Janet Albrechtsen, writing in The Australian on October 14, 2026, has delivered a forceful diagnosis of the Liberal Party's ideological decline. Her argument is that Angus Taylor cannot rebuild the party while its progressive faction continues to undermine its conservative identity. She calls for the expulsion of Malcolm Turnbull, a decisive rejection of the party's accommodation with progressive cultural politics, and a more realistic relationship with Pauline Hanson's One Nation. There is considerable force in this argument. The Liberal Party has spent years attempting to reconcile fundamentally incompatible political philosophies, producing a confused mixture of economic liberalism, cultural progressivism and occasional conservative rhetoric. Yet Albrechtsen's proposed solution, while addressing part of the problem, does not go nearly far enough. The Liberal Party's difficulties are not merely ideological. They are structural, arising from its longstanding relationship with corporate Australia and the financial interests that help sustain its political machinery.
Albrechtsen identifies the progressive faction as the principal source of the party's decline. She points to the Coalition's embrace of net-zero emissions policies, its pandemic spending, its accommodation with progressive cultural positions and its failure to defend traditional conservative principles. Her criticism of Malcolm Turnbull is particularly severe. Turnbull, in her account, represents a political tendency more comfortable with the cultural assumptions of Labor, the Greens and the teal independents than with the convictions of ordinary conservative voters. Removing him would therefore symbolise a decisive break with the party's recent history. But symbolism is not structural reform. Expelling one former prime minister, or even marginalising an entire faction, would leave untouched the deeper economic relationships that have shaped Liberal Party policy for generations.
The Liberal Party has traditionally presented itself as the party of private enterprise, economic freedom and responsible financial management. These principles need not be objectionable. Competitive markets, private ownership and entrepreneurial initiative have contributed enormously to Australia's prosperity. The difficulty arises when support for private enterprise becomes excessive deference to large corporations, particularly corporations possessing the resources to influence political decision-making. There is a fundamental difference between defending competitive capitalism and defending the interests of established corporate power. The former can serve consumers, workers and small businesses. The latter can produce concentrated wealth, political privilege and policies that transfer costs onto the wider population.
Political donations are part of this problem. Australia's major political parties operate expensive electoral organisations, requiring substantial funding for advertising, staffing, research and campaigning. Corporate donations and fundraising arrangements create opportunities for businesses to secure access to political decision-makers. Such access does not establish that a particular policy has been purchased, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise without evidence. Nevertheless, the relationship creates an obvious structural tension. A party dependent upon substantial financial support from corporate interests may find it difficult to pursue policies that seriously threaten those interests. The Australian Electoral Commission's financial disclosure system makes aspects of these relationships publicly visible, but disclosure alone does not eliminate the potential for disproportionate influence.
A particularly revealing example is immigration policy. Large employers and business organisations have frequently supported relatively high immigration because it can expand the available labour force, facilitate recruitment and contribute to economic growth. Population growth also increases demand for housing, transport, water, energy, schools and medical services. Where infrastructure and housing construction fail to keep pace, the resulting pressures are borne disproportionately by ordinary households. Employers may benefit from access to additional workers, while existing residents face intensified competition for accommodation and increasingly congested public services. The economic benefits and costs are distributed unevenly, yet political debate frequently treats aggregate economic expansion as though it were synonymous with improvements in individual living standards.
This is where the Liberal Party's relationship with big business becomes politically significant. A genuinely conservative party should be prepared to ask whether immigration levels are consistent with housing availability, infrastructure capacity, environmental sustainability and the interests of existing citizens. It should not assume that the preferences of major employers automatically coincide with the national interest. Nor should it treat criticism of high immigration as inherently illegitimate. The question is one of democratic accountability: who determines the country's population policy, and whose interests receive priority when difficult trade-offs arise?
The same tension appears in housing policy. Rising property prices benefit some existing owners, investors, developers and financial institutions, while imposing substantial costs upon younger Australians attempting to purchase their first homes. Banks benefit from mortgage lending, property developers from construction activity, and governments from various forms of property-related revenue. Yet the wider social consequences of persistently unaffordable housing are profound. Delayed family formation, increased household debt, declining home ownership and reduced economic security are hardly consistent with the traditional conservative ideal of stable families possessing a meaningful stake in their communities. A conservative party genuinely committed to family formation and social stability should be prepared to challenge economic arrangements that undermine those objectives, even when doing so conflicts with powerful commercial interests.
Energy policy presents another example. Albrechtsen is correct to identify the Liberal Party's confused approach to net zero as a major source of distrust among conservative voters. Angus Taylor's recent repudiation of the policy may represent an important change in direction, but voters are entitled to ask whether the change reflects settled conviction or political necessity. More fundamentally, the question is whether future energy policy will prioritise reliable and affordable electricity for households and industry, or whether it will become another exercise in accommodating whichever corporate interests possess the greatest political influence. Energy producers, network operators, renewable-energy developers and large industrial consumers all have legitimate interests, but none should be permitted to define the public interest simply by invoking investment, jobs or economic growth.
