We can NOT afford to let division continue to destroy Australia

Back in 2019, in the lead-up to the election, I wrote about Bill Shorten’s strategy of deliberately pitting younger Australians against their parents and grandparents. At the time, voters saw through it and rejected Labor’s divisive approach. That clarity did not hold in 2022 or 2025. Today, what was once troubling has become entrenched. Division is no longer incidental to politics; it has become a deliberate strategy.

Those who seek to govern a nation carry a responsibility to unite its people, not fracture them into competing tribes. Yet politics is increasingly prosecuted through a divide-and-conquer lens young against old, renter against homeowner, worker against retiree, conservative against progressive. Compounding this, social media has turned division into a public sport, amplifying outrage and rewarding tribal loyalty over reason. The result is a country increasingly sorted and ranked by ethnicity, identity, and grievance, with citizens themselves drawn into inflaming the very divisions that weaken us all.

This moment feels like a real test of Australian society. A society that once prided itself on fairness, a fair go, personal responsibility, and the dignity of effort. A society built on the idea that you advance by standing on your own two feet, not by tearing others down. That social compact has been under pressure for years, but today’s politics has taken it further actively rewarding resentment and weaponising difference.

A growing number of grievance-driven political parties thrive on this environment. They do not seek to govern or unify; they seek to inflame. Their success depends on keeping Australians angry convinced that someone else is to blame for every frustration and every failure. These movements offer identity in place of policy, outrage in place of solutions, and permanent conflict in place of progress.

This should concern all of us.

When politics teaches people to see their neighbours as enemies because of their age, their success, their background, or their beliefs; it corrodes trust. When ideology matters more than cohesion, the nation weakens. When conservatives are caricatured as immoral and progressives as un-Australian, debate dies and tribalism takes its place.

We are told these divisions are natural, even necessary. They are not. They are cultivated often deliberately by those who profit politically from grievance and division.

There is a growing push to replace a shared national identity with competing group identities, to reframe aspiration as greed, success as exploitation, and disagreement as moral failure. This is not compassion. It is a politics of envy dressed up as justice.

Younger Australians are being told that their struggles are caused not by poor policy, housing shortages, or economic mismanagement—but by their parents’ generation, by those who worked, saved, and played by the rules. That narrative may be emotionally satisfying, but it is false. Families are not the enemy. Communities are not the enemy. A political class and grievance parties that benefit from keeping Australians angry at one another are.

We are, once again, at a crossroads.

The choice before us is not simply left or right, conservative or progressive. It is between a society that values unity, effort, and mutual obligation—or one that thrives on resentment, division, and permanent conflict.

History is clear on this point: nations that turn inward on themselves, that fracture along identity lines, do not become fairer or freer. They become weaker, angrier, and more easily controlled.

We should choose carefully and act responsibly. Debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but division that corrodes trust and cohesion destroys nations. Unity must be built, defended, and valued. Once a society is conditioned to see itself as a collection of enemies, restoring it is no easy task.

This Australia Day, let us remember what makes our country truly great: a society that values fairness, effort, and community; a nation where families, neighbours, and fellow citizens are allies, not enemies; and a people willing to defend unity over envy, and common purpose over division. That is the Australia worth preserving. 

Let us also recognise the reality that those who cannot or will not integrate into this shared society pose a serious challenge to the cohesion and stability we must protect. We must continue to argue that this has to change and to prosecute political dogma that fails to deal with it. 

Liberal Party Leadership

Perseverance defines me, and I rarely quit but wisdom teaches that sometimes letting go serves the greater good; leadership lies in recognising when persistence helps and when it harms.

Electing Sussan Ley as Liberal leader was always a risk. And in the contest between her and Angus Taylor, I supported Taylor.

Under Sussan Ley, it has been one drama after another with the junior member of the coalition; The Nationals. And instead of prosecuting Labor and their woeful performance, all the energy has been inwardly focused. And fast-forward to January 2026, and the Coalition has split again. The second time in under a year, triggered by disputes over Labor’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. In pulling the Nationals out of the coalition David Littleproud has also made it very personal by stating he can’t serve with Ley.

