The Liberal Party’s rejection of net-zero and its lack of compelling leadership or clear policy vision has left it floundering with key voter groups. Without a coherent plan to make a difference, it risks a long spell in opposition.

When Vladimir Lenin outsmarted Mr Kerensky and the Nicholas, Russian Emperor, to seize power for the Bolsheviks in 1917 it was more than the Wagga Wagga Advertiser could stomach. Its editorial the next morning gave Nicholas a good thrashing. “Many times,”, the Advertiser intoned, “the Wagga Wagga Advertiser has warned the Tsar…”

There was of course no such editor, least of all from the lower Murrumbidgee, although I could imagine one or two of its former editors, including Michael McCormack, fulminating in this fashion. There are similar legends of minor newspapers in virtually every English-speaking country, invented as a warning about their editors taking themselves too seriously, overestimating their influence, or being a little on the pompous side.

I have not got myself in quite such a situation but have been wondering idly why most parliamentary members of the federal Liberal Party have been ignoring my advice about maintaining the symbolism of net zero emission by 2050. All the more so, I would have thought, because the advice was disinterested and well-meant, and because the more conservative Liberals (and virtually all the Nationals) have not yet publicly explained the reasoning for ignoring clear indications of voter opinion, opting instead to go for a set of slogans without visible means of (public) support.

It is quite true that I have not had a high strike rate with advice to the Liberals over the past 30 years or so. Sometimes, my opinions have been a source of mirth. About 23 years ago, I thought that Tony Abbott, then minister for health, had said something sensible when he said that fighting the war against terror involved more than weapons or fighting superiority. The west had to show its moral advantage and to win the propaganda war as well. I wrote to this effect.

In Cabinet the next day, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he desired to draw to the attention of ministers that morning’s editorial in The Canberra Times. Most ministers seemed in on the joke, and exclaimed things like “Oh, the Canberra Times. Well, what does it think? “As Costello read the editorial with significant pauses, ministers interjected with phrases such as “Good point, Tony”, and “Oh, hear hear”, and “well said”. Sometimes repeating back a sentence aloud.

Later, a somewhat humiliated Abbott rang me to ask that I never write a word of praise for him, on any subject, ever again. I would like to say that I kept my promise but I did not. But he soon prospered in the world, becoming leader of the opposition and then prime minister. I shouldn’t think, looking back that I dispensed much praise.

Liberals need a plan to make a difference

As Peta Credlin, Tony Abbott’s former chief of staff has said in her column in The Australian, winning back office is hard work, particularly after some of the recent drubbings. It involves a detailed plan “and the one thing the Victorian Liberals have never had in 11 years of opposition is a plan to make a difference rather than a hope to change the government and a plot to change their leader.

“This is not confined to Victoria. The NSW Liberals, likewise, seem more focused on changing their leader than on working out what they would do differently to make their state better. And while the Liberals in South Australia and Western Australia appear happily bereft of any imminent moves against their leaders, probably because they have been reduced to such a rump there are few options left, they seem equally devoid of a vision to make their states more economically dynamic and socially cohesive.’’

At the Federal level, there had been an epic struggle over net zero emissions by 2050, “a policy straitjacket that was driving up power prices, closing down heavy industry and threatening to fundamentally change the way we live.” But instead of embarking on what would have been a years-long campaign to counter a generation of climate brainwashing, the federal Libs look set to begin their own round of political cannibalism.

“If this is about finding a leader with the warrior instinct needed for the fight ahead, that is one thing. But rolling through leaders without doing the policy work and hoping that will be enough to shift votes is a recipe for permanent opposition”.

Credlin is of the party right and plainly a critic of the former Liberal net zero policy – put into place by the Morrison government and carried forward at the last election by Peter Dutton. She knows very well that the perception that the coalition was weak on climate change action was a major reason for the heavy defeat suffered at the May election. There is no evidence that any of this loss of support was reduced by the party’s nuclear power plans, or its measures to keep coal and gas in the equation. The public doesn’t want what the Liberal Party has been selling, and its share of the popular vote appears to be at record low levels. Even more alarming is that the opinion polls show that the party is on the nose with younger voters, middle aged voters, better-educated voters, women and first-and second-generation migrants.

The Liberals, in short, are a long way behind. There is no evidence yet that the leader, or the party, are seriously embarked on a new plan for Australia, or just how its determination to drop net zero is a vital part of a scheme to make a difference to the nation’s economy or culture.

In general terms, most of those who are party moderates, including Sussan Ley, were opposed to dropping net-zero. They were not persuaded by argument, however loyally they now argue the new policy; they were defeated by the numbers. Inexorable logic, and debate, did not introduce those present to ideas they had never heard before. Perhaps those charged with carrying the policy into practice, maybe eight years from now, will come up with the right combination of reason and passion to change the mind of potential Liberal voters at election time. Credlin may well think that the two-thirds of the community who want net-zero policies have been brainwashed, but that underlines the difficulty of any project to persuade them to a different view.

For many voters, perhaps including those who want net zero dropped, it’s as much a moral issue and emotional as it is a matter of canvassing evidence and alternatives. The target, as other Liberals have commented, has additionally become a symbol of climate change action – of doing something about a problem that confronts the whole population. It may be that different policies can produce a better economy without greatly increasing emissions, but the advocates are so late into the debate that they start at an even greater disadvantage than the demographics suggest.

