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...