Robert Assaf, a cofounder of the religious conservative organization Reformers, has characterized the internal factional disputes within the New South Wales Liberal Party as a landscape of “warring kingdoms,” comparing the party’s volatility to the cinematic depiction of tribal conflict in the film Braveheart. The testimony was delivered during hearings conducted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), as part of a broader investigation into the influence and operations of young conservative power brokers within the party.
The testimony provides a rare glimpse into the ideological and structural fractures currently dividing the Liberal Party, suggesting that the internal competition for power has evolved beyond traditional policy disagreements into a systemic state of conflict.
The Testimony and the ‘Warring Kingdoms’
Appearing before the commission, Assaf described a political environment defined by deep fragmentation. His use of the “warring kingdoms” metaphor and the reference to Braveheart served to illustrate a perception of the NSW Liberal Party not as a unified political entity, but as a collection of competing fiefdoms. According to Assaf, these factions operate with a level of intensity and autonomy that mirrors historical or cinematic warfare, where loyalty is pledged to specific leaders or ideological blocs rather than the party institution as a whole.
The ICAC investigation is specifically scrutinizing the activities of a group of young conservative brokers who have sought to shift the party’s trajectory toward a more socially conservative, religiously informed platform. Assaf’s testimony focused on the intersection between the Reformers—a group dedicated to promoting religious conservative values—and the formal mechanisms of the Liberal Party.
During the proceedings, Assaf was questioned regarding the involvement of high-ranking party figures, specifically focusing on the role of Angus Taylor. Assaf testified that Taylor was not “that involved” in the specific, day-to-day activities of the Reformers. However, he clarified that the federal opposition leader “definitely wasn’t opposed” to the work the organization was conducting. This distinction suggests a relationship of tacit approval, where senior leadership allows ideological vanguard groups to operate on the periphery, provided their goals do not directly clash with the leadership’s immediate strategic interests.
Why the Testimony Matters
The significance of Assaf’s testimony lies in its confirmation of the depth of the Liberal Party’s internal instability. While factionalism is a standard feature of Australian politics, the description of “warring kingdoms” implies a breakdown of the party’s internal cohesion. When a party’s internal dynamics are viewed through the lens of conflict rather than collaboration, the ability to maintain a consistent policy platform or a unified front against political opponents is severely compromised.
Furthermore, the testimony regarding Angus Taylor highlights the strategic ambiguity often employed by political leaders. By maintaining a distance from the Reformers while remaining “not opposed” to their work, Taylor and other senior figures can leverage the energy and grassroots mobilization of ideological factions without assuming the political risk associated with their more controversial positions. This creates a dual-track system where the party’s public face remains moderate or centrist, while its internal machinery is influenced by more radical conservative elements.
Background and Context
The Reformers emerged as part of a broader global trend of religious conservatives seeking to institutionalize their influence within mainstream center-right parties. In the context of the NSW Liberal Party, this movement has often clashed with the “moderate” wing of the party, leading to protracted battles over pre-selections, policy priorities, and the direction of the party’s social agenda.
The ICAC investigation into these power brokers is an attempt to determine whether this influence was exerted through legitimate political processes or through means that breached corruption laws or party regulations. The commission is examining whether the activities of these brokers involved the misuse of power, undisclosed funding, or the manipulation of party structures to secure outcomes for a specific ideological clique.
The tension between the “moderates” and the “conservatives” has historically been a defining feature of the Liberal Party, but the rise of organized groups like the Reformers represents a shift toward a more structured, ideological approach to party capture. Rather than focusing on individual candidates, these groups seek to reshape the party’s foundational identity.
Analysis:
The “warring kingdoms” framing suggests a systemic failure of party governance. When internal factions view themselves as separate kingdoms, the party’s central authority becomes nominal. The Braveheart analogy is particularly telling; it implies a struggle for liberation or dominance that is viewed by the participants as existential.
The relationship between the Reformers and Angus Taylor exemplifies a “buffer zone” strategy. By avoiding direct involvement, Taylor protects himself from the scrutiny of the general electorate and the ICAC, while the “not opposed” stance ensures that the conservative base remains energized. This allows the leadership to outsource the “culture war” aspects of their platform to external groups, maintaining plausible deniability while reaping the electoral benefits of ideological purity.
What to Watch Next
As the ICAC investigation continues, several key areas will determine the fallout from Assaf’s testimony:
1. Evidence of Coordination: The commission will likely seek to determine if the “tacit approval” mentioned by Assaf translated into any tangible benefits, such as preferential treatment in pre-selections or the sharing of internal party intelligence.
2. Leadership Response: How Angus Taylor and other senior Liberal figures respond to the characterization of their relationship with the Reformers will be critical. Any attempt to distance themselves further may alienate the conservative base, while an embrace of the group could invite further regulatory scrutiny.
3. Party Reform: The “warring kingdoms” admission may accelerate calls for structural reform within the NSW Liberal Party to curb the influence of external ideological brokers and restore institutional stability.
4. Further Testimony: Other members of the conservative broker network may be called to testify, potentially revealing more about the specific mechanisms used to exert influence over the party’s decision-making processes.
Conclusion
Robert Assaf’s testimony provides a stark illustration of the internal volatility of the New South Wales Liberal Party. By framing the party’s factionalism as a series of “warring kingdoms,” Assaf has moved the conversation from one of simple policy disagreement to one of systemic fragmentation. The revelation that senior leadership, including Angus Taylor, maintained a posture of non-opposition toward the Reformers suggests a calculated approach to ideological management. As ICAC continues its probe, the focus will shift from the metaphors of conflict to the evidence of how that conflict was managed and who benefited from the chaos.
Sources:
The Guardian World: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/30/robert-assaf-nsw-liberal-party-braveheart-icac-hearings-angus-taylor-ntwnfb
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Guardian World — source
