For months, a plan has been under way by moderates within the Victorian Liberal party to dislodge a group of conservative women from their prized, top positions on the upper house ballot ahead of the November state election.
While they failed to move Bev McArthur and Renee Heath, and Ann-Marie Hermans held on in the second spot, they did claim one major victory by ousting Moira Deeming – by far the most high-profile of the group.
On Sunday, Dinesh Gourisetty secured the party’s number one position in the western metropolitan region – thanks to both the support of the local branches and moderate grouping on the executive committee. Deeming did not contest the second position, which went to the incumbent upper house MP Trung Luu.
After years of headlines dominated by Deeming, for many small-l Liberals, it felt like vindication. The small-ls believed they had dragged their party into the centre, making it more electable in a progressive state like Victoria.
But the mood lasted less than a day.
By Monday morning, an email sent to the executive committee, most of whom had backed Gourisetty, revealed he had recently provided a character reference for a friend convicted of sexually assaulting a child.
That night, the executive resolved to hold a fresh preselection – and ruled that Gourisetty would not be eligible to stand.
For a party that, under leader Jess Wilson, has spent months trying to convince voters it has moved beyond internal warfare and is a disciplined team, a credible alternative government, it is a damaging setback.
“It’s just so incredibly embarrassing,” one Liberal MP, unauthorised to speak publicly on internal matters, says.
Another says: “Are we frustrated? Yes. Surprised? No.”
A Liberal source, from outside the party room, is more blunt: “We all knew this process would be bad. But nobody would have predicted how catastrophically fucked it is.”
Liberal sources have varyingly described the timing of the revelation after the vote as “diabolical” and a “political masterstroke” but all agree it was designed to cause “maximum damage” to the moderate grouping on the executive committee.
There is also agreement that the vetting process, overseen by the Applicant Review Committee, has failed.
Candidates pay thousands to nominate for preselection: about $5,000 in Liberal-held seats and $3,000 in others, though fees are sometimes waived in Labor strongholds.
The money funds an external consultancy to comb through candidates’ social media profiles, their personal associations and questionable comments they have left on forums, to prevent the embarrassments seen at previous elections.
Yet in this case, Gourisetty’s involvement in a publicly accessible court matter appears to have gone unnoticed.
It has led Wilson to order the party president, Philip Davis, and state director, Alyson Hannam, to review the vetting process.
“The situation should not have occurred,” Wilson told reporters on Tuesday. “We need to learn from what occurred and ensure that we improve our processes.”
Those in her party room back her response. Wilson has largely been spared any criticism, given she publicly supported all four sitting MPs being challenged.
But the party is not solely to blame either. Candidates also complete an 18-page questionnaire and sit an interview with the review committee, where they are asked about everything from past drug use to their finances, use of dating apps and even if they have made a Google review or visited a brothel or strip club in the last five years.
The second-last question asks if they have been involved in any “sensitive or controversial issues” that could arise during a campaign. According to multiple Liberal party sources, Gourisetty did not disclose the character reference.
Sources close to Gourisetty said the form did not have a clear question that was relevant to the character reference. They said questioning by the committee largely focused on breaches of the food safety act he pleaded guilty to in 2019.
The party is understood to be adding a specific question to the form about participation in court cases, whether as a witness or character reference.
As of Tuesday afternoon, beyond the decision to hold another preselection convention, much remains uncertain. The party’s constitutional committee will meet to determine how to proceed, though a plain reading of the document suggests it will be effectively rerun.
All candidates who initially nominated, except for Gourisetty, could be included in the vote unless they withdraw. And the same delegates, many of whom backed Gourisetty, could get to vote again.
“Whether they show up is another question,” one Liberal source says. “But if they do, they’ll be angry at how it has all turned out.”
What is less clear is whether more candidates could nominate. Would those delegates who voted for Gourisetty support a new entrant? And if not, would they instead vote for Luu, who scraped together just three votes in the ballot for the number one position? Either scenario would result in a candidate that is not Deeming on the ballot.
Others believe the party should seek a cleaner resolution: restore Deeming to her former position. This includes a small group who supported the initial challenge but want party unity above all.
“It would just make all this internal shit go away,” one member of this group says.
Deeming has not commented publicly since the vote and did not appear to attend parliament on Tuesday.
And the moderates, in attempting to remove Deeming, have once again placed her at the centre of the story.
