On Background || Liberal Party: What's next?

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

How did the internet go from being a fun place to hang out to a twisted mess full of racism and misinformation?

The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US.

It feels like we're on a path of no return, but our government is fighting back.

From if you're listening, this is Australia versus the Internet.

I'm Matt Bevan.

Find it on the ABC Listen app.

It's honestly difficult to remember a week where the political landscape has shifted as dramatically as it has this week and on so many different fronts.

In fact, it's still shifting as we record this podcast.

Labor, of course, won a crushing victory on Saturday night, and the victorious PM has been walking on air since then.

As we record this, he's assembling his huge caucus for their first post-election victory meeting.

But that's been promptly followed, of course, by a factional fight over the last few days over frontbench positions, which has left the only Muslim cabinet minister, Ed Husick, and the only Jewish cabinet minister, Mark Dreyfus, shown the door.

The Greens have lost their leader, Adam Bant, who failed to win his seat, along with others in the lower house, though going to be lucky to hold on to just one.

It's unclear who will emerge as the new Greens leader and what direction the party will now go in.

And then there's the Liberals, who lost their leader, Peter Dutton, and face what some are calling an existential crisis.

The Liberals need not only a new leader, but to find a way to appeal to young voters and women in particular.

Oh, and Jacinta Numpingjimpa Price has jumped ship from the Nats to the Libs.

in a move that stunned and upset her former colleagues in the Nationals and a few of her new ones in the Liberals as well.

So I'm keen this week to focus on the Liberal Party in particular.

What direction will it now go in and will it end up just being a divided mess?

Whoever becomes the leader?

I'm David Spears on Ngunnawal Country at Parliament House in Canberra.

Welcome to Insiders on Background.

Well, Fiona Scott is a federal vice president of the Liberal Party and a former member for Lindsay in Sydney's Outer West.

Fiona Scott, welcome to you.

Good to talk to you.

Yeah, thanks for having me, David.

No, look, a real pleasure.

It's nearly a week on from this rather extraordinary election result.

With that passage of time, is it any clearer to you, for starters, what went wrong for the Liberal Party?

Yeah, look,

I think you'd have to be living under a rock to

not think the Australian public sent us a pretty resounding message.

And

I think the opportunity out of that is to actually revisit everything.

And

I found myself over the last few days reading the foundation documents of the party, things like the We Belief Statement, which is

on the federal website, it's a public document.

You know, it has its history back in the Menzies era.

And does it still resonate now?

I mean, does it.

I think it's fantastic.

I think it's amazing.

So for those who haven't read it, what are some of the key points in terms of, I mean, this goes to what does the Liberal Party stand for today?

Yeah, so to answer your question, it's the Liberal Party, did we answer these questions and does the Australian public believe this is the Liberal Party?

We believe in Australia, its people and its future, in the innate worth of the individual, in the right to be independent, to own property, pretty big issue right now, and to achieve and in the need to encourage, initiative and personal responsibility.

Did the people of South Western Sydney believe this next point, in the basic freedoms of thought, worship, speech, association and choice?

Were we really that open?

In the equality of opportunity was with Australians having the opportunity to reach their full potential in a tolerant national community.

We've had a very divisive couple of years, David, and

does the Australians believe that the Liberal Party stands for that?

In a just and humane society where those who cannot provide them for themselves can live in dignity.

Like they're the first few bullet points I'm not going to go on.

Sure, but there's some powerful points.

Is it your view that that at the election just gone the liberal party did not espouse some of those values

i think it's deeper than that i think you know

um

robo-debt is robo-debt something that you know that first point in a humane society where those who cannot provide for themselves can live in dignity Did we manage that properly?

You know, I think there's a lot of questions that if we're really honest with ourselves and where our brand is, are we truly embodying what is something that every member of the Liberal Party believes in which is these statements I mean how many people would even know that these are the principles and the beliefs of the Liberal Party would would you vox pop that down the street in market Monica there in Canberra and and read those points out and say, okay, I'm not going to tell you which political party this is.

