At CPAC Brisbane, conservatives, Liberals, Nationals, and One Nation supporters discovered that their minor differences matter less than the Western values they share.
There was something genuinely encouraging about the sight that greeted me at CPAC Brisbane on the morning of Saturday, 10th of October. Outside the Royal International Convention Centre, a long queue of Australians waited to enter a conference that represented something our politics desperately needs: a willingness among people of the right and centre-right to put aside their nuanced differences and recognise the common cause that unites them.
Liberal and National party supporters, One Nation advocates, classical liberals, and conservatives had gathered under one roof. They did not agree on everything. They were not supposed to. But they shared a conviction that Australia is heading in the wrong direction and that changing its course will require more than simply complaining about the Albanese government. It will require political cooperation.
That, to me, was the most important message of CPAC 2026.
The stakes could hardly be higher. Australians are contending with a cost-of-living crisis, housing affordability pressures, concerns about the scale and quality of immigration, growing public debt, and an ever-expanding government apparatus. Many also feel that the country’s cultural confidence has diminished, that national cohesion is being neglected, and that antisemitism has become disturbingly visible in public life.
These are not all problems with a single cause, nor will they all be solved by a change of government alone. But together they have produced a widespread sense that Australia needs a serious course correction. CPAC was an expression of that sentiment.
A movement bigger than any one party
The conference’s most consequential feature was the presence of the leaders of Australia’s three principal conservative political parties: Liberal leader Angus Taylor, Nationals leader Matt Canavan, and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.
As the ABC reported, Taylor’s attendance marked the first time a sitting Liberal leader had addressed CPAC. The significance was not merely ceremonial. It reflected the growing recognition that the boundaries between the established centre-right and the populist right are shifting.
The ABC’s coverage captured both the opportunity and the difficulty. Angus Taylor sought to make the case that the Coalition could provide a credible alternative government, acknowledging past mistakes on immigration, spending, and climate policy. It was also great to hear Taylor speak of the importance of developing policies that not only improve present adult Australian lives, but the lives of young Australians who have their hopes and dreams crushed under Labor’s extreme socialist agenda. Pauline Hanson, whilst perhaps cathartically got a lot off of her chest about past dealings with the old Liberal Party, made it clear she would be mirror Taylor’s message of being willing to work with anyone to remove the antisemitic and economically destructive Labor government.
Neither leader was prepared to surrender their party’s identity. Nor should they have been. The question is whether they can recognise that electoral competition between parties that share substantial objectives can become self-defeating when it allows their common opponents to remain in power.
The case for unity is not a demand that the Liberals become One Nation, that One Nation become the Liberals, or that the Nationals abandon their particular responsibilities to regional Australia. It is a recognition that these parties can disagree on the means while sharing many of the same ends. Indeed, one can look to themselves and personal relationships they have with friends, who will have various differences of opinion over a number of issues. I have friends I have nuanced differences with regarding everything from government spending and free-market economics, to more mundane matters such as which is the superior spread, Vegemite or Marmite (clearly it’s the former!). However, despite a plethora of differences I may have with friends, they are my friends because they all share the same fundamental values borne out of an appreciation for Western culture as a whole, and what the Enlightenment brought. The same values that I saw bring together the political right at CPAC.
A voter who prioritises economic liberalism, another who prioritises national sovereignty, and a third who places regional communities at the centre of their politics may arrive at different conclusions on individual policies. Yet all may reasonably want lower taxes, more accountable government, controlled immigration, stronger national security, greater freedom of speech, and an economy in which working Australians can afford to get ahead.
Classical liberals and social conservatives, in particular, should understand that a functioning political movement needs both. The former reminds us that individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law are indispensable. The latter remind us that societies depend on inherited institutions, shared obligations, and cultural continuity. Neither perspective needs to extinguish the other.
The question is whether Australia can accommodate these traditions within a broader political coalition rather than allowing their disagreements to become an excuse for mutual destruction.
The protest outside, the welcome inside
One of my observations from the first morning was the contrast between the atmosphere inside the venue and the opposition outside it.
When we queued to enter, the radical-Left protesters who had been advertised as a counter-presence were nowhere to be seen from where I stood. The barricades had been set up, but to my surprise no one was there in the morning to act boorish towards us. Later, protesters did assemble outside, as media coverage documented, likely after they had a nice sleep in on a Saturday morning. But from my position inside the conference, they were largely out of sight, and unable to be heard. Maybe that was because there were so few of them.
I found the contrast telling. The attendees had come to listen, argue, exchange ideas, and participate in a political gathering. Whatever one thinks of their views, they were exercising the ordinary democratic right to assemble and hear from political representatives. Protesters were equally entitled to express their opposition, provided they respected the same rights of others.
