In a co-authored opinion piece, independent MPs Allegra Spender and Kate Chaney express dismay at the current state of the Liberal Party’s climate and energy policy, calling for a return to its traditional values of rational economics, market-based solutions, and scientific integrity. As descendants of former Liberal MPs, they argue that the party has lost its ideological compass, particularly on climate, where populist rhetoric has displaced principled policymaking. They advocate for a credible, pro-market approach that recognises the urgent realities of climate change and provides long-term certainty for investment and innovation.
Chaney and Spender outline what a rational, forward-looking Liberal climate policy would entail. Central to this is acknowledging the scientific consensus on global warming and recognising Australia’s particular vulnerability to climate impacts, including drought, extreme weather, and risks to national and regional security. They cite former Defence Chief Admiral Chris Barrie, who has described climate change as “the greatest threat to the future and security of Australians.” A responsible party would commit to the global net zero framework, not abandon it, as doing so would harm Australia’s credibility and influence internationally.
A genuine Liberal approach, they argue, would internalise the costs of carbon pollution by applying a broad, technology-neutral carbon price. This would allow market forces to drive emissions reductions efficiently. Investment in ageing infrastructure is unavoidable, whether for renewables or fossil fuels, and the authors emphasise that now is the time to build a resilient, low-cost energy system rather than defer action.
Chaney and Spender criticise the Coalition’s erratic policy swings, which they say have created investor uncertainty and driven up costs. They assert that capital shuns unpredictability, and the Coalition’s mixed signals on net zero have damaged Australia’s economic prospects. They advocate for faster regulatory approvals, reduced red and green tape, and focused government intervention only where markets fail – consistent with traditional Liberal values.
They highlight specific opportunities: household electrification to reduce energy bills and stabilise the grid, community benefit-sharing from renewables in regional areas, and the cessation of native forest logging as a cost-effective emissions reduction measure. Beyond domestic benefits, Australia could become a global leader in low-emissions iron production by leveraging its iron ore and renewable energy resources – but only if clear policy and targeted investment are in place.
The article criticises the Coalition for yielding to internal divisions, particularly the influence of National Party figures such as Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan, who reject net zero targets. Energy spokesman Dan Tehan’s vague reliance on future technology is dismissed as wishful thinking. Chaney and Spender argue that unless the Liberals decisively split from the Nationals and reembrace their foundational principles, their climate policy will remain incoherent and unconvincing.
They conclude that although Labor’s current approach is flawed – “erratically interventionist, slow and piecemeal” – the Coalition is failing to offer a credible alternative. As descendants of proud Liberal parliamentarians, they express disappointment at the party’s trajectory and call for a principled recommitment to net zero and climate leadership.