Comment

John Hewson
What is a conservative?

With all the positioning and repositioning of political parties and movements in recent years, two key questions have emerged. What is a conservative? And how do we build an electable conservative movement?

Going back to basics, a conservative is usually defined as a person favouring free enterprise, private ownership and socially traditional values. In a broad interpretation, it is a cultural, social and political philosophy of traditionalists who are averse to change or innovation, who claim to hold to “traditional values” and to support key social institutions and practices.

These terms have been susceptible to varying interpretations, however, muddying the waters of the debate about differences between “conservatives” and so-called “progressives” or “moderates”.

Of course, conservatism isn’t developed in a vacuum. It depends, importantly, on the particular time period of a nation and its range of institutions – the family, the military, property rights, the nation state, the rule of law, a monarchy or republic, the central bank and other policy authorities, a market economy.

In the extreme, conservatives are reluctant to contemplate significant reforms of institutions and their practices. A good example has been the current Coalition’s resistance to Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ modest reform of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

In recent years, the concept of a conservative has been further complicated by several issues – homophobia and transphobia, abortion rights, anti-Semitism and race more broadly. The latter has been covered by an exaggerated concern about mass migration and illegal immigrants.

To give you some idea of how confused this has become, I refer to a recent speech by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson. She addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held at United States President Donald Trump’s spread at Mar-a-Lago. Hanson spoke as a conservative leader from Australia, whose poll standings were on the ascendancy at the expense of both Coalition parties.

Hanson began her speech by praising Trump and referring to certain “no go” areas in Australian public discourse. She said that if you criticised migration, “you’re branded Islamophobic, racist, or even a Nazi”.

She praised Trump for having “turned the country around”, further claiming “it’s wonderful to be in America with a re-energised, strong and patriotic leader who has the best interests of his people at heart”. She criticised the Albanese government on myriad issues, describing it as “a socialist nightmare” and claiming “Australia has become an economic and social tinderbox”.

Hanson exaggerated – read doubled – migration numbers and incorrectly claimed the number of homeless people in Australia is more than in the US. She joined Trump in calling out the “man-made falsehood” climate change, “this century’s greatest hoax”, and in urging “walking away” from net zero. Hanson also backed AUKUS and called for increased defence spending by “nations who haven’t invested in their own defence” but rely on “big brother”.

Hanson’s centrepiece was clearly migration. She claimed “high migration numbers have had a brutal effect on our hospitals, health systems, our roads, education standards, nursing homes, aged-care facilities and general infrastructure”. This is a wild distortion and just inches away from blatant racism.

Hanson deliberately ignores the positives of migrants in many sectors across Australia. Her speech was simply raw meat for her old, largely male and regional constituency. I wonder who she imagines will provide the care sector employment or build the necessary housing and general infrastructure. I wonder where her oft-professed patriotism is in going overseas to bag her own country.

I don’t believe this is in any way an election-winning conservative agenda. Sadly, however, Hanson will have unthinking supporters within the Coalition, intent on dragging both parties even further to the right. These people are not true conservatives – they are radicals, envious of the perceived political success of Nigel Farage in Britain, the hardline right in Germany and France, and, of course, Trump and Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister.

One of the reasons it has become harder to define conservatives – and to find real conservatives – is the impact of short-term populism on right-wing politics. This has been a mutation of some conservatism, faced by a world generally more accepting of the need for change and more concerned about the management of the process.

The lessons for true conservatives are many. First, have a clear vision of what you want our economy and society to be at some specified date in the future. Second, develop a set of policies consistent with the basic conservative values to achieve that objective vision. This necessitates telling the truth about realistic timescales and disruptions to individuals, businesses and communities on the transition pathways, and how these will be managed. It will involve financial support and even compensation when deemed necessary.

For example, if the necessary tax reform requires a broadening of the tax base by, say, increasing the rate of the GST, be prepared to admit it and spell out compensation in terms of cuts in other taxes and direct government support to address the tax’s regressive nature. If the tax reform is likely to be revenue negative, detail what other means will be adopted to offset or fund that.

The need is to demonstrate that the proposed changes are for the greater good of our nation, in terms of such benefits as improved productivity and growth, improved international competitiveness, employment benefits, improved generational equity and even the simplicity of the system. In the end, it will be both the economy and our society, stupid! (I digress. Too much detail, Hewson; too little detail, Dutton. It’s a tender balance.)

More broadly – in recognition of the claimed basic conservative values regarding the importance of family, education and the rule of law – true conservatives must detail policies to support these. They include, for example, family benefits in terms of childcare and early education, and support in the aged- and disability-care sectors. They include necessary reform and funding of our school system and universities, and legislative initiatives to ensure observance of the legal system and improve access to it.

In this context, conservatives must argue for reform of the major regulatory bodies in our system, in terms of corporate behaviour, especially in financial and consumer transactions. Without robust regulation, you cannot defend institutions, a central tenet of true conservatism. Unfortunately, many of these bodies have been allowed to drift on without adequate accountability. I am thinking particularly of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, innumerable industry-based regulatory bodies, local governments and so on.

One area that should be of interest in a complete conservative agenda, concerned about unnecessary regulation and constraints on our way of life, is the structure of our Federation, especially the overlapping responsibilities that come from having three levels of government. These structures allow for the blame game, particularly between the Commonwealth and the states, when something goes wrong and where funding is inadequate. It shouldn’t be beyond the intellectual capacity of our clever country to restructure these arrangements with clearly defined responsibilities for policy development and implementation, and funding.

Despite the clouding of what constitutes a conservative, our media is still quick to use the tag and to assign it in political coverage. In recent coverage of the Coalition’s decision to walk away from net zero, the media has identified certain politicians – such as Angus Taylor, Andrew Hastie and James Paterson – as conservatives, and others – such as Andrew Bragg and Jane Hume – as moderates or progressives.

As John Howard said in an interview on Sky News, he doesn’t know what these terms mean anymore. Instead, he still holds out hope for his “broad church”. I can only agree. For example, Taylor now seems happy to parade as a conservative, to differentiate himself from other leadership aspirants – yet his terms as climate minister and shadow treasurer would suggest otherwise.

If the Coalition really does want to be seen as the conservative force in our politics, it will need to specify its values and present relevant, deliverable policies consistent therewith. This would be the bare minimum if it is to have any chance of being accepted as a viable alternative government.

The Coalition must face the fact that it holds only nine of 88 city seats and can expect less than 20 per cent of Gen Z votes. It should be prepared to admit the failings of its past governments to have real credibility. It should distance itself from attacks on welfare, including the disaster that was robodebt. It should acknowledge the limits of privatisation and neoliberal thinking, failed fiscal discipline, especially in its spending response to the pandemic and earlier to the China boom. It should end the horrific nonsense of its climate denialism and the consequent forgone opportunities in an effective clean energy transition, including the folly of nuclear energy.

I believe there is still a huge conservative base in Australia, wanting a party that properly represents their values. They want a party that has a clear vision for the future of our country, one that embraces considered, moderate change and reform to deliver the prosperity, fairness and security aspirations of Australians. That party should certainly stop well short of emulating any hardline-right position or trying to mirror Trump and Farage.

This shouldn’t be a radical proposal, but it is for many in the parliament who call themselves conservatives.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on November 15, 2025 as "What is a conservative?".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Send this article to a friend for free.