Australian Conservatism at a Crossroads: McKenzie's London Speech and What It Signals

Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie traveled to London last week to deliver a pointed message to conservatives across the English-speaking world: they are, in her words, "in a war." The target of that war, she said, is mass immigration, "leftwing globalists," and institutions she described as captured by woke ideology. The venue was the inaugural CPAC GB conference. The audience was international. But the implications landed squarely in Australia.

McKenzie's speech was not a policy address. It was a declaration of alignment, an effort to plant Australian conservatism inside a transatlantic network that frames cultural conflict as an existential struggle requiring cross-border solidarity. By choosing a London stage and invoking shared "British heritage," she signaled that domestic policy disagreements are, in her view, something larger than domestic politics.

The immigration figures she cited deserve scrutiny. McKenzie argued that the Labor government would oversee 2 million additional arrivals between 2022-23 and 2027-28. That number appears to be a projection, not a current policy target. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net overseas migration fell to 306,000 people in 2024-25, down from 429,000 the year before. The federal government has held the permanent migration intake steady at 185,000 this year. The gap between McKenzie's framing and the available data is wide enough to matter.

Her broader argument on immigration was more carefully worded. "If you love your country and respect your past and want to build a future for your children," she said, "I believe you shouldn't be apologising for discriminating about who can come and live in your country, not on race, but on values." The distinction she drew, values rather than race, is a familiar rhetorical move in contemporary conservative politics. It shifts the terms of the debate while preserving the underlying concern about cultural change.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson also appeared at CPAC GB. Her comments on transgender rights drew swift condemnation from across the political spectrum. Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that people in public life should use their platform to make life easier for others, not harder. Labor frontbencher Andrew Charlton emphasized that Australia is a multicultural country and that successive waves of migration have been central to its development. Deputy Liberal leader Jane Hume went further, calling Hanson's remarks unnecessary, divisive, inflammatory, and "totally un-Australian." Hume also criticized Hanson's appearance alongside far-right activist Tommy Robinson.

The reaction from within the Liberal Party is significant. Bragg and Hume are not fringe voices. Their willingness to publicly distance themselves from the conference's tone reflects a genuine fracture inside Australian conservatism. On one side are figures drawn to the culture-war energy that CPAC GB represents. On the other are those who see that energy as a liability, one that alienates voters and contradicts the inclusive identity they believe the center-right must maintain.

McKenzie's speech represents a deliberate choice about where to position the Nationals within that fracture. The "war" framing is not incidental. It is a rhetorical strategy designed to raise the stakes, to make cultural grievance feel urgent and the call for solidarity feel necessary. Whether that strategy plays well in Australian electorates, particularly outside the rural base the Nationals already hold, is a different question.

There is also a structural question about what this kind of international alignment actually produces. Conservative movements in the United States and Britain have developed their own versions of culture-war politics shaped by their own histories, institutions, and electoral pressures. Importing that framework wholesale into Australian politics requires assuming that the grievances translate cleanly across borders. They often do not. Australia's immigration history, its relationship to multiculturalism, and its political culture are distinct enough that the fit is imperfect at best.

The domestic backlash to the conference suggests that many Australians, including many conservatives, recognize that imperfect fit. The energy at CPAC GB points in one direction. The response from Bragg, Hume, and Charlton points in another. Both signals are real, and they are pulling at the same political moment.

McKenzie's London speech may ultimately be remembered as an early marker in a longer argument about what Australian conservatism is for. The traditional pillars, economic management, national security, institutional stability, have not disappeared. But they are competing now with a different set of priorities, ones organized around cultural identity and international solidarity with movements that share a common vocabulary of grievance.

The question that follows from all of this is not simply whether McKenzie's rhetoric will persuade voters. It is whether Australian conservatism will define itself primarily through what it opposes, or whether it will develop a governing vision capable of holding together a country that has, for decades, built something genuinely its own.

---