Liberal rift over net zero deepens as Andrew Hastie threatens to quit shadow cabinet

Andrew Hastie, a senior Liberal frontbencher often mentioned as a future leader, has warned he will resign from the shadow cabinet unless the party abandons its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, intensifying a long-running dispute within the Coalition over climate policy.

The ultimatum exposes fault lines between the Liberal Party’s conservative faction and its moderates and could complicate Sussan Ley’s efforts to hold the party together as leader. The dispute comes as Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce has introduced a private member’s bill seeking to abolish the net zero target, a move that has already expanded debate about the Coalition’s position on climate goals.

Hastie’s stand has thrust an internal contest into public view, prompting warnings within the Coalition about the potential for multiple frontbench resignations and a wider split between conservatives and moderates. Liberal frontbencher Senator Jonathan Duniam warned of a possible "mass exodus" from the frontbench if the party did not dump or qualify its support for net zero, comments reported by political commentators.

Nationals leader David Littleproud could also face pressure from within his ranks, where figures including Mr Joyce and former deputy leader Michael McCormack have expressed opposition to the target. Joyce has reportedly urged caution, telling Hastie not to precipitate a public showdown and saying he could not support the bill to abolish net zero because it would force him off the frontbench.

Commentators have framed the confrontation as both ideological and strategic. In a column for the Daily Mail, political analyst Peter van Onselen described the net zero target as a long-term, largely symbolic commitment — 25 years away — that many current parliamentarians will not be in office to answer for. Van Onselen wrote that some Conservatives view the pledge as meaningless rhetoric unless accompanied by the policy measures necessary to achieve it, and that breaking from the target carries electoral risk because younger voters and a broader portion of the electorate increasingly view climate action as important.

"I don’t think we need to get into the theological question of net zero," former prime minister Tony Abbott was quoted as saying earlier this year. "That’s not going to help us. We don’t want to get stuck on the question: do we or don’t we support net zero. The test for the Coalition is having a clear, sensible and credible energy policy." Van Onselen and other commentators have pointed to Abbott’s remarks as reflecting a pragmatic line that differs from the stance taken by some conservatives who favour outright rejection of the 2050 target.

Hastie’s threat is not merely rhetorical. He is a prominent conservative voice within the parliamentary party, and his departure from the shadow cabinet would remove an experienced frontbencher from Sussan Ley’s team at a time when the Coalition’s ranks are already diminished by the 2025 election loss. Van Onselen noted that the Coalition’s current parliamentary contingent includes 43 lower-house Coalition MPs and a smaller number of senators, while the established opposition frontbench comprises about 45 positions — 30 shadow ministers and 15 shadow assistant ministers — a tally that would be difficult to fill if the Coalition fractured.

The debate highlights competing calculations inside the Coalition. Some Conservatives argue that abandoning the net zero pledge would free the party to critique Labor’s policies to achieve the goal, including measures that could raise energy costs for households and businesses. Moderates counter that formally rejecting the target would make the party vulnerable to attacks that it is out of touch with younger and centrist voters who expect climate action.

Van Onselen also wrote that Hastie’s stance appears to be driven by principle rather than a tactical attempt to unseat Ley, characterising Hastie as unwilling to endorse a pledge he regards as insincere. That dynamic makes the issue harder to resolve internally because it is framed as a matter of conviction rather than mere leverage in a leadership contest.

The disagreement is the latest chapter in a long-standing split in the Liberal Party over climate policy that dates back more than a decade, including the 2009 leadership change that saw Malcolm Turnbull replaced by Tony Abbott amid disagreements over international climate agreements. Political commentators say the current standoff could re-open those longstanding divisions in a sharper way, particularly if the Nationals align with Conservatives opposed to net zero.

Labor is likely to watch the Coalition dispute closely and has the opportunity to use parliamentary mechanisms to spotlight internal divisions. Parliamentary debate on Mr Joyce’s private member’s bill could bring the fracture into the open and force Coalition MPs to take public positions.

For now, the immediate questions are whether Hastie will act on his threat, whether Ley will stand firm on the 2050 commitment, and whether the Nationals will remain aligned with the Liberals if the policy stance changes. Party officials, frontbenchers and commentators say the outcome could reshape the Coalition’s approach to climate policy and its ability to present a united alternative to Labor on energy and emissions reduction in the years ahead.