‘Unprofessional attempt at a hit job’: Dutton lets fly as Liberal review leaks

Former Coalition leader Peter Dutton has described the Liberal Party’s suppressed election review as a “gratuitous and personal” hit job after the full report was leaked.

Dutton is furious about findings that focused on his unattractiveness to women, as well as lengthy criticisms of his staff seizing of control of the campaign from party head office.

The report, seen by this masthead, written by party elders Pru Goward and Nick Minchin has become a focus of intrigue after new Coalition leader Angus Taylor met with party officials last week to shelve the document despite Sussan Ley’s previous commitment to make it public.

With the party’s polling position at record lows, a byelection looming in Ley’s seat following her resignation on Friday, and a threat from One Nation’s polling surge, Taylor and party officials decided it would serve little purpose to air the party’s dirty linen.

However, Goward and Minchin argue the party will never learn from its mistakes. Taylor and deputy Jane Hume are facing pressure over the decision to bury the document that delves into errors on tax policy involving Taylor and a damaging comment by Hume on “Chinese spies”, for which both have already apologised.

Dutton had threatened legal action if the report was released, while the quality of the report was also questioned.

Dutton, who suffers from alopecia, took exception to the review’s recommendation number 15 of 18, which states: “The female vote is clearly a problem for the Liberal Party. The combination of a Leader unattractive to women, and policies or messaging that alienated women appears to have been a major factor in 2025. Further research to understand the loss of the female vote over the past decade must be undertaken urgently”.

In response, Dutton told this masthead the review “was an unprofessional attempt at a hit job”.

“The report is embarrassing in what it neglected to mention and gratuitous and personal to the point of being without foundation in many of its claims,” he said.

“The report makes numerous baseless claims and asserts a breakdown in relationships, which just wasn’t the case. It was discredited before it was leaked. It points out that I have a good head for radio. It’s a fair point, but I just don’t know how the personal attacks help us win the next election.”

Some of Dutton’s supporters in the executive meeting felt the term “unattractive” was a comment on Dutton’s appearance, which the report states was weaponised by Labor, who compared Dutton to Harry Potter villain Voldemort. But the authors firmly reject this claim, and some Liberal sources say Dutton was using the loose language in the review, which is widely acknowledged as unusual, as ammunition to discredit its findings about him.

Minchin, a Right faction stalwart of the party, said Dutton’s claims were wrong. “I share Peter’s conservative leanings and I would reject any suggestion this was a hit job,” the report’s co-author told this masthead.

“The reality is while I personally have a great affinity for Peter and have known him for some time, his leadership during the campaign and the decisions he made during the campaign were a significant contributor to the size of that loss and it would have been quite irresponsible for Pru and I not to reflect that fact,” he said.

The rift over the document underscores the party’s struggles to recover from its catastrophic electoral result. Taylor is now the third opposition leader in less than four years, leading a Liberal Party that many candidates and MPs told the review might “collapse or disappear”.

The clash over a document meant to chart a path forward stands in sharp contrast with the sober review conducted by Labor after its disastrous 2019 loss, paving the way for the win in 2022.

A leaked copy of the latest version of the review makes 18 recommendations including: codifying the campaign director’s supremacy over the party leader’s office; offsetting the party’s “ageing” membership base by hiring campaigners in key seats; partnering with women’s organisations to find common ground; forcing MPs to engage with younger people and diverse background voters; and reviewing its fundraising to avoid conflicts of interest.

Much of the election review’s focus is on the relationship between Dutton and the professional campaigning unit led by federal director Andrew Hirst.

Officials in party HQ told the review that Dutton’s office were “not engaging” on strategy in the years and months before the election. Dutton’s team, meanwhile, claimed the party officials failed to develop a positive story for Dutton or an effective campaign against Anthony Albanese.

The reviewers said the breakdown was a critical factor in the party’s poor tactics that made the election loss so large.

Minchin and Goward said they were satisfied that the leader’s office took control of the campaign at key points, usurping Hirst, who is meant to be in full control of campaigns.

Key to the breakdown, they said, was Dutton’s “untrusting nature”. The leader trusted very few of his colleagues and was sceptical of their motives, the review said. Dutton’s team “treated MPs as irrelevant”, the review found, as strong polling gave Dutton false confidence.

“The leader and his chief of staff had little trust in the federal director/federal secretariat,” Minchin and Goward wrote.

Dutton sledged the party’s campaign unit, even though Hirst ran Scott Morrison’s victorious 2019 campaign.

“We were outgunned by Labor’s machine,” Dutton said.

“That’s the truth of the last election campaign. In February we were 52/48 up. My net favorability was plus 5, and by election day it was minus 29. Full credit to Labor for the character assassination and effective online propaganda campaign.”

“Unfortunately, our campaign machine wasn’t up for the fight. That is the lesson of the last election, and until we get match fit we won’t come within a bulls roar of Labor, regardless of how much policy we put out there.”

Taylor acknowledged a critical breakdown in the party’s campaign effort in an interview with this masthead on Sunday, without laying blame at either Dutton or Hirst’s feet. The Nightly was first to report on the campaign breakdown discussed in the review.

“There’s very clear lessons that I haven’t talked about in the past, about the tension that existed between the federal secretariat and the leader’s office,” Taylor said. “We’re going to do everything to make sure that is not repeated.”

The review gives Dutton credit for the Voice to parliament defeat but says the results of the referendum were then used by pollster Freshwater to overestimate the expected Liberal vote.

US President Donald Trump’s effect on the election is examined in detail, with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s call to “Make Australia Great Again” singled out as an own-goal. Trump’s tariffs, announced during the election campaign, “deepened Australian dislike of the president and the opposition leader, now successfully painted as Trump-like”.

Although Taylor is not mentioned by name, the failure to match Labor’s tax cuts is criticised as a mistake. Hume was criticised for her working from home policy, which was dumped mid-campaign, and for her comments about Chinese spies, which former MP Keith Wolahan blamed for the loss of his seat.

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