Reactionary Liberals deflect their party from its origins

The exodus of moderates could facilitate a hard-Right shift in the party after the election.

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

Political parties are shaped by a whole mixture of factors. Their origins and the founding principles matter. Also the practical and ideological ideas they claim to uphold. These of course can change over time, but they shouldn’t change too profoundly. If they modernise, that’s one thing — a necessary evolution for political survival. But if they shift so significantly as to render the party’s ­origins obsolete, there is a risk that parties decline or re-form under another banner.

Of course, the rigidity of the two-party system in Australia mitigates against either major party doing that. While minor parties and independents are on the rise, a combination of culture and the electoral system help embed the two-party system. Further, the start up costs and administrative challenges of vying for major-party status are prohibitive.

The Democrats tried, but ultimately didn’t survive. The Greens have grown but with permanent limitations. All of Clive Palmer’s money can’t secure him the toehold he’d like. One Nation has been around for decades, but it too has growth limitations, as well as an uncertain future when Pauline Hanson gives the game away. ­Finally you have the Australian Conservatives: a party banner that could see it become a genuine force on the Right. But it’s a crowded market, and money and organisational challenges hinder its growth.

Notwithstanding the rise of minor players, the two-party system is likely here to stay. Even if party membership bases are shrinking and becoming less representative of the communities they represent. The Liberal Party’s membership is becoming increasingly narrow, which carries a number of risks. While there have been calls for greater democratisation within the party, if the membership is unrepresentative of the broader electorate anyway, especially voters willing to cast ballots for the Liberals, a membership that directly selects its candidates can actually do harm.

For example, by not preselecting enough women.

While accessing reliable data on the make-up of party memberships is difficult, we do know that the Liberal Party’s lay members are disproportionately male and the age profile isn’t representative of the breadth of the electorate.

Society might be ageing but the membership spread of the ­Liberal Party is significantly older.

We see how such factors have influenced the selection of women in safe seats, a problem the Liberals are yet to solve. A male Liberal in cabinet who could hardly be described as a champion of quotas or even gender issues more broadly lamented the stupidity of preselectors in Stirling choosing the one male in the field of five to replace Michael Keenan. “It’s not like we have a shortage of ex-military types in our ranks,” he said. “But we do have a shortage of women. Basically the preselectors are just grumpy old white men who don’t want to be told what to do.”

The Senate ticket, which is more centrally controlled, has seen a greater number of women brought into the fold, now nudging a third of senators: a sign perhaps that party powerbrokers recognise how serious the issue is as an electoral impediment.

In the House of Representatives, however, the failure persists. The Coalition only has 12 women in its team of 74 MPs. With the polls where they are, that figure is likely to drop into single digits after the election. Woeful.

Recent retirements will also have an impact on what the modern Liberal Party looks like. The make-up of parliamentary teams is an important factor shaping parties. The Liberals stepping out of the political arena are overwhelmingly moderate by nature. If Scott Morrison does lose the election — as the polls, betting odds and expectations suggest will happen — the battle over the party’s heart and soul may see the reactionary Right wing dominate the debate.

Retirements include Christopher Pyne, a long-time flag bearer for the moderates. Kelly O’Dwyer and Julie Bishop are also senior moderates, not to mention the two highest profile women in Liberal parliamentary ranks. The likes of Steven Ciobo, Michael Keenan and Craig Laundy (also expected to retire) are hardly part of the hard Right either.

George Brandis retired not that long ago. He was the most philosophically adroit moderate in parliament. And of course let’s not forget Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey were the two most senior moderates in parliament for the past six years. Both are long gone.

In contrast, the old guard of conservatives in the post-Howard era battles on, joined by a new generation.

The likes of Tony Abbott, Kevin Andrews and Eric Abetz might have been dropped from the ministry in recent years, but all are contesting the next election, or in Abetz’s case have a Senate term that extends beyond it.

Their influence will grow in opposition, and may even entail one or all three returning to frontbench duties.

Abbott of course needs to retain his seat of Warringah, under threat from a moderate independent campaign. That result may have more profound implications on the future philosophical direction of the Liberal Party than many realise. Win and Abbott is a genuine contender to return to the leadership in opposition. Lose and his influence wanes and the hard Right suffers an embarrassing reprimand in a blue-ribbon seat.

Notwithstanding what happens to Abbott, the conservative side of the Liberal Party has flag bearers coming through. Andrew Hastie sits on the extreme end, Christian Porter on the more traditional conservative end. Both, however, must hold West Australian seats under serious threat — Canning and Pearce are on Labor’s list of targets. Then there is Angus Taylor, who sits somewhere between them, but in a safe seat. Although he has damaged himself as a serious leadership contender courtesy of a limp performance since being elevated to cabinet, the simple fact is the Right wing of the Liberal Party has leadership contenders for the future whereas the moderates do not.

Morrison himself is no moderate, Peter Dutton certainly isn’t either. If Dutton finds a way to retain his marginal Queensland seat, he’s the man (it’s always a man) most likely to take over the leadership if Morrison doesn’t stay on. Even deputy Liberal leader Josh Frydenberg is no moderate, more in the Porter mould: a traditional conservative.

Finally, a key factor strengthening the factional Right at the expense of the moderates is the merger of the Coalition parties in Queensland. It is pulling the division to the Right and making it easier for Nationals to intervene in Liberal Party business. The more sway Queensland has nationally in Liberal Party politicking, the less moderate the party founded by Robert Menzies will be. The Victorian founder, who remains our longest serving PM, described the Liberal Party as “in no sense reactionary” and he called it “Liberal” to signal the intent that it would “be a progressive party”.

Wise words the reactionary hard Right would rather forget.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.