The Liberal Party is in a tailspin, and it’s not just about policy—it’s about identity. Boldly put, the once-dominant conservative force in Australian politics is now struggling to define what it stands for, and voters are taking notice. For three consecutive elections, the so-called ‘teal’ independents have outmaneuvered the Liberals with such precision that the party is now electorally emaciated, particularly in inner-metropolitan seats. These areas, often unfairly dismissed as bastions of ‘elites,’ are in fact teeming with voters whose influence is impossible to ignore.
The teals’ success hinges on a sharp campaign message: the National Party is pulling the strings on the Liberal Party’s climate and energy policies. Voting for a Liberal leader like Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton, they argue, is essentially a vote for Barnaby Joyce. But here’s where it gets controversial: Joyce, now sulking on the sidelines and flirting with One Nation, may no longer be the bogeyman the teals need. Yet, the core claim—that the Nationals dictate Liberal energy policy—remains eerily accurate. The Liberals seem determined to prove it.
The party is on the brink of abandoning its 2050 net zero emissions target, caving to the Nationals’ public rejection of the policy. Joyce himself took credit for this shift, boasting, ‘I’ve played my part.’ Never mind that this was the same policy the Coalition championed during nearly a decade in power. Now, Nationals leader David Littleproud claims there’s a ‘cheaper, better, fairer way’ to reduce emissions—a solution mysteriously absent during their time in government. And this is the part most people miss: the Liberals’ true stance on climate action is now so muddled that it’s hard to take them seriously, regardless of what they say.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley must see the writing on the wall. Even if the Liberals cling to net zero, recent events have shattered any illusion that it’s a reliable position for the party. The problem? Once you question net zero, the entire Liberal platform begins to unravel. What do they stand for? Lower taxes? Aspiration? Market-driven solutions? Or is it just about policing prime ministerial T-shirts?
Ley showed promise early on, standing firm against Littleproud during the Nats’ brief split and sidelining Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for inflammatory remarks. But recent missteps—like fixating on T-shirts and demanding Kevin Rudd’s removal as U.S. ambassador—have dulled her shine. History offers no comfort: every Liberal leader since Tony Abbott has been undone by climate policy, one way or another.
Abbott’s landslide victory against Julia Gillard’s carbon tax was short-lived; his oppositional stance crumbled in government, leading to Malcolm Turnbull’s rise. Turnbull, who ratified the Paris Agreement and proposed the ‘National Energy Guarantee,’ was ousted by his own party despite cabinet approval. Scott Morrison’s coal-hugging antics and lackluster response to the 2019-2020 bushfires—images of which seared the reality of climate change into the national psyche—sealed his fate. Even his last-minute net zero pledge before Glasgow felt hollow.
Peter Dutton’s attempt to sidestep the issue with a nuclear energy plan funded by taxpayers was so implausible it backfired. Here’s the sad truth: the Liberals’ self-sabotage on energy isn’t about fighting for something—it’s about fighting against everything, including themselves. What are they for? Right now, it’s hard to say.
If the Nationals and conservative Liberals get their way, and net zero is scrapped, what remains? Something far less than zero. But here’s the real question: Can a party that can’t define its core values ever hope to lead a nation? Let’s discuss—do you think the Liberals can recover, or is this the beginning of the end? Share your thoughts below.
