I ran as an endorsed liberal candidate for the seat of Reid against Laurie Ferguson in 2001, when the Children Overboard affair arose.

I recall in those days being told by the NSW State Director, Scott Morrison, that the strong policies on mandatory detention were designed to attract the Hanson vote and destroy One Nation.

During the campaign, I was fortunate enough to meet a man who lost 2 nieces in the incident where over 100 asylum seekers lost their lives. I was stopped by the Party HQ from speaking a word. And so I said nothing.

Now I feel ashamed. Especially after visiting 2 detention centres and seeing how inmates live there.

I also feel ashamed after having acted for at least 2 former ACM guards in relation to OH&S-related matters.

Mandatory detention is not a liberal or even a conservative policy. I am no small "l" liberal. I have handed out how-to-votes for conservative MP's and former MP's such as John Howard, Ross Cameron and Tony Abbott. I also edited a conservative youth magazine called "pro-Action".

I haved no loyalty toward Bruce Baird, Marise Payne or any other supporters of Mr Georgiou's position. Bruce Baird defeated my branch patron (Stephen Mutch) in a preselection for the seat of Cook. I actively campaigned against Marise Payne during the Senate preselection in which she won.

Of course, this issue is not about me. Nor is it about you, Mr Donnelly. It is about people, human rights, good conscience and solid conservative values. There is nothing conservative about locking people up until they succumb to reactive depression. There is nothing conservative about keeping kids in detention.

In 1930's Germany, it was considered popular to attack Jews. In 1990's Serbia, supporting an army that engaged in gang-rape of civilians was popular. In Pakistan, few politicians have the incentive to advocate for the rights of Christian and Ahmadi minorities.

Must everything boil down to popularity? If politics is just show business, perhaps Mr Donnelly should join Pauline Hanson on stage.

I Yusuf

While this thread has quickly passed the point of reasoned and reasonable debate, I'll just observe that it's good to see a few Libs who have hearts, and the guts to stand up to the cynical hardliners who dominate their party.

Maybe it's time for Howard, Ruddock, Vanstone & Co to move on.

I have read quite a number of Mr Donnelly’s articles now.

The only thing that really stands out is that he has the inability to actually consider another point of view. The best arguments/debates validate the logic in another’s point of view and then suggest why one’s own logic/position is better. Mr Donnelly relies on fear, elitism and ‘Christian superiority’ (like it actually exists!).

I grow tired of contributing to debates where there is no truth, open-minded discussion and logic. For example, there are compelling reasons both for mandatory detention and against. I have seen no logic applied as to why one is better over the other – or even a middle ground, which in my amateur opinion, can exist.

As to this article, if Mr Donnelly thinks that democracy means towing a party line and not considering one’s conscience, then he is nothing but a hypocrite and a fraud. A Christian will always place conscience over personal gain. What is wrong with believing in one’s political party as an ideology and disagreeing on an issue within that party?

Typical *whatever you'd like to call it*-mongering by Mr Donnelly for personal gain. If you can’t see it, the brainwashing is complete… have another valium…

JustDan

Kevin, it may just be that Liberal's such as Petro are exactly what the party needs to break the image that dissent is not allowed.

The image of a coalition party room where serious dissent is stifled is not healthy. Many coalition voters will breath a sigh of relief at such an obvious challenge to the PM's views. Even some of those who agree with the PM but value freedom and diversity. Petro Georgiou's dissent is not a sign that he need's to move on, rather a sign that the party room has some life left in it.

In case you had not noticed there are many coalition supports who care about social justice, compassion and the environment etc who do not support the destructive versions advocated by the left. We've seen the destruction wrought by the lefts policies and think the right can meet many of the same objectives in a manner which does not destroy peoples lives. A welfare system which cares for the needy but does not discourage people from working, an environmental policy that recognises how dependent we are on the environment. Industrial law which protects the weak not the manipulators.

Social justice, compassion and environmental concern are not the sole domain of the left. Your article would suggest that you think that they should be.

R0bert

Any party that supports the indefinite detention of people (including children) who have been convicted of no crime, and which then seeks to silence or intimidate a member who opposes such a policy on grounds of conscience, has lost the right to call itself “Liberal” on two counts (or should that be “l”iberal, tooRight?).

According to Wikipedia:
“Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

And according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission:
“Whether labels are required by law, or are voluntary, they must accurately reflect the product contents because consumers depend on this information to make informed and better choices” http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/503366/fromItemId/5961

Maybe those of us who’d like to vote for a party espousing the brand of Liberalism described by Wikipedia should seek to reclaim the name by pursuing a case against the false and misleading labelling of the current users?

Thank God Australia is still, despite everything, a democracy. This means giving politicians enough rope to publicly hang themselves before a massed crowd, or, in this case, before a mass of readers. Mr Donnelly has provided us with the most perfect example of this phenomenon. As Bob Hawke in his heyday might have commented, "It couldn't have happened to a nicer bastard."
Long live the Petro Georgious of this world!