What matters is that political disagreement should be answered with argument rather than intimidation and violence; something we see increasingly from the ‘tolerant, peaceful left’. A movement confident in its convictions should be willing to defend them openly, and a society committed to liberty must protect the right to hold unpopular opinions.
For me, however, the most memorable part of the weekend was not the protest. It was the welcome I received inside.
As an Australian Jew, I wore my kippah and Magen David openly. People approached me to say hello, strike up conversations and offer genuine kindness. I did not feel that I needed to conceal my identity or explain why I belonged in the room. I felt welcome. What a contrast to my experience on university campuses, hipster cafes, and music venues in a post-October 7 Australia.
That experience deserves to be stated plainly. At a time when Jewish Australians have had serious reasons to worry about antisemitism, there was something reassuring about being able to attend a political gathering and participate without feeling that my Jewish identity made me an outsider.
I would not claim that one conference establishes the character of every person on the political right, any more than the conduct of some individuals can fairly define everyone on the left. But personal experience matters, especially as CPAC had an impressive 2,000 attendees. Mine was of people who were happy to engage with me as an Australian Jew and fellow citizen.
Political movements should be judged partly by whether people can participate in them without being made to feel that their identity disqualifies them from belonging. On that measure, my experience at CPAC was a positive one. In fact, there is a great irony that CPAC was a place of diverse opinions, when so-called progressive spaces claim to be bastions of diversity but are in fact a homogenous hivemind of thought; their diversity is only skin deep. Perhaps this is because they have been indoctrinated to think any difference of opinion is an absolute existential threat, when in reality in a truly diverse nation it serves as a system of checks and balances by the voting citizens.
The real argument is about the future of our civilisation
The broader question facing the right and centre-right extends beyond party politics. It concerns the sort of country Australians want to inhabit and the institutions, freedoms, and traditions they wish to preserve.
For me, the essential distinction is between those who want to sustain and improve the foundations of Western Civilisation and those who would dismantle them without offering a credible replacement.
Western Civilisation is not flawless. Its history contains injustices, and its institutions require constant scrutiny, and reform. That’s all part of the human condition. However, its inheritance includes parliamentary democracy, individual liberty, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, scientific inquiry, and the principle that government must answer to the people.
These achievements are worth defending. They should not be treated as embarrassing relics to be discarded whenever fashionable pseudo-intellectual movements and sleepy radicals declare them irredeemable.
Nor should defending them require hostility towards people simply because they belong to a particular religion or ethnic community. The relevant distinction is between ideas and conduct, not ancestry. Islamism, authoritarianism, and antisemitism deserve unequivocal opposition wherever they arise. So does the tendency of parts of the contemporary left to excuse illiberal movements when those movements appear to serve a shared political objective.
A genuinely liberal society cannot consistently defend freedom of expression at home while overlooking those who would suppress it; proclaim equality while tolerating antisemitic double standards; or celebrate women’s rights while excusing coercive practices in the name of religion (especially when that religion acts as a cult; just look at the punishment for leaving Islam).
The same principles must apply to everyone.
That is why classical liberals have a vital place in the conservative movement. They can insist that defending Western Civilisation means defending its liberal institutions as well as its cultural inheritance. And conservatives can remind classical liberals that freedoms do not sustain themselves: they depend on citizens willing to preserve the social and institutional conditions that make them possible.
The point is not to declare every political opponent an enemy of civilisation. It is to establish a common set of principles and defend them consistently. I would actually go so far as to even those on the traditional left should be in unity with the folk I had the pleasure of engaging with at CPAC. Because, and to reiterate, the real war is between those who wish to uphold, maintain, and improve Western Civilisation, and the savages that wish to tear it all down due to their extremist ideologies. You might indeed have different views on specific topics such as abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty (all heavy topics), but I will stand with you unequivocally as an ally who stands for Western Civilisation and culture, and I expect the same. Indeed, this is what I felt during my many conversations with CPAC attendees, the feeling of unity.
Unity is easy to proclaim, harder to practise
It would be dishonest to suggest that CPAC resolved the divisions on the right. It did not.
There were still tensions, particularly amongst political party leadership. Hanson’s criticisms of Taylor, and the differing receptions the two leaders received, made
The tensions were real. Some One Nation supporters distrust the Liberal Party because of its record in government. Some Liberals regard One Nation’s policies or political style as unacceptable. The Nationals have their own constituency and priorities. These differences cannot simply be wished away.
