Liberal insiders say Voice triumph confused Coalition's election priorities
Was the "no" result in the Voice referendum a pyrrhic victory for the Liberal party?
Our Four Corners story on the fight inside the Coalition over its future direction revealed something I didn't expect to. Even those who strongly advocated against the Voice believe it gave the party all the wrong messages about how Australians felt about a broader range of issues and established a sense of complacency that ultimately led to its historic belting.
From the conservative to the moderate side of the Liberal Party room there is a growing consensus that the "no" vote fought for by the conservatives created the wrong impression for the party.
Rising conservative star Andrew Hastie told me the Voice gave the Coalition "a false sense of confidence".
"I think Australians are naturally, we're incrementalists," he said.
"So the Voice was a massive change to our constitution, which is why I think it was defeated. But that's very different to who do you want to govern this country? And in order to win people over, you've got to demonstrate that you're fighting for them. And I just don't think we landed that argument."
Asked if fighting against the Voice could have been damaging for Peter Dutton, Hastie answered: "Yes, perhaps. But I think we probably lingered over the voice for too long. Like I said, it was a tactical victory. Things can change very quickly in politics."
That view is shared by former shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser, who resigned from his opposition portfolio in 2023 in order to campaign for the referendum.
He argued on Afternoon Briefing yesterday that the Coalition's success in defeating the Voice to parliament referendum gave the Liberal party "a false sense of confidence" about its chances of victory in the federal election. Leeser says that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese "seemed to lose his way" after the Voice referendum was defeated and this, combined with what he says was Albanese's poor handling of the local antisemitism crisis, "gave so many in our party a false sense of confidence".
Leeser says he was "shocked" that the internal polling conducted for the Coalition used the number of Labor voters who voted "no" in the referendum in his calculations of a swing against the government, which was instead returned in a landslide.
The government's victory is so big it mirrors John Howard's 1996 election landslide.
"Part of the reason my colleagues were successfully defeating the referendum was in 2023 the issue did not seem to be one of top priority for Australian voters," Leeser said.
"Certainly, in 2025, it was completely irrelevant and I had no idea why the issue kept reappearing in our campaign."
While Dutton regularly raised the Voice as one of several examples to demonstrate that Labor was out of touch, he campaigned in the last week of the campaign on what he said was a "secret plan to legislate the Voice" after Foreign Minister Penny Wong told a podcast "we'll look back on it in 10 years' time and it'll be a bit like marriage equality".
"It indicated we were not in touch with the concerns of ordinary Australians," Leeser said.
"People were not talking to me about those issues until we raised them; they were concerned about paying the electricity bills, their mortgage, about the future of their children and what sort of jobs they would have in a world where AI will present both threats and opportunities.
"We were not talking about any of those enough, and instead focused on esoteric issues and I think it indicated a lack of discipline and real focus."
Despite a deep schism over the future of the party and how to deal with vexed questions including whether to stay committed to net zero by 2050 — many in the party acknowledge that the Voice set them on a path which created false positives that didn't materialise in votes on election day.
That revelation — if listened to carefully — provides warnings on how to rebuild. It is a cautionary tale on what to focus on and where Australians expect their political parties to be focused.
The Liberals are now in negotiations to bring the Nationals back into the Coalition — with Nationals leader David Littleproud denying that his party "flip flopped" on its split with the Liberals.
"There's no flip flopping from the National Party. We did not blink," he told Sky News.
But it's Littleproud whose leadership is under pressure over the shambolic incident and he is on borrowed time according to key members of his own party room.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley may have a monumental task before her in settling issues that are red lines for many inside her party but her leadership has been strengthened by the recalcitrant junior Coalition partner's overreach.
Her next job is to manage the divergence in her own party room. The Nationals may end up seeming like the easier job compared with managing some of the policy differences inside her own party.
Watch Four Corners's Decimated, reported by Patricia Karvelas, on ABC iview.
Patricia Karvelas is presenter of ABC TV's Q+A, host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
29 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US acted alone, Albanese declares while abandoning neutral stance on attack
The US acted alone to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, Anthony Albanese has declared, as he refused to say whether Australia received advance notice but departed from the government's neutral position to back US President Donald Trump's strikes. The shift was confirmed by Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Monday, a day after an unnamed government spokesperson released a statement that called for peace and remained neutral on the strike. Wong and Albanese declined to say how close Iran was to making a nuclear bomb or whether the joint US-Australia intelligence base at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory was used to garner intelligence for it at a press conference at which they were peppered with questions. 'The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that – that is what this is,' Albanese said. 'The US action was directed at specific sites central to Iran's nuclear program. We don't want escalation and a full-scale war. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously, but we have made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States,' Albanese repeatedly answered when asked whether Australia had been briefed on the US' decision to strike Iran. Loading British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he was briefed just before the strike. Albanese said: 'The UK has been one of the countries that's been at the negotiating table with Iran for many years on its nuclear weapons program'. The government's shift from neutrality to full support emphasises Australia's close alliance with the US, echoing its stance before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When Trump confirmed the strikes on the weekend, the Australian government gave a statement that reiterated Iran's missile and ballistic missile programs were dangerous, but was neutral on the US decision to attack them.
Sydney Morning Herald
41 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese doesn't want a bar of Middle East conflict, but that comes at a cost
Anthony Albanese's government looks more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States' decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia's support for US strikes on Monday morning because 'the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that'. But make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped. Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don't like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal that the government views as crucial to Australia's self-defence. So it matters when Albanese spoke curtly on Monday to point out three times that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming that Australia was not briefed ahead of time by the US. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, got a heads-up. Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical 'no'. That answer made clear the prime minister's view of Australia's potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn't see a need for it in this age of 'progressive patriotism'. Loading It was strange, then, that Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that 'we aren't a central player in this conflict – that's just a fact.' When the prime minister was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back, arguing 'we issued a statement' on Sunday within hours of the strikes.
The Age
41 minutes ago
- The Age
Albanese doesn't want a bar of Middle East conflict, but that comes at a cost
Anthony Albanese's government looks more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States' decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia's support for US strikes on Monday morning because 'the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that'. But make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped. Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don't like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal that the government views as crucial to Australia's self-defence. So it matters when Albanese spoke curtly on Monday to point out three times that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming that Australia was not briefed ahead of time by the US. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, got a heads-up. Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical 'no'. That answer made clear the prime minister's view of Australia's potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn't see a need for it in this age of 'progressive patriotism'. Loading It was strange, then, that Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that 'we aren't a central player in this conflict – that's just a fact.' When the prime minister was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back, arguing 'we issued a statement' on Sunday within hours of the strikes.
