The Liberal Party's future is looking increasingly uncertain, and their stance on climate change and energy policy is at the heart of this crisis.
For years, the 'teal' independents have been chipping away at the Liberals' support, leaving the once-powerful conservative party struggling to maintain its electoral strength. The teals have successfully portrayed the National Party as the driving force behind the Liberals' climate and energy agenda, and with Barnaby Joyce's recent antics, this narrative is only gaining momentum.
But here's the real kicker: The Liberals seem determined to prove the teals right. Despite their previous commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, the party is now considering dumping this policy, caving in to the Nationals' rejection of net zero. This is a dramatic U-turn, especially considering the Coalition's adherence to this policy during their near-decade in government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud justifies this shift with vague references to 'lived experience' and a 'cheaper, better, fairer way' to reduce emissions. However, he fails to explain why this approach wasn't implemented when the Coalition was in power. It's almost as if they're making it up as they go along.
As for the Liberals, their true stance on emissions reduction is unclear. While they officially review their net zero policy, the situation feels increasingly chaotic, with emotions running high. It's as if the party has lost its way, and its words carry little weight anymore.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley must be aware that even if the Liberals keep the net zero policy, the recent events have shattered any trust in it being a stable position for the party. The problem is, once you question net zero, the entire Liberal agenda starts to fall apart.
So, what do the Liberals stand for? Lower taxes? Aspiration? Market-driven solutions? Or is it just about policing T-shirts and sacking ambassadors? Ley showed promise at the start of her leadership, but recent missteps, like the T-shirt debacle and her call for Kevin Rudd's dismissal, have undermined her position.
History offers little comfort either. Every Liberal leader since Tony Abbott has been brought down, directly or indirectly, by the issue of climate action. Abbott won big campaigning against Gillard's carbon tax, but this oppositional stance didn't work in government, leading to his ousting by Malcolm Turnbull.
Turnbull, as PM, ratified the Paris Agreement and proposed the 'National Energy Guarantee', a sensible policy that imposed emission reduction obligations. However, this was shot down by the Liberal party room, despite cabinet agreement. This led to Turnbull's downfall and Scott Morrison's rise.
Morrison's coal-cuddling and inadequate response to the 2019-2020 bushfires further damaged his credibility on climate and energy. Under pressure, he signed Australia up to net zero before the Glasgow summit, but the damage was likely already done.
Peter Dutton's attempt to sidestep the emissions issue with an implausible nuclear energy policy also failed. Credible energy policy is crucial for any governing party, but the Liberals seem to be self-sabotaging, not out of conviction, but out of confusion.
Right now, it's hard to pinpoint what the Liberals truly believe in. If the Nationals and conservative Liberals have their way, and net zero is abandoned, what's left? Something far less ambitious, and far less credible.
