In November 2009, the Liberal Party, led by Malcolm Turnbull, resolved to support the then-Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme, that is, a carbon tax.

Several commentators at the time stated that young voters wanted ‘strong climate action’ and unless the Liberals gave these young voters a plan on climate action, they had no hope of winning government.

The problem for the Liberals under Turnbull was that they were miles behind the Labor government in the polls. A Newspoll published on November 16, 2009, had the Liberals trailing Labor 56-44 on a two-party preferred basis. On the preferred Prime Minister measure, Turnbull trailed then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by a margin of 22 per cent to 63 per cent.

What then happened? The following month, Tony Abbott was elected Liberal leader and the party decided to oppose a carbon tax. Soon enough, Labor was trailing in the polls, Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard and, in July 2010, Abbott came within a whisker of defeating a first-term government.

At the 2013 election, with the policy of repealing a carbon tax at the centrepiece of its manifesto, the Coalition, led by Abbott, won 90 seats (the Liberals winning 74 of those), defeating Labor in a landslide.

What is the lesson? Leadership requires giving voters a choice. The Liberals under Turnbull were not giving voters that choice – just a pale imitation of Labor.

Under Abbott, the voters knew that if the Coalition won government, there would be no carbon tax. They had before them a genuine policy contest – led by people with conviction prepared to fight for that policy in the teeth of fierce opposition, in the main from cashed-up vested interests.

Back to the present, with the Coalition agreeing over the weekend to abandon Net Zero but stay in the Paris Agreement, the question is whether there will be the same serious policy contest – and conviction – that was displayed under Abbott’s leadership.

Is it a welcome move to dump Net Zero? Absolutely. But the problem is that ‘we support Paris, and we support reducing emissions, but we don’t support Net Zero’ – approach sounds like a compromise to keep everyone happy yet doesn’t convince anyone – because that is how the Liberals have been approaching policy for at least the last ten years.

Ever since 2015, thanks to Messrs Turnbull, Pyne, Birmingham, and Morrison, Madam Bishop, and all their fellow travellers, the Liberals have been to conservatism what Milli Vanilli was to music… And because of their policy pusillanimity, they have been obliterated come election time. They now hold an historically low 28 seats in the House of Representatives.

To be electorally competitive again, the Liberals must display the same level of clarity and conviction that Abbott displayed in arguing against the carbon tax.

If it’s the Gen Z cohort they are worried about, maybe they can look back to 2009, where enough young voters were convinced that ‘climate action’ was bad for the economy and thus for their future job prospects.

As for the present, Bjorn Lomborg has posted research showing Swedish youth have lost interest in climate action. It dropped from their top issue in 2019 to the bottom half of 23 concerns, behind health, education, and safety.

In Australia, several polls, including this one conducted by Resolve, show that Net Zero targets are vote losers, not vote winners, including among young people.

The Liberals now have a chance to once again be the party for economic growth and prosperity; and, yes, concerned about protecting the environment, but without destroying it, and our standard of living.

Whether they are up for it, time will tell.