Liberal moderates may force a reformation on the broad church

When Malcolm Turnbull seized the prime ministership from Tony Abbott in September 2015, the so-called Liberal moderates reached the zenith of their political power. This always entailed the risk that like a science-fiction entity, they might drain the life force from their host organism.

Now the implosion has played out. When Julia Banks yesterday resigned to sit on the crossbench — excoriating her party along the way — she took the tally of seats lost by the Coalition since Turnbull’s ascension to 16.

To be fair, entering parliament at the 2016 election (taking Chisholm after Labor incumbent Anna Burke retired), Banks did not ride into power, like her colleagues, on the back of Abbott’s campaigning. Still, the hypocrisy of her departure was staggering.

Excusing herself from loyalty to the Liberals, she trumpeted allegiance only to the former leadership team of Turnbull and his deputy Julie Bishop — but she was elected by people voting Liberal and has broken faith with them.

Banks tried to sidestep this betrayal by saying her “centrist” values had not changed. “The Liberal Party has changed,” she said, “largely due to the actions of the reactionary and regressive Right who talk to themselves rather than listening to the people.”

Using the language of Leftist critics, this was an ideological attack on her party — without evidence. She won instant hero status from factional colleagues, Labor and Greens supporters and the many commentators who disguise Green Left dispositions by barracking loudly for “woke” Liberals.

Banks deliberately inflicted ­serious damage on a government she promised to buttress, plunging the Coalition deeper into minority status and fuelling an existential crisis for Scott Morrison.

She claimed the Liberals needed more women but walked. The ideological vandalism from moderates embittered by Turnbull’s removal continues. Just days earlier, the factionalised NSW branch dumped sitting senator Jim Molan from a winnable place on its ticket. His distinguished military career and integral role in restoring the nation’s border integrity meant ­little to moderate factional players who prefer malleable types who master internal machinations.

In the lead-up to the 2016 election campaign, I wrote about the dangers of the moderate ascendancy robbing the government of its defining strengths. “Liberal moderates are not, as they would have it, characterised by ‘compassion’ and ‘liberalism’ but largely by a default ability to concede their opponent’s arguments and retreat on tough debates,” I ­argued. “They are happy to sweep into office on the back of tough campaigning by an Abbott or a Howard, and accept the kudos for closing detention centres or welcoming extra refugees but often shrink from the difficult arguments and hard actions that ­enable those successes.”

And so it transpires. They tend to be “political leaners rather than lifters”. We know the Turnbull government did not campaign strongly and failed to attack Labor. It clung to power by its fingernails.

If moderates were chastened by that performance, they have not shown it. Turnbull lost the leadership when he insisted on trying to strike a climate and energy policy that Labor would support. Now Labor has adopted it. And Bishop is still promoting it.

Banks claimed conservative Liberals have stopped listening to voters yet the moderates are effectively urging the Coalition to break undertakings on climate and energy, and on border protection, while apologising for honouring its pledge to give voters a say on same-sex marriage.

This is an escalating party crisis. Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have all made mistakes, as have MPs moderate and conservative. But moderates seem eager to repudiate the government’s mandates from 2013 and 2016.

When the moderates flexed their muscles to install a popular leader and demand their party stand for less, they enjoyed a 14-seat majority. Three years of policy drift have left them two seats shy of a majority.

It now seems inevitable they will lose many more before any improvement. The question is whether the party can expunge bad blood and coalesce around policies and values without splitting. The broad church could be facing a reformation.