‘Are we frustrated? Yes. Surprised? No’: how Victorian Liberal moderates’ plan to oust Moira Deeming went horribly wrong | Victorian politics

A plan has been in the works for months by moderates in the Victorian Liberal party to oust a group of conservative women from their prized top positions in the upper house ahead of the November state election.

Although they failed to move Bev McArthur and Renee Heath and Ann-Marie Hermans retained second place, they did achieve a major victory by knocking out Moira Deeming, by far the most high-profile of the group.

Dinesh Gourisetty on Sunday secured the party’s top position in the western metropolitan region, thanks to the support of both local branches and the moderate grouping in the executive committee. Deeming did not object to the second position taken by incumbent upper house lawmaker Trung Luu.

After years of Deeming-dominated headlines, this felt like vindication for many minor liberals. The juniors believed they were pulling their party towards the centre, making it more electable in a progressive state like Victoria.

However, this mood lasted less than a day.

On Monday morning, an email to the board of directors, most of whom supported Gourisetty, revealed that he had provided a character reference for a friend who had recently been convicted of sexually assaulting a child.

That night, the administration decided to hold a new primary and ruled that Gourisetty could not run.

It is a damaging setback for a party that, under leader Jess Wilson, has spent months convincing voters it has moved beyond civil war and has a disciplined team and a credible alternative government.

“This is incredibly shameful,” says one Liberal MP who is not authorized to speak publicly about domestic matters.

Another says: “Are we disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.”

A Liberal source outside the party hall was more blunt: “We all knew this was going to be bad. But no one could have predicted it would be this disastrous.”

Liberal sources have variously described the timing of the announcement after the vote as “diabolical” and a “political masterstroke”, but all agree that it was designed to inflict “maximum damage” on the moderate group on the executive committee.

There is also consensus that the review process overseen by the Applicant Review Committee has failed.

Candidates pay thousands of dollars to nominate candidates for preselection: about $5,000 in Liberal-held seats, $3,000 in others, although fees are sometimes waived in Labor strongholds.

The money funds an external consultancy that will scan candidates’ social media profiles, personal relationships and questionable comments they leave on forums in an effort to avoid embarrassments seen in previous elections.

But in this case, Gourisetty’s involvement in a public court matter appears to have gone unnoticed.

This led Wilson to order party chairman Philip Davis and state director Alyson Hannam to review the investigation process.

“The situation should not have happened,” Wilson told reporters Tuesday. “We need to learn from what happened and make sure we improve our processes.”

Those in the party room also support his answer. Wilson has largely escaped any criticism, given that he publicly supports interrogating all four MPs.

However, the party is not the only guilty party. Candidates also fill out an 18-page questionnaire and conduct an interview with the review committee; Here they are asked about everything from their past drug use to their finances to their use of dating apps and even if they’ve done a Google review or visited a brothel or strip club in the last five years.

The second-to-last question asks whether they have been involved in any “sensitive or controversial issues” that might arise during a campaign. According to multiple Liberal party sources, Gourisetty did not reveal the character reference.

Sources close to Gourisetty said there was no clear issue with the character reference in the form. They said questioning by the committee largely focused on breaches of food safety legislation to which he pleaded guilty in 2019.

It appears that the party included a specific question in the form regarding participation in proceedings, whether as a witness or as a character reference.

As of Tuesday afternoon, much remains unclear beyond the decision to hold another primary meeting. The party’s constitutional committee will meet to decide how to proceed, but a simple reading of the document suggests it will effectively be reissued.

All initial candidates, except Gourisetty, can be included in the ballot as long as they do not withdraw. And the same delegates, many of whom supported Gourisetty, were eligible to vote again.

“Whether they come or not is another question,” says a Liberal source. “But if they do, they will be angry that it all turned out this way.”

It is less clear whether more candidates will nominate. Would the delegates who voted for Gourisetty support a new entrant? And if not, would they instead vote for Luu, who only amassed three votes in the ballot to take the number one position? Both scenarios will result in a candidate not being on the ballot.

Others believe the party should find a cleaner solution: reinstate Deeming to his old position. This includes a small group who supported the initial struggle but wanted party unity above all else.

“It eliminates all these internal problems,” says one member of the group.

Deeming has made no public comments since the vote and did not attend parliament on Tuesday.

And as moderates sought to eliminate Deeming, they once again placed him at the center of the story.