Party of government must know what it stands for

Wednesday 15 October

The Editorial

The Australian

‍

Liberal senator James Paterson has given a well-timed and welcome reality check for the conservative side of politics as it struggles to rediscover itself and the pathway back to government. Most vivid is the warning that the Coalition has a moral duty to prevent the Victorianisation of Australia. This is no flippant remark.

Victoria has sunk into a disastrous financial position. It is beholden to union power, out-of-control crime and the seemingly irredeemably incompetent management of state Labor. Victoria is let down by a weak state opposition and it is saved ultimately by the financial health and national obligations of the commonwealth.

Should Australia go the way of Victoria there is no equivalent higher authority to step in. The Coalition partners have a responsibility to take Senator Paterson’s warnings seriously. All of the profligate spending patterns and risk-averse management of Labor under Daniel Andrews are detectable in how Anthony Albanese now runs the nation. In these circumstances, it is critical that the Liberal Party gather its wits, step back from a destructive path of self-immolation and build a foundation for putting itself back on to the Treasury benches federally.

There are plenty of clues in Senator Paterson’s Tom Hughes Oration. First is the hard truth that the Liberal Party is not a think tank, an activist group or a debating society. “We are a political party designed to win and hold government,” Senator Paterson said. To do this its MPs must see beyond the points of internal division – intoxicating as they may be for those involved – and rediscover their joint national purpose. Robust internal debate is an important function of policy development but at some point protagonists must be prepared to unify around a set of values and beliefs, and demonstrate that they offer a competent and better alternative. It is not too late for the Liberal Party but neither does it have the luxury of limitless time. The challenge is to dispense with what Senator Paterson describes as the twin caricatures presented as the alternative paths available to it.

First is that the party should become a free-market version of the teals that accepts the cultural zeitgeist and contests no social agendas advanced by the left. Senator Paterson is correct to say that a stop to fighting the “culture wars” will not end them but instead will be a surrender in them to Labor. Alternatively, the suggestion is that the Liberal Party’s future lies in a Farage-lite, populist conservative party that abandons its traditions on free markets and fiscal discipline in favour of a new nationalism of picking winners and turning our backs on free trade. This would be politically and economically reckless. The common ground must be established that both of these are fringe positions that cannot deliver on the core objective to be a serious party of government. The Coalition must develop, as Senator Paterson advocates, a coherent and compelling alternative policy agenda consistent with its values and capable of earning the trust and support of the Australian people. The common ground includes the fact immigration is poorly targeted and running unchecked, housing is increasingly unaffordable for many, particularly the young, and families are struggling to achieve the economic progress of previous generations. Labor’s approach to emissions reduction has smashed the energy market, government spending is too high, the lack of productivity growth is a critical issue, and more must be done for the defence of our country in an age of strategic uncertainty.

Labor is vulnerable on all fronts. The Albanese government’s housing policy will lift prices and fall short of delivery. Budget discipline has been surrendered, leaving the nation vulnerable to any retreat from our historically high terms of trade. Energy policy has been handed over to special interests against the national good. Defence requires greater spending and a diplomatic focus of purpose, not ambiguity. The immigration challenge involves getting the bigger picture right to expand the economy and choosing the skilled migrants who will best serve the nation. Senator Paterson finds bedrock in the Liberal traditions of limited government, free markets and lower taxes. Sussan Ley says she is hearing from the electorate that “people want a government that gets out of their way and a parliament that understands what their life is like”. This is the right message. And it is one around which all Liberal MPs should be able to rally. It is inevitable that Labor’s big spending ways ultimately will collide with fiscal reality. In the meantime outliers, including Andrew Hastie, must temper their personal ambitions. Unifying on common ideals to re-establish the broad church that is needed to win government is not only possible, it is essential.

‍