And Sussan Ley’s public defiance is harming the Liberals even more. She insists she’ll survive and is keeping the door open for reconciliation, but the vibe inside the Liberals is grim: MPs and powerbrokers are openly discussing a leadership change as early as next month (February 2026). Potential challengers being floated include conservative figures like Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie. Both are more aligned with core right-leaning principles on economics, energy, and security. If they can unify behind one candidate, a spill seems likely.

I’d back Taylor because of his strong economic credentials.

• Education: Bachelor of Economics (First Class Honours + University Medal) and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Sydney, followed by a Master of Philosophy in Economics from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar (thesis on competition policy). That’s elite-level training in straight economics, not just tangential exposure.
• Pre-politics career: Partner at McKinsey & Company (global consulting powerhouse, where he worked on strategy and economics-heavy projects), then co-founder and adviser in agribusiness ventures like Growth Farms and Farmshed (digital ag-tech backed by big players like Wesfarmers and NAB). He bridged theory and real-world application in markets, productivity, and rural economics.
• Parliamentary roles: Served as Shadow Treasurer (where he hammered productivity, wage stagnation, and fiscal discipline critiques of Labor), plus stints in energy/industry where he pushed deregulation and emissions reduction via market mechanisms rather than heavy-handed intervention.

In contrast, Andrew Hastie (the other main conservative contender right now) has a solid but different profile: military background (SASR officer), BA (Hons) in History/Politics/Philosophy from UNSW, and a Graduate Certificate in Business Economics from Harvard Extension School. It’s respectable economics exposure, but more supplementary to his defence/national security strengths, less deep or “impeccable” in pure economic policy compared to Taylor’s resume. Hastie’s credentials fit with defence and immigration.

The chatter in January 2026 (post-Coalition split) has Taylor and Hastie as the top challengers to Sussan Ley, with some Liberals floating a potential February spill when parliament resumes. Taylor’s economic credentials give him an edge in appealing to voters frustrated by cost-of-living pressures, stagnant productivity, and Labor’s perceived mismanagement. Issues that Liberals see as core territory. A new leader with that background could credibly pitch a rebuild around:

• Tax reform and deregulation to boost growth
• Productivity-focused policies (he’s long warned about Australia’s “disastrous” trends here)
• Fiscal responsibility without the grievance optics of minor parties

Of course, baggage exists (past controversies as Energy Minister, critiques of his shadow treasurer performance in not presenting enough detailed policy pre-2025 election). That wasn’t just down to Taylor. Plus, the party room would need to unify behind one conservative to avoid splitting votes and letting Ley hang on. But if the goal is a serious, governing-ready conservative force that delivers reforms rather than just opposition noise, Taylor’s economic credentials and parliamentary experience in the inner sanctum make him a logical choice to lead that reset.

The question is, would the party rally around him quickly. Or is there a risk of another drawn-out contest? We simply don’t have the luxury or the time to blood Hastie. But Taylor as leader and Hastie as deputy leader would be a powerful economic and defence combination.

However, success relies on recognition from Sussan that staying is causing irreparable harm. Strong leadership means having the courage to admit when a mistake has been made, take responsibility, and correct course. This is a test of her leadership integrity.

Protest Votes Don’t Govern: Why Minor Parties and Disunity Deliver Nothing

There is an uncomfortable truth many conservative voters do not want to hear:

Minor parties cannot govern. And One Nation is not an institution; it is a personality-driven machine. Previous history has shown us what happens when the leader is a personality and new entrants challenge that.

Even with occasional high-profile figures drifting in and out, minor parties lack the fundamentals required to run a country:

• A credible ministerial bench
• Serious policy development machinery
• Cabinet experience (often down to one person)
• Parliamentary discipline and cohesion

Such is the case with One Nation.