Corporate influence is not confined to the Liberal Party. Labor has its own relationships with business organisations, major employers, industry groups and organised labour. Indeed, one of the most troubling features of contemporary Australian politics is the extent to which the major parties can disagree fiercely over cultural questions while sharing important assumptions about economic growth, population expansion and the desirability of maintaining close relationships with established institutions. Their rhetoric differs, but their underlying economic commitments can converge. This helps explain why voters who feel economically insecure may become disillusioned with both major parties, regardless of which occupies government.
Against this background, the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation is more significant than a temporary protest vote. One Nation presents itself as a nationalist and populist alternative to the established political parties, placing greater emphasis on immigration restriction, national sovereignty, household economic pressures and resistance to political orthodoxies. Its appeal lies partly in the perception that it is less constrained by the networks of corporate and institutional influence surrounding the major parties. Hanson has cultivated an image of political independence over many years, and that image has considerable value among voters who believe their concerns have been subordinated to the preferences of political and economic elites.
There is, however, an important distinction between being perceived as independent and demonstrating independence in practice. One Nation is not immune from the ordinary requirements of political fundraising, nor should it be exempt from scrutiny of its donors, internal organisation or policy proposals. Its economic policies also deserve examination for consistency and practicality. Nevertheless, the contrast with the Liberal Party is politically important. One Nation's appeal is not founded upon a longstanding claim to represent the corporate establishment. It has instead built much of its identity around opposition to that establishment and the political consensus associated with it. Whether it can preserve that independence as its influence grows is a question that will become increasingly important.
This distinction also explains why merely adopting One Nation's policies may not rescue the Liberals. Voters do not assess political parties solely by comparing policy documents. They consider credibility, institutional history and whether politicians appear genuinely committed to their stated positions. A Liberal Party that supported high immigration, embraced net zero and accommodated progressive cultural policies cannot necessarily regain lost support simply by reversing its rhetoric. Voters may reasonably ask what prevents another reversal when business organisations, influential donors or internal party factions object.
Albrechtsen's proposal to expel Turnbull therefore addresses a symptom rather than the underlying disease. It might provide a dramatic demonstration that the party wishes to recover its conservative identity. It would not, by itself, establish that the party had recovered its independence from powerful economic interests. A Liberal Party purged of progressive politicians could remain thoroughly committed to policies favoured by major corporations, even where those policies conflict with the interests of ordinary families, workers and small businesses. Cultural conservatism combined with uncritical corporate economic liberalism would be an incomplete answer to the problems confronting contemporary Australia.
The deeper question is what conservatism should mean in an era of concentrated corporate power. Historically, conservative thought has encompassed more than the defence of markets and private property. It has also emphasised social continuity, family stability, national institutions, local communities and obligations extending beyond immediate commercial advantage. These commitments can come into conflict with corporate practices that treat labour, housing, land and population primarily as economic inputs. A genuinely conservative political programme must be prepared to recognise those conflicts rather than automatically resolving them in favour of business.
This does not require hostility towards business as such. Small businesses, family enterprises and productive private investment are essential components of a prosperous society. Indeed, concentrated corporate power can threaten genuine market competition by imposing barriers to entry, influencing regulation and securing advantages unavailable to smaller competitors. The interests of a suburban family business are not necessarily identical to those of a multinational corporation. A political party claiming to defend enterprise should understand the distinction.
For Angus Taylor, the challenge is consequently much greater than removing Malcolm Turnbull or disciplining progressive Liberals. He must decide whether the Liberal Party is prepared to place the interests of ordinary Australians ahead of the preferences of its most influential institutional supporters when those interests conflict. That would require credible policies on immigration, housing affordability, energy security, market competition and political transparency. It would also require an unmistakable willingness to disagree publicly with powerful business organisations rather than treating their approval as the ultimate measure of economic responsibility.
One Nation's growing appeal should be understood in this context. Its political advantage is not simply that it occupies territory to the right of the Liberal Party on cultural questions. It is that it offers voters a different account of whose interests government should serve. That account is open to criticism and must be tested against policy performance, but the major parties cannot defeat it merely by dismissing its supporters or borrowing its slogans. They must address the underlying grievances that make its message attractive.
Albrechtsen is right that the Liberal Party cannot indefinitely accommodate incompatible ideological factions without sacrificing political credibility. But the party's crisis cannot be solved through ideological pruning alone. The relationship between political power and corporate money is at least as important as the relationship between conservative and progressive factions. Removing Turnbull might change the party's public face. It would not necessarily change the interests to which the party listens.
The fundamental question is whether the Liberals can become a genuinely independent conservative party, willing to challenge corporate power when necessary in defence of national and community interests. Until that question is answered, the departure of progressive politicians may amount to little more than rearranging the furniture in a political house whose foundations remain unchanged.
And that is why One Nation continues to pose such a serious challenge. It has identified a reservoir of public distrust that cannot be drained by changing Liberal Party personnel. Whether One Nation ultimately proves capable of governing effectively is a separate question. But its rise exposes a weakness in the Liberal Party that Albrechtsen's proposed purge, however dramatic, cannot by itself repair.