I want you to tell me

which political party in Australia believes in this?

How many would go, yes, that's the Liberal Party?

If you walked down the street in Western Sydney and said, what iconic Australian brand has been known for its safety record, 90% of Australians would go, oh, Qantas.

You know, you don't have to necessarily say the name of the brand to know what they stand for.

And I think when I look at this election, what policies did we have that aligned with those visions?

What is the behaviours of our party?

What are our actions that align with these visions?

And when you look at something like this and I look at the win in 2013, you know, those words of hope for the future, reward for hard work, opportunity for, or hope, reward, and opportunity, I'm sure 2013 has entered in lots of people's minds, but they were lifted out of this document.

We provided a vision for the Australian public and they wanted that vision.

And for me, I think this document is incredibly powerful, but I'm not sure that as a party, if we're honest with ourselves, that we are embodying these values.

I mean, some have pointed out, I've seen Chris Pine and others making points this week, that what the Liberal Party did stand for looked more like division, looked more like the mean party.

Yeah, would you agree with that?

Yeah, I would.

I like the statement I read at the beginning of this podcast, David.

And

I even brought up the example of RoboDebt.

There's a lot of those things that

I don't think we are being our best selves and I don't think our party is demonstrating that or providing vision to the Australian public.

It starts with going back to basics.

It starts with these these sorts of foundation documents and moving forward and being honest with ourselves.

Many have made the point that the Liberals are losing young voters and women.

I think you've been making the point this week too about multicultural Australians as well.

What's your point there?

You look at say a seat that everyone was talking about for a while, a seat like Werawa.

I even like to look at a seat like Fowler with Di Lee, who was once a member of the Liberal Party.

And I've always thought the values of the Liberal Party, I mean, from Western Sydney myself,

had actually aligned more with the Vietnamese community that were living in the southwest part of Sydney.

Why haven't they voted with us?

Why haven't we been able to win those seats?

Why have those people not seen themselves in us when

we're going to crack down on immigration?

Is it as simple as that?

No, I think it's much deeper than that, David.

I think it's

we live in a representative democracy and I'm not sure that we

seem representative of the people we want to represent.

I'm not sure that the Lebanese Islamic communities living in Werrawa see themselves in us and vice versa, even though our candidate was, you know, a man who was

Islamic Lebanese himself.

So I think it, but they would see themselves in these types of values.

And if we're truthful, these values then for me it does come back to connecting again with women connecting again with or connecting with multicultural communities connecting with young people I think who we're connecting with in the community is more than just women I think it's a much broader issue and it's about

how we again become representative of Australian people and provide a vision for the delivery of what we collectively as a a country want to see Australia become.

Well, what you're talking about there is the sort of people the Liberal Party pre-selects.

And there's been a long debate about how to get more women pre-selected in particular, let alone people from different ethnic backgrounds.

Where do you stand, though, on the idea of targets, they've been in place for a while, they keep being missed, but making the step to quotas, which Labor adopted years ago and they've worked.

Where do you stand on that?

I'm not sure it's the answer.

I appreciate the reasons for it and I also appreciate the hypocrisy in that response being quite simply that of course there's quotas within cabinets and everything else that uphill and downdale.

So I appreciate that.

Katie Mullins terrific candidate in Parramatta she had a 10 point swing against a Lucy Wicks in Robertson.

quite significant swing against a Joe Vanderplatt.

Incredibly talented woman who ran in Ida Monero.

If If you looked at any of the polling at different points, you know, Roberts and Ida Monero potentially were in play at certain points if any of the polling was accurate.

So there were some pretty talented women that were pre-selected this time around.

I mean, you look at Giselle, who's, you know, as.

In Bradfield, yeah.

Yeah, and I mean, obviously, that's going down to the wire there with, you know, scrutineering and all hands on deck for that one.

You look at Amelia Harmer in Victoria.