Governing requires numbers, organisation, institutional memory, and constant negotiation. Personality, anger, and slogans do not deliver energy reform, border security, fiscal restraint, or industrial relations changes.

History repeatedly confirms this.

One Nation has held Senate leverage multiple times. What did it produce?

• Noise
• Delays
• Symbolic votes
• Media moments

But real conservative reform? Zero.

Blocking legislation is not governing. Delaying reform is not reform. Protest is not policy.

And fixing the issues of energy reliability, budget restraint, and IR reform were not delivered through Senate theatrics. Hence we are paying a very high price for that now. Meanwhile, bureaucratic power expanded quietly in the background and Labor proceeded to introduce more and more draconian reforms. 

It is a fact that protest voting weakens the right and hands power to the Labor. It fractures conservative support and that fragmentation does not punish Labor it protects them.

Under Australia’s Westminster system, when conservatives splinter:

• Governments weaken
• Legislation stalls
• Crossbenchers gain leverage
• Bureaucrats and regulators fill the vacuum

While conservatives fight each other, progressive policies advance by default.

The last two federal elections are evidence. Protest votes helped deliver Albanese not because Labor persuaded more people, but because conservatives divided themselves.

This is not theory. It is structural reality.

Coalition Disunity Is the Fuel for Minor Parties

Here’s the part many don’t want to admit:

One Nation grows when the Coalition publicly implodes.

Endless infighting between Liberals and Nationals sends a clear message to voters: dysfunction. That doesn’t inspire reform-minded conservatives; it pushes them toward anger and protest.

When the Coalition fights itself:

• Labor governs unchallenged
• Minor parties fill the gaps
• Voters disengage or protest-vote
• Executive authority shifts to the bureaucracy and courts

Unity is not about suppressing debate or ideological conformity. Internal disagreement is healthy. But public disunity is electoral suicide.

A divided Coalition does not look principled it looks incapable of governing.

Frustrated voters often say: “Labor and the Coalition are identical.” But in reality, that is a comforting lie promoted on social media and by some conservative media.

It feels true because:

• Bureaucracy slows reform
• Senate fragmentation dilutes outcomes
• Governments avoid high-risk decisions

But the differences are real and over time they compound.

Taxes, regulation, energy costs, border enforcement, defence posture these do not drift randomly. They move directionally. And when conservatives abandon governing-capable parties, the direction is always left.

Conversely, voters support One Nation because they promise to attack woke culture and to “leave the UN” or “exit the WEF.”

Reality check:

• The WEF is a forum, not a treaty. You can’t formally “leave” it.
• UN membership is legally binding. Withdrawal would devastate trade, defence, and diplomatic credibility. Even a majority conservative government would struggle. Even the US has not withdrawn from UN. Some agencies yes, but not the UN. 
• Treaties can only be renegotiated by governments with numbers, discipline, and negotiating credibility. Minor parties have none.

Selective withdrawal from specific UN agencies or agreements is possible but only by a serious government, not protest movements. Unlike the US we don’t have a President with presidential powers.

Another myth is that minor parties keep major parties accountable.

The record says otherwise:

• Legislative blocking without reform
• Transactional politics
• Weak governments
• Expanding bureaucratic control

When governments are weak, accountability does not increase it disappears into unelected institutions. Anyone who currently watches Senate Estimates knows this only too well. 

True accountability requires strong, disciplined governments under pressure to deliver outcomes.

The Hard Truth for Conservatives

If you care about:

• Border security
• Fiscal responsibility
• Energy reliability
•  Industrial relations reform

Then understand this:

• Personality politics will not deliver results
• Protest parties fracture the conservative vote
• Coalition infighting accelerates conservative defeat
• Weak governments empower Labor and the bureaucracy

Every serious conservative reform in Australia’s modern history came from united parties capable of governing, not from minor parties posturing from the sidelines.

The frustration is real. Anger is justified.

