When Napoleon remarked that one should never interrupt an enemy when it was making a mistake, he was referring to the way the enemy was disposing of his troops, not about the policies and programs with which he proposed to govern. Like all the countries arrayed against him, (even, effectively, England) Napoleon didn’t do elections.

In some senses, Anthony Albanese and Labor must be exulting about the way Barnaby Joyce and other Nationals are seeking to prevent any Coalition consensus about net zero on emissions. That may be popular among Nationals members and quite a few Liberals in the Parliament, but all the evidence suggests that it is a policy that will continue to kill the Liberal Party in urban seats. Coalition indecision about, or resistance to, climate action is one of the main factors that led to the Teal phenomenon in recent elections.

Until the Liberals get their act together on the subject, they can forget about wooing back Teal voters or anything like a majority of metropolitan seats. This is not merely a reaction to their historic failure to do much on the subject while in government and their seeming determination to do even less in future.

The subject has become a symbol of a party out of touch with popular feeling in the electorate. It can represent the selfish instinct – in effect the refusal to make any serious sacrifice in the face of clear evidence of global warming and its consequences, including sea-level rises. It can also represent the refusal to accept modern science and modern realities, perhaps in the hope that the nightmare will go away or cease to be before the chief proponents of inaction or limited action — old white men — have become ash in the sky.

It may be seen as a reflection of the way in which significant numbers in both parties — but particularly the Nationals — have become hostages to the hydrocarbon industry, and the mining industry, and will consistently put the interests of the polluters ahead of the public interest, even in their electorates.

But by whichever way it is seen, it is plain from poll after poll that the approach of the do-nothings is seriously out of touch with the views of most of the electorate, other than among the small mostly older male groups which control the conservative wings of the party. Not only out of touch with the need for already urgent action to address a serious threat to the physical environment, but also to the social environment.

And out of touch with reality, and any sense that we have, whether as Australians or citizens of the world, an obligation to take collective action to address the changes that are happening.

A terrible legacy from resistance, sabotage and inaction

Those who see the need for urgent and significant action include younger Australians, those who will inherit the earth, and who will find it a much harder environment, a more challenging economy, and a more difficult social and cultural living space if collective action does not succeed in slowing the rate of temperature change, pollution and impacts on our seashores, our agriculture and our safety and security.

They have every right to reproach generations who continue to make things worse. But also solidly getting the point are Australians who are in or approaching middle-age, as well as a significant proportion of older Australians. Women of all ages favour urgent action at significantly greater rates than men, even where men, by majority, see the need for action. In almost every demographic, including in rural and regional communities, in the outer and inner suburbs, among people born overseas, and among the better educated and skilled, the problem is recognised for having become real and of increasing urgency. Nor, according to the polls, can it be dismissed as a “woke” issue, or a mere obsession of inner-city trendies.

Labor has recognised both the need for change and the demand for action. But it has timorously disappointed by not taking the crisis seriously enough. Doing what the public and party members want, and what the platform is committed to, has taken a distinct second place to appeasing the many interest groups with a major stake in maintaining the old polluting empires. That, of course, includes significant parts of the trade union movement because of the jobs which could be at risk from economic restructuring. It also includes armies of lobbyists who have moved smoothly from working inside the Labor Government to prostituting their knowledge, their access and their contacts, trying to discourage Labor from doing what it has said it will do.

Labor has seemed to measure the size of the problem by the political, economic and social cost of doing fractionally more than the Opposition, without anything like the mobilisation of public resources demanded by the popular will. It has, moreover, faltered on most every occasion when it has feared local consequences from action of the sort required – such as closing coal-fired power stations. The national achievement in reducing emissions is significantly less than it could be. Nor can we pretend that we are a clear path to reducing emissions to net zero. Indeed, successive governments have embraced schemes of dubious worth in reducing emissions and used false accounting to claim results that are not there. Labor’s phony war against the Greens — by which they distinguish themselves by claiming to preserve jobs the Greens had been happy to give away — has also seen it authorise long-term economic activities that unnecessarily keep emission levels higher than they should be.

Labor’s inadequate action is well behind the popular demand for a more urgent response

It may well be that Labor’s cynical pragmatism about doing a good deal less than the evidence, and the public, wants, is one of the reasons why more than two-thirds of voters have ceased to give their first preferences to either of the major party groupings. More than a third of the electorate now votes for Independents or the Greens, and by far the majority of these are voting for groups or candidates who are in the election for climate action. With most of these, of course, Labor is harvesting the second preferences, but it could not possibly have achieved its current large majority without the support of the Greens and community parties.

There are, of course, some Labor strategists who are saying complacently that Labor won a record majority with only limited climate action goals, an indication that the electorate was satisfied and happy with the type and pace of change. That is seriously deluded thinking. Labor’s offerings, particularly in health and HECS fees, and its record may have served to attract votes.

