The Liberal Party is on a perilous path, and it’s one that could leave them with far less than net zero—both in policy and political relevance. Here’s the stark reality: for three consecutive elections, the ‘teal’ independents have devoured the Liberals’ electoral base with such fervor that the once-dominant conservative party now teeters on the brink of irrelevance, especially in inner-metropolitan seats. These areas, often unfairly dismissed as bastions of ‘elites,’ are actually teeming with voters whose influence is impossible to ignore.
But how did we get here? The teals have masterfully crafted a narrative that resonates: they argue the National Party effectively dictates the Liberal Party’s climate and energy policies. In other words, voting for a Liberal leader like Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton is essentially handing the reins to Barnaby Joyce. And this is the part most people miss: while Joyce’s recent theatrics—his sulking outside the Nationals’ party room and flirtation with One Nation—might complicate that message, the core claim remains unshakable. The Nationals’ grip on Liberal energy policy isn’t just campaign rhetoric; it’s a reality the Liberals seem determined to validate.
Consider this: the Liberal Party appears poised to abandon its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, a policy it upheld during nearly a decade in government. Why? Because the Nationals have publicly rejected it, and the Liberals seem unwilling—or unable—to stand their ground. But here’s where it gets controversial: Nationals leader David Littleproud claims there’s a ‘cheaper, better, fairer way’ to reduce emissions. Yet, when the Coalition was in power, they never implemented this supposed solution. So, where is it now? The lack of clarity only deepens the skepticism.
Meanwhile, the Liberals’ stance on climate action is increasingly murky. While they’re officially reviewing their net zero policy, the emotional and strategic chaos within the party makes it feel like their words carry little weight. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley must recognize this: even if the Liberals retain the policy, recent events have shattered any illusion that net zero by 2050 is a reliable, voter-trusted position for her party.
And this is the part that should keep everyone up at night: once you start questioning the Liberals’ commitment to net zero, the entire party’s identity begins to unravel. What do they stand for? Lower taxes? Aspiration? Market-driven solutions? Or is it something as trivial as policing prime ministerial T-shirts? Ley showed early promise—standing up to Littleproud during the Nats’ brief split and disciplining Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for inflammatory remarks. But recent missteps, like her fixation on T-shirts and calls to sack Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the U.S., have dulled her shine.
History offers no comfort. Every Liberal leader since Tony Abbott has been undone by climate policy. Abbott won big by opposing Gillard’s carbon tax but floundered in government, ousted by Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull, who ratified the Paris Agreement and proposed the ‘National Energy Guarantee,’ was torpedoed by his own party room. Scott Morrison, who famously cuddled coal in Parliament, faced public backlash over his handling of the 2019-2020 bushfires—a moment that likely shifted Australian attitudes toward climate change. Even Peter Dutton’s attempt to sidestep the issue with a far-fetched nuclear energy plan fell flat.
Here’s the hard truth: credible energy policy is non-negotiable for any party aspiring to govern. Yet, the Liberals’ self-sabotage isn’t driven by conviction—it’s driven by confusion. What, exactly, do they stand for today? If the Nationals and conservative Liberals succeed in ditching net zero, what remains? Something far less than zero—and far less than what Australia needs.
Thought-provoking question for you: Is the Liberal Party’s struggle with climate policy a symptom of deeper identity crisis, or can they still reclaim a coherent, voter-trusted stance? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a debate.