But voting for One Nation or indulging Coalition civil wars:

• Feels like action
• Produces nothing substantive
• Weakens the only viable governing alternative
• Hands power to Labor by default

Protest votes don’t govern. Disunity doesn’t reform.

Politically serious conservatives who want outcomes, not slogans, must demand unity, discipline, and competence from the Liberals and Nationals and hold them accountable from within.

That is how reform happens in Australia.

• Not through protest.
• Not through personalities.
• But through governing strength.

𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚.

Australia likes to think of itself as immune to the worst excesses of political polarisation. We don’t have a president, our voting system rewards moderation, and compulsory voting keeps extremists marginal — or so the story goes. That confidence is increasingly misplaced.

Political disagreement is healthy tribalism is not. Political tribalism is taking hold, and while it doesn’t look like the chaos seen overseas, its effects are corrosive, cumulative, and dangerous.

Tribalism occurs when political affiliation stops being about ideas or policies and becomes a core identity — something to be defended regardless of evidence, outcomes, or consequences. At that point, loyalty matters more than truth, and winning matters more than governing.

In Australia, this shift has been subtle but unmistakable. Increasingly, voters judge policies not on merit, but on who proposed them. A bad idea from “our side” is forgiven. A good idea from the other side is rejected on principle.

That is not democracy functioning. That is nothing more than tribal team sport. 

Australia operates under a Westminster system built on cabinet responsibility, compromise, and parliamentary accountability. Yet our political culture is being dragged toward a US-style, presidential mindset strongman leaders, personality politics, and “winner takes all” thinking.

This model is fundamentally incompatible with Australia’s constitutional reality. We do not elect presidents. Prime ministers are not kings. Power here is fragmented by design. Tribal politics doesn’t just clash with that system it actively undermines it.

And the Governor-General can’t just sack the Prime Minister and the Govt. based on political tribal dislike.

One of the most damaging consequences of tribalism is moral absolutism. Opponents are no longer merely wrong; they are portrayed as evil, corrupt, un-Australian, traitors or dangerous. Once politics is framed in those terms, compromise becomes betrayal and pragmatism becomes weakness.

But Australia’s biggest challenges; housing, energy transition, defence, productivity, immigration, law and order and social cohesion cannot be solved by absolutism. They require trade-offs, at times imperfect solutions, and a willingness to accept partial wins.

Tribalism makes all of that impossible.

And tribal politics creates a fertile environment for grievance peddlers. They don’t need workable policies. They need enemies. Their success depends on keeping supporters angry, fearful, and perpetually aggrieved. Outrage becomes the product, and governance becomes irrelevant.

This style of politics thrives online, where algorithms reward anger and simplicity over nuance and accuracy. The result is a feedback loop of resentment, misinformation, and performative outrage with real-world consequences.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Australia’s tribal turn is the collapse in civic literacy.

Complex systems — constitutional law, federalism, budgeting, courts are reduced to memes and slogans. Half-understood constitutional excerpts are waved around as trump cards. Confidence replaces competence.

A little knowledge weaponised by tribal loyalty becomes more dangerous than ignorance. Democracy depends on an informed public. Tribalism thrives on the opposite.

Tribalism rarely destroys democracies overnight. It weakens them slowly through paralysis, cynicism, and the hollowing out of the political centre. It turns disagreement into hostility and politics into identity warfare. The damage is quiet, but it is real.

Australia doesn’t need less disagreement. It needs better disagreement. Our democratic system survives only when people accept that opponents can be wrong without being enemies.

Political tribalism isn’t just changing Australian politics.

If it continues and left unchecked, it will continue to dramatically change Australia itself for the worse.

Compromise isn’t weakness - it’s the backbone of a functioning democracy

In today’s political climate, it’s easy to forget what keeps a government functioning. Successful government relies on legislative compromises, not rigid ideology, unilateral action, or the whims of a single leader. Yet too often, both left and right political tribes are so caught up in scoring points or shoring up their base. They do not understand why compromise is essential. Social media only amplifies this. That turns nuance into outrage, debate into soundbites, and governance into a spectator sport.

