Explosive Liberal election review to be suppressed

A contentious review into the Liberal Party’s disastrous election will be suppressed after Opposition Leader Angus Taylor met with top party figures and agreed to shelve the document, sparing the party from further humiliation before a key byelection.

Party elders Nick Minchin and Pru Goward spent months working on a formal review of the election, which they completed last year. The party’s 2022 election review was released publicly.

The 2025 document became mired in controversy after Peter Dutton raised serious concerns over its contents in December. Dutton and figures close to him believe the report makes baseless claims about a disconnect with party headquarters.

The review contained critical reflections on the party’s policy agenda, which Taylor and deputy Jane Hume were heavily involved in as shadow treasurer and finance spokeswoman, respectively.

“The election result was a decisive defeat. We accept that verdict. We also accept the responsibility to change,” the party said in a statement, without explaining the decision to keep the review secret.

“What’s important now is that we strengthen our party for the future.”

Goward slammed the decision in an opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review on Friday, saying Taylor would be “blamed for wanting to cover up” and that a few days of media attention on the report’s findings would be less damaging than the appearance of hiding it.

Taylor attended a meeting of the party’s federal executive on Friday, at which a majority of officials agreed the report and its recommendations would never be released. He will face pressure to explain why the party decided to hide recommendations that shine a spotlight on failings and offer lessons.

The review was set up under former leader Sussan Ley, a factional ally of Goward. Ley was less involved in the policy failures under Dutton, despite being his deputy leader, and arguably had less to lose than Taylor if the document was released.

One source said the party had come to the view that airing its dirty linen would be politically damaging before a state election in South Australia and a federal byelection in Sussan Ley’s seat. It was not worth the pain given how much had changed in the political climate since the election, the source added.

Dutton claimed he was not given enough time to respond to some of the observations in the report, and his allies felt it was disrespectful to a former leader by blaming his office for a loss in such a public manner.

Members of the party’s federal executive also held concerns about the quality of the analysis in the review and what they deemed was a reliance on hearsay. One said it contained typos, and another claimed the amount of commentary contained in the review meant it was not worthy of public release.

“This isn’t about protecting Angus or Dutton,” one source claimed.

Other sources pushed back on the criticisms of the document. They said it was sound and contained solid recommendations, but that it had more florid language and commentary than previous election reviews.

This was being used unfairly by Dutton and his allies to discredit the entire report and protect the former leader from a broad range of criticisms made of him, sources said.

Minchin and Goward’s recommendations have already been adopted by the party, giving weight to the authors’ view that their report was meritorious and should be made public.

Goward wrote on Friday: “Inevitably and much to our frustration, we were often forced to rely on competing accounts of events. When these could be reconciled by emails and meeting notes, we did so, but otherwise we either acknowledged the problem of hearsay or drew conclusions based on a synthesis of the various accounts available.”

This masthead published a series of stories about elements of the report seen by the small group of officials who had read it last year. They included findings that Donald Trump’s election was a critical factor in dragging down Dutton, that a disconnect emerged between Dutton and campaign officials, and that Dutton, in his submissions to the probe, criticised the work ethic of Andrew Hastie.

One former MP who lost their seat in the 2025 wipeout, and who asked not to be named, said the decision to suppress their review was extraordinary: “It’s the worst result in 80 years and we have said ‘nothing to see here’.”

Hume, who authored the 2022 review, said last week that the party should “instinctually be on the side of transparency”.

“If there are things in that review that we can learn from, that’s terrific. But there are people that have seen the review that don’t think that it should be made public. Not because they want to keep it secret, but because they potentially don’t think it’s a good review,” she said on ABC.

Taylor’s office was contacted for comment.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.