‘Complacency, leaking, infighting’: Libs blasted in election probe

But policy formation and a failure to pitch to a wider group of voters also shaped the outcome, finding the party “offered no particular solutions” to women, renters, those from different religious and ethnic backgrounds, as well as younger voters who were particularly overlooked.

“We paid insufficient attention to the impact of generational change and continued to assume that younger cohorts in time would become more interested in our values,” it read.

The review is likely to make waves in the party nationally as federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and campaigners contemplate how to retain existing Liberal seats held by moderates, while also appealing to blue-collar voters in outer suburban seats, whose power was highlighted by October’s Voice referendum outcome.

The review will form a blueprint for NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman as he attempts to find a narrative for a state party decimated by the defeat, the pre-election retirement of 13 MPs and ministers, and the first experience of opposition after 12 years in power.

In a worrying sign to Mr Speakman, it outlined a deeply divided administrative wing riven by ill-discipline, infighting, leaking and distrust. The most scathing criticism was reserved for the party’s 29-member executive or top decision-making panel, which was blasted for acting out of factional self-interest and making errors that cost seats.

“We preselected candidates way too late, largely because the executive put factional power games ahead of their prime responsibility: to run a winning campaign,” the review said.

Internally, party members have wrestled on ideology as the party’s more progressive moderate wing presses for quotas to even up female and ethnic representation in the party, as well as a tougher approach to address climate change.

But the review sidestepped prescriptive recommendations on policy issues.

Instead, Mr Greiner and Ms Seaton said the party needed to ensure policies catered to a diverse range of voters, and were devised through an approach that “empathises” with the challenges voters faced on housing, renting, climate, energy, cost of living and their “anxiety about fulfilling personal and community hopes”.

On fundraising, the authors called out a lack of discipline in raising cash for candidates, as well as a series of incidents where some branches refused to hand over funds raised to candidates.

Late preselections prompted some branches to go slow on the fundraising until they had a candidate in their seat, while other branches refused to hand over cash to a central pool.

“Some [branches] had a sense of being ‘on strike’ following preselection outcomes they did not like while [others] challenged the division’s right to take a levy,” the review found.

“A number of branches with ample funds available were not willing … to transfer those funds to aid the campaign of their local candidate.”