Supporting sound policy doesn’t automatically make you “left” or “right”; it’s a matter of political maturity. Maturity means recognising that good ideas can come from anywhere and that governance is about results, not allegiance. Regardless of which side of politics you support, we all need government to succeed. A good opposition understands the value of sound negotiation and politically mature compromise—they don’t reject ideas simply because mthey come from the other side, but because they assess whether they strengthen governance and serve the public.

Real governance isn’t about forcing one party’s agenda on the nation—it’s about negotiation, balancing competing interests, and finding solutions that most can live with. When tribalism and online echo chambers dominate, policy grinds to a halt. When that happens, public trust evaporates, and the system itself falters.

Why Voting for One Nation or Protest Parties Weakens Conservatives — and Australia

Minor parties cannot govern. And One Nation is a personality-driven party, not an institution. Even with figures like Barnaby Joyce, they lack

• A ministerial bench
• Policy machinery
• Cabinet experience is down to one person 
• Parliamentary discipline

Governing needs numbers, organisation, and negotiation. Personality and slogans alone does not deliver energy reform, border security, fiscal restraint, or industrial relations change.

History confirms this. One Nation has held Senate leverage multiple times — and what did it deliver? Mostly noise, delays, and symbolic votes. Real Conservative reform? Zero.

Protest voting fractures the right — and helps Labor. And protest voting in the last two elections has landed us with Albanese and his woeful government.

Voting for One Nation or other minor parties may feel like a “message,” but in practice:

• Governments weaken
• Legislation stalls
• Bureaucracy and unelected authorities fill the vacuum
• Then, Progressive policy continues by default

Every time conservative voters abandon the Coalition, Labor or other progressive forces gain influence without lifting a finger. This is not theory; it is a structural reality under Australia’s Westminster system.

The “they’re all the same” argument is misleading

Frustrated voters often claim: “Labor and the Coalition are identical.”

 It feels true because:

• Bureaucracy and regulatory processes slow reform
• Crossbenchers and Senate fragmentation dilute outcomes
• Governments avoid risky, controversial reforms

But the differences are real and consequential: Over time, these differences compound, affecting taxes, regulation, energy bills, borders, and national security.

Global organisations: promises do not equal power. Many conservative voters support One Nation because of claims to “pull out of the UN or WEF.” Even the US has not withdrawn from the UN. 

Here is the reality:

• WEF is a forum, not a treaty. Governments cannot formally “leave.”
• UN membership is legally binding. Exiting would destroy credibility, trade, and defence relationships. Even majority Conservative government would face chaos. That is not to say we shouldn’t consider withdrawing from specific UN entities, agencies, and related bodies as the US has.
• Treaties and agreements can only be renegotiated carefully by a government with numbers and negotiation credibility. Minor parties cannot do it.

Protest votes may feel like sovereignty action. In reality, they leave Australia weaker and less influential internationally. That appeases the protectionist’s but Australia is not big enough or equipped adequately to go it alone.

Minor parties do not, despite the myth, hold the majors “honest.”

Some voters argue: “Minor parties force the majors to behave.”

 History says otherwise:

• One Nation in the Senate often voted to block or delay legislation, not produce reform
• Energy, budgets, IR policy: no durable conservative outcomes delivered
• Fragmentation made governments transactional, leaving bureaucrats and regulators in control

 True accountability comes from strong, disciplined governments, not symbolic protest votes.

The hard truth for conservatives is: 

If you care about borders, fiscal responsibility, energy reliability, and industrial relations:

• Personality politics will not deliver that
• Protest parties fracture the vote
• Weak governments empower Labor, the bureaucracy, and judicial oversight

Every conservative reform in Australia’s modern history came from parties capable of governing, under pressure to deliver — not minor parties posturing from the sidelines.

