I have been reminded that there was at least one word I omitted from my glossary of words and phrases last week, designed to help newly elected members of the federal parliament settle into their careers. That word was ‘irony’. The astute observer will note that Canberra is full of ironies at every turn; in fact, you can scarcely cross King’s Hall without stumbling over them. What put me in mind that it was an oversight to omit ‘irony’ from my catalogue was watching Angus Taylor the other day pontificating on the need for a strong defence policy, he now being the spokesman on that subject for what is left of the Coalition. Coming from him, it was about as persuasive as his offering when he was the shadow treasurer that what we needed for the economy were ‘fiscal guardrails’. That proposition was so ineffective that even if the electorate knew what he was talking about, it must have driven them away in their thousands when it came to casting their votes. Anyway, I was hit by the irony of his now advancing the cause of a strong defence posture when only a few weeks ago, he was a principal advocate for the shameful defence policy that Australia should not contribute to a peace-keeping force in Ukraine. In other words, during the election campaign, Taylor and his senior colleagues declared that for the first time in its history, the Liberal party should be on the side of the aggressor, and yet only a few weeks later, they are apparently in favour of the party’s traditional robust defence policy.

This got me thinking about the review of the Liberal party’s policies that is supposed to be underway. How could the Liberal party have taken such an appalling position during the election campaign without measuring it against traditional Liberal principles? And how can a repetition of such irresponsible conduct be prevented in the future?

Indeed, the party took such a strange array of policies to the election that there is an overwhelming case for reviewing them. The Liberal party is supposed to be the party of free enterprise, and yet there it was, advocating that nuclear power stations should be built and owned by the government and not by the private sector. It is supposed to be the party of competition, yet it advocated for an economic overlord to force supermarkets to divest their businesses. It is supposed to be the party of small government, and yet it was competing with the Labor party for the accolade of which party could spend more than the other on social welfare. It is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility, and yet it was advocating for more spending on free childcare to diminish the duty of parents to care for their children. It is supposed to be the party of rational decisions, and yet it was on the bandwagon of a net-zero climate policy that is at best highly dubious and at worst disastrous. Faced with our housing shortage, it had nothing to say on how to remedy this malaise. Faced with Australia’s stagnant productivity, it had nothing to say on how to reverse it. Above all, it had nothing to say on how traditional Liberal principles could be put into practice in policies that people would support with their votes.

That is more than enough to keep it going during the long years of opposition that are ahead of it, but how is all of that to be done?

So far as I can see, the review of these policies that have brought the Liberal party to the brink of extinction is to be under the control of those who have brought it about. The same hierarchy that led it to defeat is back in the saddle and will be the sole judge of who should conduct the review and how far it should go. What the party and its supporters should have done was to commit to a review not by the people who gave rise to the catastrophe but by complete outsiders and genuine supporters untouched by failure.

Clearly, what the review needs is people who believe in the traditional values of the party and apply them both in business and personally in their daily lives. If this is not done, you can write the review’s conclusions today, without waiting for the anodyne report it will inevitably produce. There will undoubtedly be promises of a wider role for women and the young. There will be a few nods to modernity and a few more on technology. There will be a token acknowledgement that the election campaign and communications must be improved. In other words, as things stand at present, the review will say that things must be improved, which we already know, but without saying how.

What the review needs is an answer to questions like the following. How can the rank and file of the party membership be given at least some input on who should be the party’s leader? Why should the hierarchy of the parliamentary party have the final say on the policies to be taken to an election? How can the rank and file have a greater say on those policies? How can the leader be discouraged and, if necessary, prevented from adopting policies that are doomed to failure? How can proposed policies be measured against basic party principles and values before they are accepted? How can the party as a whole be discouraged from adopting policies of obviously doubtful value?

Finding the answers to these questions will be difficult, but it is vital that they be examined, not by the party hierarchy but by independent and constructive critics. Unless that happens, the Liberal party and the Coalition as a whole are doomed.