Australia

It's either a party brand name in which case it's meant to invoke a vibe of progressivism that it may or may not live up to because it's just part of political word salad...

Or its a political system that premiered back in the day of John Locke and Stuart Mill before fundamental rights were a widely accepted thing for the average joe that advocated for a series of basic human rights that from the start was very very focused on individual property rights and protection from government seizure because there was a habit monarchs had of doing that shit all the god damn time. Exceptions to these rights always existed but how the government interacts with those property rights particularly when it comes to "rights of corporations" is kind of up in the air. Socialism can optionally dovetail into liberalism by socializing different aspects of property and services but is not compatible with Communism because individual property rights are in direct conflict with allocation of resources based on government calculated need.

Technically Republicans and Liberals in the US are both liberals just Republicans are "neo-liberals" an ideology that became vogue with the likes of Regan and Thatcher where government regulatory bodies are looked at as an enemy and chunks of what were government are privatized... Which these parties sell as a cost cutting austerity measure but this has never been historically known to do anything but make things worse quality, not less expensive anf line the pockets of contractors and shareholders who are usually unsurprisingly ex politicians.