You know, there was actually some pretty

fantastic female.

So are you saying it's more about the policy offering that saw the swings against the Liberals and didn't allow all of those pre-selected Liberal candidates to actually win?

I think it starts with the policy offering.

I think first of all, it starts with the policy offering.

I mean, and I think the Liberal Party really does need to put everything on the table, review the lot, except for maybe the we believe statement.

I think that's the unifying piece,

you know, and we have to build forward from there.

If the net result at the end is sure, you go for quotas, but I'd hate to have quotas on women, which then meant that we weren't connecting with, you know, the vast array of multicultural peoples across our country.

So it should be looked at, but you're not wedded to the idea.

I'm not wedded to the idea.

I don't think it's the silver bullet that fixes a problem that I think much deeper than that.

I mean, on the policy front, I think you've said the work from home policy sent a cold shiver down your spine, and clearly it did for many women and was dumped.

But you know, are there others you would point to and say clearly they were a problem?

Well,

I door-knocked a lot of houses to win my seat in Western Sydney in the day.

And

what I found when you door knock and you meet the public, people overwhelmingly will vote what's going to be the best opportunity or the best option for them and their families and align with their own values.

We aren't actually a mean people, Australians.

We actually are very gregarious and we actually want the best for everyone.

I think when your policy is you're going to sack 41,000 people,

you don't win votes by telling someone you're going to sack 41,000 people that live next door.

You know, I'm going to sack 41,000 people in Canberra.

I don't think you win votes with that sort of stuff.

I think you entrench a view that you're just mean.

And I think there's a whole range of those pieces when you look at the work from home issue.

The work from home issue, when it was then doubled down, oh but it's just for the APS.

Well okay who is the APS?

Do you know what the APS is?

Okay the APS is the Australian Public Service.

It's still a very jargon-y type of term.

If you work at hot jobs you know what it is.

If you live in Canberra you know what it is.

But

when it's then described, well it's the, you know, the Canberra bureaucrats, the Canberra Public Service.

I thought, well, I get that, and this is the view of voters or the Australian public.

was then to say, well,

but everything happens to the public service first.

The unions will negotiate EBAs with the public service first and then it bleeds through the entire community

and when you're in a cost of living crisis and you know living somewhere like a western Sydney where you need two cars and then you've got tolls and then you've got petrol prices and so if I'm not working from home then it's going to cost this this and this and then I've got to get back to childcare for six o'clock and oh my god you just don't understand me goodbye and and

The comment, yes, but we're only talking about the public service.

And it's like, yeah, but you guys do it to your workforce and my boss is going to do it for me, so that doesn't chop it, mate.

And

that was the instant disconnect.

You know, they were

the voting public was prepared to look at the coalition at that point, but it was just,

you know, you don't get it.

I mean,

it raises a lot of questions around how that was put forward in the first place, the process of coming up with policies, testing policies to make sure they're not going to have that dramatic effect of turning voters away, as you say.

I want to ask you about personnel and also organisationally in the Liberal Party.

Personnel, you know, as we record this, the leadership debate is on between Susan Lee and Angus Taylor.

Susan Lee has this morning declared her candidacy.

She says, you know, it would send a strong message to women to have a female leader.

Do you agree?

And should it be Susan Lee?

I feel really, I mean, I'm not trying to

skip your answer there, but I actually feel a little bit torn about it all because

I just feel we need change, you know, and I'm not sure.

Look, I think female leadership would be great, but we don't need male leadership for the sake of leadership.

You know.

Can either of them deliver change?

The change you were talking about, one was deputy leader, one was shadow treasurer?

I'm not 100% sure, and I don't know.

I don't know.

And hence, you know, that will be a question for the party room.

I believe they possibly can, but they need to be genuine.

I don't think we need someone that's going to be night watchman for the party.

We need someone that's going to actually get in there and dig into our systems and dig into

how our

CRM systems work and campaign platforms and protocols and how we communicate with our candidates, how we pre-select our candidates, how the secretariats work amongst each other, how we buy media, what media we do, and right through how you align policy back to these documents.

