The Liberal Party is grappling with significant internal divisions as it navigates its stance on the net zero by 2050 target. Optimism around these technological advancements to achieve this ambition runs high among key figures such as Jane Hume. Consequently, anger and division is brewing inside the party. Unsurprisingly, given his background, Hume is optimistic that technology can get Australia to net zero by 2050. Yet despite her best efforts, she encounters obstacles even from her own party that compound the struggle for progress.
Despite deep challenges climate and energy policy for the Liberal Party in recent years, these existential crises reached their apex in 2009 and 2018. This history looms large over today’s discussions, especially as Andrew Hastie sticks to his guns and reportedly moves to oppose any net zero commitment at all. His opposition is illustrative of a widespread worry felt by members of the party. Perhaps most importantly, they care about how these policies will affect their constituents.
So strong is the Matt Canavan led Nationals’ review of the net zero target that it is a serious first examination of the target from a coalition partner. At the same time, Sussan Ley has criticised the draft legislation, describing it as “a handbrake on investment.” Ley’s comments underscore the stark reality facing federal and state agencies as they continue to operate under the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Angus Taylor—famed for his extreme commitment to undermining net zero—has finally met his match. This makes it clear that serious negotiations may be just around the corner. Barnaby Joyce’s resignation from the Nationals party room—and replacement—revealed deep divides on the party’s net zero policy. This use of the bill demonstrates growing fault lines in the coalition.
The Greens have entered the fray, advocating for a climate trigger that would compel government action on environmental issues. Unfortunately, this proposal has been met with a firm no from the administration, muddying climate policy waters even further. Against these dynamics, Murray Watt has suggested limited final approval powers for projects be kept. This move would allow home officials to circumvent new environment protection agency choices.
Michelle Grattan writes that the net zero by 2050 target is a dilemma for the Liberal Party. Still, she thinks that this challenge could be easier to overcome than the hurdles in 2009 and 2018. She emphasised that the current infighting is putting Sussan Ley’s leadership on the line. If not attended to, these factors have the potential to blow apart party unity beyond repair.
Dan Tehan is spearheading a taskforce aimed at developing a comprehensive energy policy that includes perspectives from both major parties. His method highlights an intention to create space for cooperation even in the acrimony. Tehan remarked, “I haven’t changed the view that I had at the time,” referencing past discussions about climate policy.
As tensions rise, Andrew Hastie’s past threats to cross the floor over Malcolm Turnbull’s climate policy in 2018 loom large in discussions. These historical precedents are important reminders of the stakes at hand and the potential consequences of internal dissent.
Sussan Ley has criticized the government’s handling of climate policy, stating, “There’s nothing in what has been said today that gives investors or the Coalition confidence that this government actually understands what the problem is and has a plan to address it.” Her comments underscore a mounting belief that a schism within the party might scare off the kinds of investment and action on climate that proponents hope for.
