incorporate various freedoms.

This creates a very small overlay of voters while repelling others who would naturally like to see a smaller government, but not on the terms offered by the Libertarians.

Losing an established brand name is certainly a challenge and it is true that many voters outside of social media had no idea who the Libertarians were on election day.

However, even on social media, where the Libertarian game was at its strongest, their appeal was limited and the communication with followers was often antagonistic. The weekly live broadcasts on X (which operates like a citizen radio station) only ever had micro audiences despite the diligence with which they were conducted.

Craig Kelly, who has been through several right-wing parties, was a tower of media attention during the pandemic years. He was unfairly punished by his peers for being right about pretty much everything. However, those talking points are fading. Fans of Kelly, of which I am one, are left wondering if he is a conservative (as his political legacy suggests) or a libertarian. They are different creatures, even if both lean toward small government and civil liberties.

John Ruddick has much the same ideological mountain to climb, even though his spot as a NSW MLC is assured for a long time. He is another former Liberal, and not just any Liberal. Ruddick authored Make the Liberal Party Great Again! indicating that the restoration of conservatism is a personal goal. His work protesting against race-based national park lockouts is wonderful, but I find myself disagreeing with some of his more libertarian urban planning ideas.

Others are wondering if is this NSW Libertarian ideology the same as the old Victorian Liberal Democrats. I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression that they were more left-leaning.

It could be that this attempt to hold libertarian thought and conservatism in the same hand has led to a party of fractured supporters who are often found squabbling with each other on social media. The Bitcoiners and the disaffected Blue Ribbons frequently come to blows. Although never quite so spectacularly as Gerard Rennick’s run-in with the movement a week or so ago.

In truth, we are watching the murky waters of the centre-right trying to find itself after being abandoned by the Coalition and stirred up by new voices.

It is natural in the Westminster system for a group of parties to compete for the growing body of voters shopping around for a new home. They absolutely should be testing ideas and having debates.

Personally, I disagree with Leyonhjelm when he says:

The Libertarian Party does not have anything equivalent [of Pauline Hanson] – none of its Members of Parliament, including me, are or have been media stars. And being based on a philosophy rather than certain issues makes it a difficult product to sell.

You would be hard-pressed to argue that the Liberal Party has much star quality attached to it these days, with the exception of a woefully under-used Senator Alex Antic. Meanwhile, Craig Kelly is by no means an unknown entity with 172,000 followers on X putting him in the top handful of politicians.

It is important for the future of the centre-right that a natural victor emerge from the minor party rivalry. That being, the party whose ideas and personalities are judged to be strong enough and good enough to mount an attack on the Left. Ultimately, that is their purpose.

Part of me used to believe, as I am sure many of you still do, that these small parties should work together.

Certainly, they should preference each other, just as the Left combines its preferences. Beyond that … I am no longer convinced.

I do not think the victor should be chosen in each state thanks to an alliance between leaders and a divvying up of Australia for the benefit of parties that cannot hold their own organically. Rather, if one party has the ability to win in its own right, then I believe the natural flow of talent will be toward it and gradually it will take on the best and most compatible features of the other parties until it becomes a complete and competent version of conservatism.

Somehow, I do not see the Libertarians being able to compromise on their values in this way, as its philosophy is uniquely rigid.

Perhaps true libertarian thought is a niche political idea. A valid one.

All I know is that more than one party is sitting down after the federal election and taking stock of the result.