During the GFC virtually all Australian politicians supported Keynesian fiscal policy and – it seems – after the Victorian state election, virtually all Australian politicians have become progressive. Progressive is the new black.

Josh Frydenberg, the man who replaced Julie Bishop as deputy leader of the Liberals after Malcolm Turnbull’s demise, declared on Monday that “when Sir Robert Menzies established the Liberal party he made it very clear we were a progressive party, not a reactionary party”. Another former conservative, Scott Ryan, said his party needed to listen to voters not conservative commentators, senator Jane Hume said the Liberals needed to preselect more women and Tim Wilson, the former Institute of Public Affairs staffer, now thinks the party needs to take climate action seriously. Bishop has even declared that the Liberals should adopt a bipartisan approach to climate policy.

It’s amazing what a good old-fashioned electoral drubbing can do to the principles of our elected representatives. But while it is fascinating to watch progressive ideas become the new “sensible centre” of Australian politics, it’s not at all obvious that it is good for our democracy, or for our economy, for the Liberal National Coalition to suddenly change course now. While many in the commentariat and business community yearn for “bipartisanship”, in reality democracy thrives on competing visions.

Labor marshals votes for Peter Dutton referral as Julia Banks quits Liberal party Read more

It’s no accident that the prime minister, Scott Morrison, removed pollution targets from his energy policy, it’s no accident that he spent so much political capital pursuing tax cuts for the big banks, and it’s no accident that he opposes a federal anti-corruption body. These policy positions reflect his vision and values and it is only proper that voters at the next election get the chance to judge.

While many in the Liberal party have become recent converts to climate action and other “progressive” causes (note: conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Queen of England have all strongly supported climate action), there are still plenty of Coalition MPs that are adamant the Victorian election reflected “state issues”.

Likewise, there are many conservative commentators who believe the Victorian landslide reflected the fact that the Liberals had not been conservative enough. Miranda Devine, for example, thought that Mathew Guy hadn’t been critical enough of the Safe Schools anti-bullying resource and Tim Blair said Liberal opposition leader Mathew Guy had gone too green.

Next year’s federal election presents a unique opportunity to test these competing visions. Over the past 30 years the major political parties, at the state and federal level, have often been accused of offering such similar policies to voters they are almost indistinguishable from each other. But those days are long gone. Bill Shorten is proposing to close a raft of tax loopholes to collect tens of billions of dollars in extra revenue while Morrison wants to cut taxes and cut public spending. Next year voters will have a clear choice.

Like Frydenberg and Wilson, Andrews clearly believes there are votes to be had in claiming his progressive credentials, declaring on election night: “We are the most progressive government in the nation. We are the most progressive state in the nation.” Given that his progressive policy agenda of using regulation and subsidies to tackle climate change and debt funding to boost infrastructure delivered him 52 or more of the 80 lower house seats, he is entitled to be proud of his agenda.

The fact the Victorian premier is so keen to not just pursue a similarly progressive agenda, but define himself by that pursuit, speaks volumes about the rapidly shifting political sentiment in Australia.

Which brings me back to the federal Liberal party. While it makes electoral sense for parliamentarians such as Wilson who now fear losing their “safe” seats to discover the benefits of listening to climate scientists and their constituents, such conversions on the road to Damascus do not serve our democracy well. While it is true that if the Liberals heed the advice of Julie Bishop and embrace a bipartisan approach to climate policy, the government might hang on to a few extra seats, such a cynical shift will also allow conservatives such as Tony Abbott and Rowan Dean to hang on to their bizarre belief that the Liberal party’s agenda isn’t conservative enough.

Bipartisanship is wonderful when it is sincere, but when it is motivated simply to save seats it will only make the public lose even more faith in our democratic structures. Making marginal seats safe is a poor reason to feign concern with making our schools safe. Democracy works best when politicians are honest with the public about their principles and their priorities, and honest with themselves after voters cast their ballot.

In the long run the best thing for Australia, and the Liberal party, is for the government and the opposition to head to the next election with significantly different agendas and let the public decide which is the most appealing. Such sincerity in the pursuit of principles and policy might make for some nervous Liberal MPs, but it’s the best way to remind Australians that elections really do matter and the best way for the Liberal party to decide in what direction its future lies.

Richard Denniss is chief economist for The Australia Institute



