The Liberal Party is on a perilous path, and it’s not just about policy—it’s about survival. Boldly put, the once-dominant conservative force in Australian politics is now teetering on the edge of irrelevance, and the reason might just shock you. For three consecutive elections, the ‘teal’ independents have outmaneuvered the Liberals with such precision that the party’s electoral strongholds are crumbling, particularly in inner-metropolitan areas. These seats, often dismissed as bastions of the ‘elite,’ are actually teeming with voters whose influence is far greater than many realize—and the Liberals are losing them fast.
But here’s where it gets controversial: The teals’ success isn’t just about charisma or local appeal. They’ve hammered home a message that resonates deeply: the Liberal Party’s climate and energy policies are being dictated by the National Party. In other words, voting for a Liberal leader like Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton is essentially handing the reins to Barnaby Joyce. And while Joyce’s recent theatrics—storming out of the Nats’ party room and flirting with One Nation—might complicate that narrative, the core claim remains alarmingly credible. The Liberals seem determined to prove it, too.
Consider this: The Liberal Party is now on the brink of abandoning 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 appear too weak to resist. Is this leadership, or is it capitulation? Nationals leader David Littleproud claims there’s a “cheaper, better, fairer way” to reduce emissions, but he conveniently ignores why this magical solution wasn’t implemented when the Coalition was in power. Spoiler alert: They still haven’t explained it.
And this is the part most people miss: The Liberals’ stance on net zero isn’t just a policy shift—it’s an identity crisis. What does the Liberal Party stand for anymore? Lower taxes? Aspirational values? Market-driven solutions? Or is it more concerned with policing prime ministerial T-shirts? Opposition Leader Sussan Ley showed early promise, standing firm against Littleproud’s Nats rebellion and sidelining Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for her inflammatory remarks. But recent missteps—like her obsession with T-shirts and calls to sack Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the U.S.—have left her looking more reactive than visionary.
History offers no comfort here. Every Liberal leader since Tony Abbott has been undone by climate action—or the lack thereof. Abbott won big by opposing Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, but his anti-climate stance became a liability in government, leading to his ousting by Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull, in turn, championed the Paris Agreement and the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), a sensible policy that was torpedoed by his own party room. Scott Morrison’s coal-hugging antics and tepid response to the 2019-2020 bushfires—which seared images of burning koalas and families trapped by flames into the national psyche—further eroded trust. Even his last-minute net zero pledge before Glasgow felt hollow.
Peter Dutton’s attempt to sidestep the issue with a far-fetched nuclear energy plan only highlighted the party’s desperation. Here’s the hard truth: The Liberals aren’t just losing on energy policy—they’re losing their way entirely. If they abandon net zero, what’s left? A party that stands for something far less than zero.
So, here’s the question for you: Can the Liberal Party reclaim its identity and purpose, or is it destined to become a shadow of its former self? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—agree or disagree, this is a conversation Australia needs to have.