But disagreement is not the same as incompatibility. Indeed, a movement that contains no internal disagreement is unlikely to be either intellectually serious or politically durable. Further, we are talking about leaders of major parties; I expect them to have plenty of chutzpah and be able to verbally spar in the market place of ideas, especially ideas they should have passion in.
The real test is whether its participants can distinguish between disputes that matter and disputes that merely gratify partisan loyalties or merely blow off steam in public instead of being strategically smart. They must be willing to criticise their own side, acknowledge past failures, and accept that political cooperation sometimes requires compromise.
Taylor’s willingness to attend CPAC was therefore significant. His presence acknowledged that a substantial section of the conservative electorate wants answers from the Liberal Party about its previous record. That electorate cannot be won back by pretending its concerns do not exist. Plus, the reality is, and exactly what Taylor said, it takes a long time to build credibility and only a quick moment to dash it. The other reality is that many people will place the sins of past party leaders onto present party leadership, because they often mostly just see the party, not all the nuances (indeed, I have been guilty of this). I wouldn’t expect otherwise since most people are busy getting on with their lives. However, I do see Taylor making a serious effort to build that trust and credibility back up; from taking a stance against corporate welfare to very serious considerations on policy development to restore hope and the future for Australia’s youth, I see a new Liberal Party.
Equally, One Nation cannot turn every criticism of the Coalition into a reason to rule out future cooperation. If removing Labor is the shared objective, the parties must explain how their competing ambitions can be reconciled. The last thing we want is what people would call ‘splitting the vote’. In an article for The Spectator Australia, Lyle Shelton identified precisely this unresolved problem: How can a divided centre-right avoid handing Labor another term?
Put the common cause first
The answer to this question comes from data that emerged a few days prior to CPAC. In a federal Redbridge poll, Albanese’s net favourability amongst Australians slumped to a record low, whilst the total support for the Coalition plus One Nation was at a staggering 50 per cent. Okay, interesting data, but how does this help, especially as the Liberal Party, the Nationals, and One Nation will naturally continue to compete for votes? Well, they should recognise that competition need not preclude cooperation, and that a fragmented centre-right risks making its ambitions unattainable. And much to my delight, this is exactly what was revealed at CPAC 2026. The conference managed to provide a simple, shared tactic that Taylor, Canavan, and Hanson all independently stated; voters should preference any of the three main right-leaning parties first, second, and third on the ballot, and always put Labor last. Yes, I know many of us often feel like putting the Greens last, but the reality is that Greens votes typically flow to Labor, not the other way around (but nothing stops putting them second-last).
The precise ordering of the top three will depend on the electorate and the candidates standing. There is no reason to pretend that every contest presents identical choices. But the broader principle is straightforward: do not allow disagreements between broadly aligned parties to make it easier for a government you oppose to retain office. This is neither good for any of the conservative parties or for Australians and the nation at large.
This message must come from party leaders to the public, it must go nation-wide. They need to demonstrate that cooperation is more than a slogan, by engaging in serious discussions about policy and preferences. Additionally, they must do this without demanding ideological uniformity. A movement that welcomes classical liberals, social conservatives, regional Australians, and voters concerned about immigration should be capable of accommodating principled disagreement.
Australia does not need a right in which everyone thinks alike. It needs one capable of agreeing on what matters most, debating the rest honestly without overly airing proverbial dirty laundry or personal vendettas, and cooperating when the national interest demands it.
I left CPAC with no illusion that the work had been completed. The speeches, the arguments, and the disagreements made clear how much remains to be done. But I also left with a sense of possibility, a sense of optimism and hope, something I often find in short supply.
The people in that room did not share a single political identity in contrast to what the modern left seems to spew. They shared a belief that Australia could do better, that its freedoms and traditions were worth defending, and that the country’s direction was not beyond our ability to change. We presently are in a much better position than the UK or much of the EU, but we must not rest on our laurels. As Pauline Hanson correctly said, ‘You can’t sit back anymore and say it’ll be right mate.’ This message should also not just be for the conservative political leadership; it should be taken up by all of us who care about Australia being a beacon of Western Civilisation.
So, the challenge now is to turn this shared conviction into a practical political action. If we on the centre-right can manage that, CPAC 2026 may be remembered not merely as another weekend of speeches, but as a moment when Australia’s competing conservative traditions began to recognise the strength they could achieve together. If it cannot, its divisions may prove more consequential than all its agreements. And that would be a victory for the very political forces its attendees came to Brisbane hoping to displace.
Dr Christopher Haggarty-Weir is a graduate-entry law student at QUT.
The post The right must unite, or Labor wins again appeared first on The Spectator Australia.