Bottom line: 

 Frustration is real. Anger is understandable. But voting for One Nation or other minor parties:

•  Feels like action
• Produces nothing substantive
• Weakens the only parties capable of governing
• Strengthens progressive influence by default 

Conservatives who want real outcomes — not slogans — need to keep strong, disciplined parties in power and hold them accountable from within. That is how change happens in Australia, not from protest or symbolic gestures.

Protest votes feel righteous. They do NOT govern. In Australia, weak governments hand power to Labor, the bureaucracy, and unelected authorities — not to voters.

 

𝐖𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. 𝐖𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡

Business leaders want the Royal Commission into anti-semitism to lead to cultural change.

I sense many feel as I do that we’ve had enough of what is labeled cultural change much of it supported by business. 

When institutions fail, the reflexive response is a call for “cultural change.” It sounds constructive, but it often conceals the real problem: weakened authority and absent accountability. Culture becomes the excuse when leadership hesitates.

Increasingly, Australians are not merely asked to adapt to change, but are required to accept imposed cultural shifts even when those shifts clash with deeply held moral frameworks and civic values. Institutions that once upheld common standards now too often act as enforcers of ideology rather than guardians of conduct.

This is not cultural progress; it is institutional drift.

Strong institutions do not mandate belief or compel moral conformity. They set clear rules for behaviour, apply them consistently, and respect the boundary between authority and conscience. When institutions overstep enforcing values instead of enforcing rules they undermine their own legitimacy.

Calls for cultural change usually arise when institutions have lost the confidence to act. Standards remain on paper, but consequences fade in practice. Authority becomes selective, hesitation becomes habitual, and public trust erodes — not because people resist change, but because they reject coercion without justification.

Culture follows structure, not slogans. People respond to what institutions tolerate and what they compel. If ideological enforcement replaces consistent standards, resentment replaces confidence.

What Australia needs is not another cultural directive, but institutional strength: leadership willing to enforce the rule of law, uphold shared values, and exercise authority without fear or favour.

We don’t need cultural change. We need institutions strong enough to enforce standards and respect the moral limits of their power.

The Power of Grievance Politics

When people are frustrated and angry, many gravitate to politicians who say what they want to hear. I see this a lot on social media, the claims of, “I’ll support her/him because they’re saying what I want to hear.” It’s a fool’s game.

Grievance politicians are those who build their appeal by amplifying anger, fear, or resentment, not delivering robust policies and plans to address the source of the frustration and anger. They are often untested as actual leaders and rarely possess the skills, competency and nuances to be effective leaders of a country.

They appeal to those followers who feel wronged. People who feel unheard, marginalised, or frustrated by the system. However, all the grievance politician does is cause polarisation; their messaging only exacerbates divisions.

Supporters may be passionate, but they are volatile; loyalty is often tied to emotion rather than shared vision. And we see a graphic example of that every election by the number of ‘grievance’ voters who preference the party that is the complete opposite of what the voter claims to be.

But the grievance politician, more so than most, craves media attention. Outrage-driven messages get clicks, shares, and coverage. And we see that on social media.

In politics, saying what people want to hear is often the path of least resistance because it doesn’t require action, risk, or nuance. It plays to short-term popularity rather than long-term leadership.

Easy: “I hear you, I’ll do what you want.” ✅ Popular, low effort.

Contrast that with actually doing what’s right, which can be unpopular, complicated, or misunderstood—true leadership often involves taking positions people don’t initially want to hear.

Hard: “Here’s what we need to do, even if it’s tough.” ⚠️ Requires courage, foresight, and accountability.

It’s the classic tension in politics: popularity vs. principle.

I hear similar claims of people who state they won’t support a politician because they don’t shout enough or speak with enough passion about a favoured topic.

But passion isn’t a scream—it’s the courage to act when it counts. And effective leadership isn’t based on how loud you are because leaders don’t need to yell—they need to deliver.

“Yelling convinces unthinking ears. Action convinces intelligent people.”