The Liberal Party is in a freefall, and it’s not just about numbers—it’s about identity. Once a dominant force in Australian politics, the party now finds itself electorally starving, outmaneuvered by the rising tide of 'teal' independents who have devoured their support with relentless efficiency. For three consecutive elections, these independents have exposed the Liberals' vulnerabilities, particularly in inner-metropolitan seats, where voters—often unfairly labeled as 'elite'—are proving to be a formidable and growing demographic.
But here’s where it gets controversial: The teals have built their success on a simple yet powerful narrative—that the National Party is pulling the strings on 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. While Joyce’s recent theatrics, including his flirtation with One Nation, might complicate this messaging, the core claim remains startlingly accurate. The Liberal Party’s actions increasingly suggest they’re letting the Nationals dictate their energy agenda.
And this is the part most people miss: The Liberals’ commitment to net zero emissions by 2050—a policy they championed during nearly a decade in government—is now on the chopping block. The Nationals’ public rejection of net zero has forced the Liberals’ hand, with Barnaby Joyce openly taking credit for the shift. Yet, the Coalition’s alternative remains a mystery. Nationals leader David Littleproud promises a ‘cheaper, better, fairer way’ to reduce emissions but offers no details. Why didn’t they implement this supposed solution when they were in power? The silence is deafening.
For Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, the challenge is twofold. Even if the Liberals retain the net zero policy, recent events have shattered its credibility as a fixed party position. Pulling the thread of net zero threatens to unravel the entire Liberal Party’s identity. What do they stand for? Lower taxes? Aspirational politics? Market-driven solutions? Or is it something as trivial as policing prime ministerial T-shirts? Ley’s early leadership showed promise—standing up to the Nationals and addressing inflammatory comments within her party—but recent missteps have undermined her momentum.
History offers no comfort. Every Liberal leader since Tony Abbott has been undone by climate action, one way or another. Abbott’s anti-carbon tax stance won him an election but failed in government, leading to his ousting by Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull’s ‘National Energy Guarantee’—a sensible but misunderstood policy—was torpedoed by his own party, paving the way for Scott Morrison’s rise. Morrison’s embrace of coal and lackluster response to the 2019-2020 bushfires—images of which seared the reality of climate change into the national consciousness—left him politically vulnerable. 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. Credible energy policy isn’t just a policy—it’s a litmus test for governance. 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 abandoning net zero, what remains? A party with less than zero direction. And that’s the real question: Can the Liberal Party reclaim its identity, or will it continue to drift, leaving voters—and history—to wonder what they truly believe in? Let’s discuss—do you think the Liberals can recover, or is their decline irreversible? Share your thoughts below.
