The sections on Immigration and cultural inclusion, Small is beautiful, and Governance reform are certainly worth considering.

Neither of the major political parties in Australia is worth its salt.

Interesting article, and one that certainly reminds one of the third way as articulated in the infamous Latham Diaries.

The author does however oversimplify and or inaccurately summarises the positions on both the left and the right however.

For example, the right has recently supported intervention in Indigenous communities aimed at making such communities become functional and able to allow Indigenous people to obtain employment and live without violence.

Also, the left have been quite vocal in wanting liberal arts degrees to proliferate.

Finally, both sides have made pitches to the disabled and carers.

I would appreciate the rise of a real conservative party and the burying of the Howard/Costello/Vanstone/Ruddock/Abbot style Liberals whose only interests seem to be power at any cost and making the trains run on time.
It is probably unrealistic but I would like to see Australian politics grow to the point where political parties understood that the purpose of an opposition is not to oppose everything, but to review and offer alternatives if alternatives are called for. A place where it is not the purpose of the Government act dictatorially on all things until they are thrown out of office by an electorate tired of broken promises.
We do not have a democracy in Australia. What we have is a series of time limited dictatorships. Every three years we vote for who will be our dictator for the next three years. Apart from that it is rare for the Australian people to have any influence on political matters.
A new liberal party founded on true liberal principals instead of power, power, and more power could be a step towards changing that. Malcolm Turnbull looked like he was beginning to head to a new Liberal party and I hope that he can still yet be the catalyst for radical changes for those who call themselves liberals.
I voted Labour at the last election and unless the Liberals make major changes to their line up and focus will do so again later this year. It is not that I have any particular love of the Labour party, it is because the Labour dictator looks a better alternative to any dictator the Liberals have to offer.
But the real problem is the people of Australia. It was Hitler who said 'It is lucky for governments that the people do not think.' Until we start thinking about issues we will get the Liberals (and Labour) we deserve.

You people DO realize there actually ARE quite a few Australian political parties precisely like what Vern described?
Not to mention thousands of independents, easily.
Again- google is your friend, use it!

Anyway, I very much agree Vern, Australia is sorely dominated by a disproportionate amount of anti-egalitarian neocons or neoliberals who tend to like a LOT of control over civil liberties.
Ideally a more balanced and comfortable system would be between a liberal-left and a conservative party like you described- BOTH egalitarian and secular and BOTH accept BCIR.

Anyone having a problem with Vern's assessment has a problem.

Yes Daviy,

Of the many, many kids that I have tackled on their way home from schools, no one has heard of Constitution or democratic processes.

Have the schools a stake in keeping our children ignorant on matters social and political? Probably yes. Probably teachers prefer dictating to classrooms.

Everybody likes to use the word conservative but what does it really mean---Russ Limbaugh calls himself a conservative. The members of the Inquisition were acting on (to them) profoundly conservative motives.

Re the very real drug problem. The only way it can be gotten rid of (as if that were at all possible) is via a massive police state apparatus including necessarily a comprehensive "dob in your friends and neighbours" network.

Meanwhile we live in a drug saturated society most of which are legal.

All of the multi-billion dollars involved in the production of alcohol, tea, coffee, cocoa, tobacco, and even sugar.

Most of us affected by some kind of drug the moment we are conceived and for the full nine months in the womb. Most of us are also heavily drugged in one way or another during the birthing process.

How many countless hundreds of millions (billions) of scripts are written each year for prescription drugs to help people cope with the pressures of modern life?

How many children are given drugs to control them in school and altogether.

How many people reach for some kind of drug even for a minor cold?

The market for panadol and aspirin etc etc is huge.

I doubt that an other party is the answer to the important questions raised here.
To me the real problem is that we do not have an agreed set of principles that set the framework for political discussion.
For example every election parties will trumpet how much money they will be spending on particular social welfare issues. Yet we do not have in place a set of principles that ensure that people who need support have access to that support.
I personally find it offensive that a wole rabnge of groups in the community have to beg for funds from the rest of us to fund the work that they are doing. Why are my taxes not used to ensure that blind people have guide dogs? Why are they not used to ensure that the homeless are housed? The list of charitable causes that need to be supported by our tax dollars is virtually endless - clearly we cannpt pay for everything but in an ideal world we would have a set of principles that ensure that those most in need receive what they need.

This Conservative party you speak of in this article sounds like a very wishful, 'airy-fairy' one. It seems to sway both to the Left and then the Right of the political spectrum, seemingly praying on the 'middle-ground' between Australia's current two dominant political parties or the ground which they both mutually steer clear from. In my opion, if such a party attempted to get off the ground in Australia it would be faced with a number of problems.
Firstly, I predict it would be viewed in two ways. These being: deemed highly suspect by both the Left and real practitioners in Liberalism, or, being hailed as 'the answer to all our problems' by far Right-wingers.
Secondly, Vern talks of a government which does not get swept up in power-plays and self-interest, bureaucracy, caring instead about 'the little things'. I argue none of this is plausible. The hunt for power is an integral part of the very nature of politics; bureaucracy is part and parcel of any government, even the most Ring-wing; and finally, that a party which is obsessed with 'the little things' will not only fail in its job, if it were to get in power, of running its level of government, but it would also have a short life span.
Swings to radicalism i.e. far left or far right, even in watered down of versions like this, are always short lived. They may win votes for some time, but this will only be temporary.
If you want a party like this, vote for Steve Fielding...