Labor’s big selling point was not the winning personality, character or agenda of Anthony Albanese. It was genuine voter fear of the predilections and intentions of Peter Dutton. As Kerry Packer might say, you only get one of these in your life

The Liberals got belted, and beyond any hope of rationalisation as “messages not getting through”. It wasn’t that their message wasn’t heard, it was rejected. Serious Liberals understand that the party must change, and reform itself to offer policies more in touch with the needs of the community. The party may not need to abandon fundamental principles and values, particularly as to individuals, human rights and free markets. But many Coalition obsessions, and perceptions of policies and programs needed to give effect to its philosophy are seriously out of kilter with what is possible in modern society. Some seem to think that the party must become an even more exclusive club, with hard-right conservative policies, and the complete abandonment of its small l liberal or moderate wing. Others recognise that the party must move towards the centre-ground, adopting policies designed to attract voters that repudiated it last time around.

Sussan Ley is a moderate who holds the leadership narrowly. She has been promoting a no-holds barred review of all policies, not least on climate action. Many conservatives in her party disagree and, increasingly, make little secret of it. It is claimed that there is a slight majority, at least within the Liberals, for adhering to net-zero policies, but that has yet to be seen. Some of those making trouble are using the issue to undermine her leadership. In the Nationals, one of the purposes of the Barnaby Joyce private members bill is to destabilise David Littleproud’s leadership. Given that winning back power is an unlikely hope at the next election, it may well be that some of her caucuses are more concerned with present perks of office and party patronage, than in radical reform of their position.

If Ley does not win this argument, the Liberals may cease to be a potential party of government

Ley understands that maintaining the line on net zero is vital to any perception that the Coalition is out of the clutches of do-nothing radicals. It is almost impossible that it can be seen as having moved to the centre if it is perceived as having rejected even the compromises made by Scott Morrison. Without such a change in its face towards the public, it would seem almost impossible for the Liberals to aspire to win back the sort of voters who have given support to community-based independent groups, including the Teals, or to win back seats in metropolitan areas, where the party is now particularly weak, unorganised, and vulnerable to infiltration by extremists.

Ley is far from the most charismatic leader the Liberal Party has ever had. But it seems unlikely that any of her potential rivals from the party’s conservative wing is any more likely to win popular support in the electorate, to show leadership, to inspire a new followership, or even to set a course likely to renew its membership. If Angus Taylor had officer qualities, capacity to energise his troops or succeed in selling his product, it ought to have been apparent by now.

It looks bad for Sussan Ley. One might think one could excuse ministers and the Labor Party if they sat back and simply enjoyed it all, perhaps even slowing their task of meeting election promises so that the public at large could enjoy the spectacle of its rivals tearing themselves apart and proving themselves ungovernable. It would be a silly response.

She needs support. She is not necessarily their best possible leader, but her position must prevail. Her party needs to change its policies and to get on the good side of the challenge of global warming. Labor needs it too. So does Australia. This is a country that has wasted two decades arguing, mostly pointlessly, about climate change. In or out of power, the Liberals and the Nationals have spent more time tearing down leaders trying to get some traction on the subject than they have in constructive action. Or time in engaging with the public and with interest groups. Or engaging, as a nation, with neighbouring countries battling with the obvious effects of a changing climate, or a world trying desperately, mostly unavailingly, to get an international consensus on targets for reducing emissions.

The struggle in the Coalition has debilitated Labor and brought down the level of debate in Australian politics. This diminishes Australia in the eyes of the world. Even if it has been more on the side of the angels, Labor’s capacity to make and win the argument has been hampered by the denials, the sabotage and the clumsiness of the Coalition response. This has been aggravated by the fact that the bureaucracy serving governments consumed by foot-dragging, and political posturing and point-scoring, has been distracted from creating effective policies. A unified approach, with a broadly agreed policy subject only to niggling about the edges, might have by now produced much better results in reduced emissions, and more authority and influence in world councils as it wrestles with the issues.

Labor should acknowledge that on this, as on many other public issues, it has not been leading the argument. It still lacks the moral authority to claim to “own” the issue, and the right to set the pace. The issue has long been owned by that 40% of the electorate that is now rejecting the two-party system. The Greens and environmental lobbies were talking up the issue and the need for action long before Labor, with some reluctance, became a convert. In government, whether during the Rudd, the Gillard, or now the Albanese era, Labor has been ineffective either in delivering the best policies or in explaining to the population what it is doing and why. The nation is being held back by having to take the time out to be dealing with Coalition excuses for inaction. It is also being held back in the search for new social and economic opportunities as the nation transitions into a cleaner and more sustainable future. It should be a united program for the nation. Ley needs all the help she can get.

Republished from The Canberra Times, July 2025

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.