And for me, that's what I want to hear from the people who want to be leaders.

You know,

I'm open to all.

I don't have firm opinions one way or another on those things, except for who is going to be genuinely out there to listen to the message the Australian public deliver to our party.

actually rather than wallow in that, take the opportunity of the blank canvas it provides for us to rebuild and to take what I think are timeless values and use the Liberal Party as a machine to deliver those values and those visions for the Australian public.

Well I'll tell you someone else who would represent change is Jacinda Numpanjimpa Price coming into the Liberal Party room.

It's certainly upset a few on the NAT side that she's decided to

shift which party room she sits with.

And there's some talk about maybe running as deputy leader.

But is this the sort of change I mean, Jacinda Price, well known for opposing the voice, but also taking prominent positions on things like abortion and school curriculum and so on.

Is that the sort of change that gets back to the values you're talking about?

Maybe, maybe that might be the answer.

But I don't think we need to become across as I think we need to come across that we are embodying these set of values.

We don't need to bring Trump-style politics into Australia.

We have a a very different system.

We have a compulsory voting system that actually means we must govern to the centre and govern for all Australians.

Now, obviously, the voice was categorically defeated, you know, in a popular vote, but we also need to make sure that our leaders can talk about the economics.

They can talk about how we actually build our country up.

And, you know, the voice, yes, that has been heard.

But at the same token, there is a lot of healing to do from that process.

And, you know, how we then bring Aboriginal Australia as well as, you know, all of our multicultural communities, the whole country together is going to be really important.

And the people who are putting themselves up for leadership, whether it's Jacinta, I highly respect Jacinta.

I think she's amazing.

I highly respect Angus.

I highly respect Susan.

I think they're wonderful people.

Likewise, Dan Tien's name, who's been in the mix as well.

I just want to see them actually come back to these sorts of values.

And I'm sorry I'm sounding like a broken record.

No, that's understandable.

What about organisationally?

You're

a vice president, so maybe you're restraining what you can say here.

But some have said to me, there needs to be a look at the president, John Olson, as well, after two

record election defeats like this.

Would you weigh in on that?

Does the party need to look at its organisational leadership too?

I think we have to look at a lot of it.

I think

top to bottom, bottom to top, David, I I think everything should be on the table.

Everything but the statement I read to you.

I think everything should be on the table.

I think

our CRM systems should be on the table.

Polling should be on the table.

The way we advertise, the way we communicate, who the leaders of our parliamentary party should be on the table, how we communicate, what wish list items we might do in local areas, likewise the executive of our you know, our states and our local areas.

Is it right to still have an intervention in New South Wales right now?

Does the federal system you know with the way things have gone in other areas was that the best thing for this election to have New South Wales intervened on

is now the time to talk about pre-selection processes and all of those sorts of things I actually think we need to actually strip it back further past all of that point I think we need to say back to even and I hate being a liberal that sits there and quotes menzies which I've done non-stop to you this morning but I think we actually have to sit back and say, what is it that we agree with?

What do we agree with?

Where do we meet?

What is this point?

And what is still relevant all of this stuff and how do you do this process I mean is it who who does this how how do you this is a broad scope of reviewing you're talking

again

thank you I've seen you host debates you're crazy well

they're fun but this is this doesn't sound like a lot of fun do you need someone independent or is it like a former you know premier like a Gladys Berr Jiklian or who it does it need to be someone with completely clean hands looking at this?

Well, I don't think there's any liberal with clean hands because everyone's going to have a stake of pie somewhere.

But you're right.

I think it should be someone that can bring people together.

I mean, whether it's, you know, you bring somebody on who's conceived the left and somebody on the right, you know, maybe you bring in somebody like a Gladys on one side, but then, you know, more conservative parts of the party may not warm to Gladys and think that she's there for one interest.

