The meaning of liberalism is the same in any part of world.
Mmm, nope, not really. Simply describing a party (or person) as "liberal" does not convey anywhere near enough information in a global sense to determine their policies.
Does it mean socially liberal, "all drugs should be legal".
Does it mean economically liberal, "free market, make as much money as you can, low taxes, pay for all services yourself".
Does it mean both.
Does it mean neither.
Does it mean a bit of this and a bit of that, and if so, which bits and how much.
You see that just saying "I'm a liberal" means very little outside of the context of the political landscape in which that statement is made.
Some broad comparison can be made, for example Australia's Labor party can be comparable to the US Democratic Party, and their Liberals (or "the Coalition") can be comparable the US Republican Party, but even at that, the comparison is VERY loose.
It can probably be said that in most countries these days, the trend is towards centrist parties in all regards, naturally of course, a party which wants to achieve and retain power must by definition have wide appeal, as our societies have become far more diverse the need for parties to "pick and choose" policies to make come up with a reasonable compromise has become much greater.
Proportional representation can alleviate this at the party level somewhat with coalitions of more focused parties working together to form a government (as we usually have here in NZ with MMP), but the end result is the same, a government which is relatively centrist.