Together with his nuclear energy policy, Peter Dutton seems to have forgotten the core beliefs of the Liberal Party

When Robert Menzies was between terms as Prime Minister in 1943, he was fascinated by the long run of politics outside the Labor Party in war-torn Australia. He read Edmund Burke's book Thoughts on current dissatisfactionsIn it, Burke included the now famous definition of a political party as follows:

a body of men who’ve joined together to advertise the national interest by common effort on the idea of some principle upon which all are agreed.

For Burke, political parties were legitimate in the event that they were based on common principles and were committed neither to non-public nor particular interests, but to the interests of the nation as a complete.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton recently announced the coalition wouldn’t have an emissions reduction goal for 2030. Instead, it might seven nuclear power plants to attain zero emissions by 2050.

I actually have spent much of my research considering and writing concerning the Liberal Party and its predecessors, and its three most successful leaders: Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies and John Howard, so I actually have compared Dutton's nuclear policy with my understanding of the Liberal Party's core principles.

I’m baffled. Leaving aside the various technical questions on the fee and feasibility of the plan, the proposal appears to violate a few of these basic principles.

Public property?

Political parties change and evolve over time, so it’s value testing the present Liberal Party website for a recent Creed.

As expected, there are clear statements concerning the party's commitment to maximising private sector initiatives. These include statements comparable to “The state should only do things that the private sector cannot” and “Wherever possible, the state should not compete with an efficient private sector”.

So why is the Liberal Party proposing to construct and own nuclear power stations at sites that the federal government doesn't even own, like Liddell in New South Wales? Or Loy Yang in Victoria, where the owner AGL has plans already on the train to develop low-emission industrial energy centers?

---

---

How could a celebration committed to the private sector justify the compulsory expropriation of privately owned land? And what could be the fee of those expropriations?

§ 51 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to amass property “on equitable terms from any State or person for any purpose for which Parliament shall have legislative power.” Equitable terms – that’s, the property so acquired should be paid for by us, the taxpayers, and that quantity is along with the considerable cost of constructing the facilities.

What concerning the states?

The Premiers of the states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria oppose the planin addition to some liberal opposition leaders comparable to Victoria’s John Pesutto.

In a speech to the Liberal Party’s Federal Council in June, Dutton said the Commonwealth could State laws are repealedThe state premiers will subsequently not have the opportunity to stop the project.

That is definitely possible, nevertheless it would require laws that will must go through a Senate that’s unlikely to be controlled by a future coalition government, and it might cost a mountain of political capital.

But how does this, in principle, fit with the Liberal Party's long-standing support for states' rights inside the Federation? One of the Liberal Party's beliefs is that “responsibility should be shared according to federal principles, without the State abusing the powers granted to it other than by referendum.”

National interest or political interest?

It appears that the announced policy violates two fundamental principles of the Liberal Party:

1. The state shouldn’t do things which are higher left to non-public firms

2. The Commonwealth should respect the rights of individual states

But what concerning the national interest? The Liberal Party has all the time claimed that it will not be a regional party and is subsequently best placed to represent the national interest. This contrasts with the Labor Party, with its links to the unionised working class, and the Country Party, which became the Nationals and represents farmers, the regions and, increasingly, the miners.

The most shocking thing concerning the Coalition's plan is its cavalier flirtation with the chance to the national debt and, by extension, Australia's national interest. This is totally uncharacteristic of the Liberal Party.

Energy infrastructure is a long-term investment. Local and foreign investors are frightened by the breakdown of cross-party commitment to an energy transition and the rethinking of their investment plans. And if the investments disappear, the roles they might have created may even disappear. How can that be within the national interest?

Shadow Minister for Energy Ted O'Brien tried Attract investors claiming that the coalition would proceed to support renewable energies, but without giving many details concerning the planned energy mix.

The only traditional principle of the Liberal Party that is clear on this policy is that authority over policy belongs to the leader and never to the party.

But what does it mean for the Liberals within the federal parliament when their leader's policies are so fundamentally at odds with their party's core beliefs? Loyalty to the leader can only go thus far. Perhaps Liberal MPs should visit their party's website to remind themselves of the principles they stood for election on. It seems that within the pursuit of political success, political principles are all too easily forgotten.