But

she's actually a great suggestion of somebody that would be, you know,

a great choice for something like that.

But I think that's probably what we need to do is to really look at all of those things.

And

I think after,

you know, after

10 years in government, you know,

I think the beauty of the Westminster system is not having

fixed...

stakes in the ground, you know, like, you know, the Americans being stuck on things like, you know, the right to bear arms sitting in their Bill of Rights, Rights for instance

it is the ability that a Westminster system allows a government to ebb and change and be moulded by the generation that is holding the levers and our political parties need to do that too you know they shouldn't be static they shouldn't be they they should be they should be transitioned from generation to generation.

And I think this is a time that I look at my generation, you know, I'm in my 40s, that we take the reins off, you know, the Howard-era generation, we then evolve the party into the modern day and then prepare to hand it over to the younger generation coming through.

And that is a process that's hard, you know.

Some people are going to have to take their hands off the steering wheels when they've had them there for a long time.

But it needs to be done, you know, not in a factional sense.

It needs to be done in a way that the party evolves and it becomes relevant to the people we hope to represent.

And for me, the answer of this election was that, you know, the vast proportions of Australians did not see us people that represented them.

And that's why we need to really go back to the drawing board.

It's really interesting what you're saying there.

Just one finally.

What about the coalition with the Nats, with the National Party?

Do you stick with that at this point?

Or is it worth also looking at breaking apart for a while?

Oh, I hadn't thought about that, to to be honest with you.

I

look the National Party is a separate party in its own right and I think there are various things that work together.

I mean I look at people like you know a Perrin Davey or a

Michael McCormack or a Darren Chester.

There's vast portions we agree with.

I mean I might sit in the Liberal Party but I love Matt Canavan.

He's fantastic.

I find him a very pragmatic person to deal with.

You know, you have a good economic conversation about things as to why he thinks the way he does.

And

he's very rational.

And, you know, I know media might have other opinions on that, but I find him to be a very rational person to deal with.

So I don't have an issue with the National Party.

I think there's...

There's certain aspects coming out of an election where you've had some bruising three-corner contests, like in Bullwinkle, for instance,

that,

you know, people are feeling very bruised, you know, and the Western Australian division of the National Party is not always difficult for even the National Party to manage.

So

it's an interesting thing that people always think that it's the Liberal Party and the National Party that is the coalition, but it's a country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, it's a Liberal National Party in Queensland, it's the Liberal Party of New South Wales and the National Party of New South Wales.

It's actually a lot of parties that make it a coalition, and these are very separate in their own rights and have very different constitutions and things.

But, you know, if I'm going to be quoting former leaders, you know, that's the beauty of the broad church.

Yeah, well, it's a really interesting discussion with you, Fiona Scott.

You've, I think, sort of widened the lens as to what needs to be looked at at this point for the Liberal Party after obviously a terrible result on Saturday.

Really appreciate you joining us.

Thanks for the chat.

Thank you.

And thanks for your company as well.

If you have any thoughts on this conversation or ideas for the podcast, drop us a line, insiders at abc.net.au.

We'll have much more on this on Sunday morning and the dramas going on in, well, all of the parties at the moment, particularly in Labour.

Ed Husick, who's been dropped from the cabinet, he will be my guest on Insiders.

I hope you can join us from the couch Sunday morning, 9 a.m.

Australian Eastern Time.

Bye for now.

You're making us all feel very excited about being here.

G'day, I'm Thomas O'Ready, O'Reiti, and I'm thrilled to announce I'll now also be hosting Background Briefing.

Over the past few weeks, our reporters have been investigating stories of untold power and hidden influence.

Who's really shifting the dial in Australia?

They're secretive by nature.

From the unlikely influencers.

I've rejected probably 15 to 20 politicians in the last month.

To the international businessman shunning the spotlight.

All of his ideas are sanctioned.

The game changers, wielding serious power under the radar.

We are cultivating influence.

Agents of Influence, an all-new series by Background Briefing.