Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg will struggle with the Right decisions

Former Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies. Photo: File*

COMMENT

“Morrison leads new-generation Liberals” is the headline Scott Morrison wants voters to hear. As the new Prime Minister seeks to distance himself from the Abbott-Turnbull era, he asks us to accept his government will be different from the last.

Distancing himself from the Turnbull era won’t be easy. He and his deputy, Josh Frydenberg, were the country’s key economic and energy ministers, and would have worked closely with Malcolm Turnbull in framing policy. So, while the parliamentary Liberal Party may have younger, less accident-prone drivers, it will need to turn right before voters accept this is a different bus.

Well may Turnbull imagine his government was successful when it was “able to govern without internal disruption”. History will show otherwise. It will record repeated examples of political ­ineptitude, a legacy of almost $600 billion of national debt, unaffordable and unreliable ­energy, betrayed superannuants, house­holds battling to make ends meet, and a country strangled by increasing red tape and political correctness.

Yet the more popular, unreconstructed view prevails, reflected in a Sydney Morning Herald editorial describing Turnbull’s “determined insurgents” as “a clique of busy, loudmouthed ­extremists”. In other words, better to condemn the “disrupters” for courageously putting national ­interest ahead of green ideology than to express gratitude.

Turnbull’s valedictory remarks to the press gallery lamenting a “deliberate effort to pull the Liberal Party further to the Right”, are revealing. They show a disconnect between his perception and that of voters who think both major parties are on the Left.

Herein lies the existential dilemma for the Liberal Party. It still clings to the values of its founder, Sir Robert Menzies. While Turnbull defined Menzies as a “progressive”, in truth today he would be described as hard Right. Equally, he would see the modern Liberals as a left-wing party.

Challenges ahead ... Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Photo: AAP

Of course, society’s views have changed since the Menzies era. In the immediate aftermath of a world war and with the horrors of brute-force authoritarian governments, both Left and Right, still fresh, small government was celebrated. People prized individual liberty, self-reliance and low taxes. Social mobility thrived. ­Society was homogeneous and the people believed in a common-values culture that cherished the ­nation and put its interests first.

All that has changed. Today’s political sophisticates increasingly advocate bigger government as the solution to society’s problems. Equal outcome is preferred to equal opportunity. Victimhood and identity have become an ­industry and globalism takes priority over national interest. Rather than take pride in our significant achievements, the tendency is to disparage them.

So-called conservatives have failed to counter this narrative. Rather than defend their values, they surrendered them in selfish vote-buying exercises. They deliberately narrowed the choice for voters. This is how the Left gained control of the political system.

We saw it at work at a Canberra dinner just before the leadership spill. Liberal powerbrokers and lobbyists Nick Campbell and Michael Photios (former leader of the party’s dominant Left faction) are said to have told guests that “the Left was willing to swing ­behind ScoMo for PM”. Do they ­expect favours in return?

Defence Minister Christopher Pyne recently boasted about the power and influence within the parliamentary party of the Left’s “Black Hand” faction. Also, not that long ago 54 members of the party voted to end Tony Abbott’s prime ministership for prosecuting a more Menzian policy agenda. The prospect of another conservative leader no doubt sank Peter Dutton’s chances.

Morrison may be a social traditionalist, but his time as treasurer showed he is not a fiscal con­servative. Indeed since becom­­ing prime minister he has hinted at prioritising various spending initiatives. These are all commendable, but who will pay for them?

Frydenberg wants more women in parliament. Provided they are chosen on merit, this is also a good thing. But the focus is wrong.

What is needed is not another expensive and expansive social agenda but a fireside chat with the Australian people to prepare them for a slowing international economy, outlining the steps the government must take to minimise the damage. With elections approaching and with a fragile one-seat majority, this is a big ask. The rear-view mirror will appeal as the safer option.

Regrettably, we have yet to find a way to artificially perpetuate economic growth. We failed to resolve the last credit bubble, yet another has been created. Yesterday’s benign global economic climate is giving way to more challenging times. For too long Canberra has gone along with the politically convenient notion that nothing could go wrong. After 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, Australia must finally face up to the downsides of too much debt. Households are vulnerable to interest rate hikes and/or increases in unemployment. China and our financial circumstances, which in 2008 carried us comfortably through the worst global downturn since the Depression, would not save us today.

Yet within months the government must face a general election. Morrison has much ground to ­recover and his party’s tenuous grip on power means budget ­repair will have to wait. Voters are not in the mood to suffer more ­financial pain. That’s why candour and energy policy, not more “progressive” spending frolics, offer the best hope of making the party electorally competitive.

Regardless of the outcome, it’s time the Liberals decided whether Menzies’ values really are in their future. Keeping up the pretence no longer has credibility. Only when we start to hear in full voice the traditional hymns of the Right will we be convinced the party is a genuine broad church.