Crude climate change denialists – there are some left – have almost no chance of changing minds, particularly if those arguing this are servants of the hydrocarbon industry, or Nationals, which has come to be much the same thing.

Whoever is leading the federal Liberals is up against it. Sussan Ley is forced into a policy she does not believe in, and has so far been unconvincing in putting forward the new policy. Members differ sharply on what the policy is, anyway. Even if details of the policy emerge in good time, perhaps because of spats between members with different views, no one has yet tied the policy piece into a new program of economic growth and national development. One would expect that voters must first be persuaded that they had been wrong (perhaps brainwashed) into their present opinion, and that they then must be persuaded that the Liberal leader’s plan is the right one for the future. Only died-in-the-wool Liberals – and there are few enough of them these days – will make this two-step process in one jump. And some won’t at all.

The next non-Labor PM may not be in parliament yet

That underlines another part of the challenge facing the Liberals. Sussan Ley may be the best they have got, even as she has been seriously undermined and weakened by an obvious campaign against her. If Angus Taylor has what it takes, it was not obvious while the coalition was in government, when Morrison was desperate for ideas, and, for a time at least, budget considerations or good governance were irrelevant.

Taylor was ineffective at developing new policy, and even more ineffective in selling it. He dealt intimately with business and the lobbies but did not take the fight or the argument to the electorate. Faith in his policies declined the longer he was in charge; nor was the public scepticism confounded by their ultimate success.

Taylor did not win trust among voters, or respect for his knowledge and passion and sense that he knew what he was doing. He is not blessed with the obvious character or charisma that would allow people to overlook his obvious weaknesses. His performance as shadow Treasurer for Peter Dutton was even worse. I simply cannot see him developing and marketing a plan for Australia; if there was one inside him, it would have been evident by now.

Andrew Hastie may have better potential, whether in style or in character, for leadership. On paper at least. But many doubt his commitment to hard work, or to serious policy research and action going beyond simple slogans, populist gestures and electoral grab-bags. He certainly has shown no sign of possession of a plan or of the capacity to organise and motivate a team which recognises his ambition but is looking to see evidence that he is up to it.

The vision that is required involves a good deal more than memories of souped-up cars, and “building things”. The Peter Dutton character reference, of his being almost useless during the election campaign, is hardly a help. Surviving Liberals may avoid recriminations about the Dutton strategy and the way he put it into action. But they do not forget.

Having a plan also involves having a place for ordinary Australians. The party’s conservatives are dismissive of the idea that the party must appeal to people in the middle ground, including those who are now becoming cemented into their support for Teals. The true targets are people in the outer suburbs and in the regions, they say. The pursuit of such insights has produced almost total wipeout in metropolitan seats.

Put simply, neither the Liberals, not the Nationals in coalition with them (if they remain in coalition) can hope to regain office by sweeping up the seats outside of metropolitan areas. Winning back the big cities is more than a matter of a better party organisation, or the financial and perhaps physical commitments of the old white men trying to control the party. It’s a matter of attracting the right candidates, far more representative of the electorate at large than the Liberal Party has been for many years. It’s a matter of inspiring such candidates with the idea that the party, and its leadership know what it is doing, and that their vision is capable of being put into action by election victory.

While the party’s prospects are glum, it will not be able to attract high calibre candidates. Right now, the party’s prospects are very glum. My view is that Labor, coasting on coalition muddling and disunity, could hold power for at least two more terms provided its economic and social performance was average. That is unless it messes up by corruption, incompetence or misgovernment, in which case an able opposition might catch it with its pants down.

No one has yet done the calculations about the impact on the Liberals of One Nation, or of the Teals. Both are serious enemies of the Liberals’ future, even if (as with Labor and the Greens) the Liberals become increasingly dependent on One Nation preferences.

It almost goes without saying that Liberal efforts to appease One Nation will be at the cost of moderate votes, and any effort to win back Teal and Community Independent voters. What is not clear is whether a new centre grouping – based around Teals, disenchanted Liberal moderates and perhaps some voters angry and disappointed about Anthony Albanese’s limited vision and lack of respect for good government could form a party which could progressively squeeze the Liberals out. In my opinion such a grouping could not succeed if it aspired to be something like the Democrats or the Australia Party. Nor could they grow without attracting existing Liberals of conservative economic and social temperament, assuming them to be comfortable (as say Dominic Perrottet in NSW was) with environmental protection, climate change action, respect for civil liberties and good governance.

The Liberals need a narrative, a story. It is not one to impose on their potential constituencies, but one to be explained, and sold, and sold again. Sold with the understanding that it is a part of a well-thought-out plan, and something more than a press release, a PR stunt, a clever slogan, or a launching pad for the descent on to Canberra of a new set of insiders. It might take the Liberals eight years to get there. By then, most likely, Labor will have run out of ideas (it almost has now) and become corrupted and complacent by being in power for too long. In the modern day, nearly all parties need complete renewal after two or three terms. Bear in mind that the next non-Labor government may not be a Liberal one. And that the next non-Labor prime minister may not be in parliament yet.

Republished from the Canberra Times, 21 November 2025

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

Please donate to Pearls and Irritations

Help us to continue to bridge the gap on the stories not covered in Australia’s mainstream media.

Make your donation via the Australian Cultural Fund today.