The federal Nationals have officially scrapped their commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, a move that has thrown the Coalition’s climate policy into fresh uncertainty and intensified pressure on the Liberal Party to clarify its own stance.
After several hours of internal debate on Sunday, the Nationals’ party room reached a unanimous decision to abandon the net zero target and instead align Australia’s emissions reduction trajectory with that of other developed economies. The move, described by Nationals leader David Littleproud as “agile” and “common sense,” marks another instance where the junior Coalition partner has outpaced and outflanked the Liberals on a major policy issue.
The decision follows a pattern reminiscent of the Voice referendum debate, where the Nationals declared their opposition before the Liberals made their position known. In the past, the Nationals have consistently taken a more conservative and sceptical approach to climate and energy issues than their Coalition partner.
The Nationals’ revised policy states that Australia should cut emissions “in line with the developed world” rather than “moving faster” to achieve net zero by 2050. The shift effectively abandons a key commitment made under then–Prime Minister Scott Morrison and former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce in 2021, when the Coalition government formally endorsed the net zero target.
The party’s federal council, meeting on Saturday, had called on its parliamentary wing to drop the commitment. Though council resolutions are not binding, the timing of both meetings was carefully coordinated, underscoring a deliberate and unified pivot away from the 2050 goal.
“We are not walking away from reducing emissions,” Littleproud said during a press conference in Brisbane on Sunday. “We can peg ourselves to the rest of the world. If the world moves, we move with them.”
He argued that the new approach would prevent Australia from overburdening its economy while still contributing to global emissions reduction efforts. “This is an agile model that ensures we don’t go further or faster than comparable nations,” he said, distancing himself from accusations of climate denialism.
Littleproud pointed out that Australia’s emissions reduction record already outpaces much of the developed world. “OECD countries have been cutting their emissions by around 1% per year, while Australia has been reducing emissions by about 2% – double the OECD rate,” he claimed.
Under the Nationals’ proposed formula, Australia’s emissions reductions would be tied to the average performance of OECD members, excluding non-members such as China and India. Based on this model, the Albanese government’s 2035 target of a 62% to 70% cut on 2005 levels would be revised down to roughly 30% to 40%, a dramatic recalibration of the national goal.
“Our emissions cuts will be capped and calibrated, which is common sense,” Littleproud said. “The responsibility will be shared and transparent.”
The Nationals’ proposal also seeks to revive and expand the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), a policy tool established by the Abbott government in 2014 to pay businesses for projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Littleproud said the ERF had a “proven track record” between 2014 and 2023, achieving “real emissions reductions that didn’t ruin the economy.” He suggested the fund could be renewed at a fraction of the current $9 billion annual cost associated with federal subsidies, regulatory schemes, and administrative programs tied to net zero commitments.
“Our approach will increase investment in cheaper electricity by broadening the Capacity Investment Scheme – which currently excludes coal and gas – to include all energy technologies,” he said. “And we will remove the moratorium on nuclear energy.”
The inclusion of nuclear energy aligns with the Nationals’ broader energy policy, which advocates for lifting Australia’s decades-old nuclear ban and integrating nuclear generation as part of a diversified energy mix.
Senator Matt Canavan, one of the architects of the new policy, reinforced the argument that Australia’s current trajectory is economically reckless. “Under the Albanese government’s plan, Australia would be cutting emissions at a rate three times faster than the rest of the world,” Canavan said.
He warned that such aggressive targets would undermine Australian competitiveness and jeopardize jobs in regional industries. “We can’t keep making our farmers and miners pay the price for symbolic targets that don’t change global emissions,” he said.
The Nationals’ move now places the Liberal Party in an uncomfortable position. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley was informed of the Nationals’ decision on Sunday, with Littleproud saying discussions between the two parties would occur once the Liberals finalized their position.
The Liberals were already planning to release their own climate policy before Christmas but are now expected to accelerate the timeline. Within the party, divisions remain deep.
Hardline conservatives are pushing to scrap the net zero target altogether, arguing it alienates regional voters and imposes unsustainable costs. Moderates, however, want to retain the 2050 target to maintain credibility with urban electorates and business leaders, who increasingly demand policy certainty on climate. Others have suggested keeping the target but rebranding it as an “aspiration” rather than a binding commitment.
The tension echoes previous Coalition fractures on climate policy, from the internal battles over the National Energy Guarantee under Malcolm Turnbull to disputes about carbon pricing and renewable subsidies.
The Labor government and crossbench independents were quick to condemn the Nationals’ announcement. Environment Minister Murray Watt accused the Nationals of undermining the Coalition’s credibility and allowing a minority partner to dictate terms.
“Once again, we’re seeing the tail wagging the dog,” Watt said on ABC Radio. “We’ve got the National Party – which didn’t even rate 4% of the vote in the last federal election – dictating climate policy to the Liberal Party, which claims to be the majority partner.”
Watt said the Nationals’ stance mirrored their earlier push on nuclear power, which he described as “a policy Australians clearly rejected at the last election.”
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young also slammed the Nationals’ decision, calling it “ridiculous” and “out of touch with reality.” She linked the move to the Albanese government’s efforts to reform environmental laws, warning Labor against seeking bipartisan support from a Coalition she said was “held hostage by fossil fuel interests.”
“The question for the Labor Party now is how on earth can you work with such a ridiculous, out-of-touch party like the Coalition to pass your environment laws over the next few weeks or next year?” Hanson-Young said.
Climate-focused independents also weighed in, suggesting the Liberal Party could no longer credibly maintain a joint climate position with the Nationals.
Zali Steggall, the member for Warringah, said the Nationals’ decision showed they were “completely captured by fossil fuel interests” and disconnected from mainstream Australian opinion.
Meanwhile, Allegra Spender, the independent MP for Wentworth, said the Nationals’ announcement “lays bare the Liberals’ dilemma.”
“They’re left with a choice – either be honest that the Nationals are once again setting the Coalition’s climate policy, whatever words the Liberals come up with to dress it up, or split from the Nationals altogether,” Spender said.
The Nationals’ repudiation of net zero comes at a critical time for the opposition, which is still struggling to define a coherent policy platform ahead of the next federal election. The move exposes deep ideological fissures within the Coalition and raises doubts about its ability to present a united front on key policy areas.
For urban Liberal MPs, especially those in marginal city electorates vulnerable to teal independents, distancing from the Nationals’ stance may be politically necessary. For others, particularly in rural and mining regions, aligning with the Nationals’ approach could resonate with voters anxious about cost-of-living pressures and energy security.
The unfolding debate will test the Coalition’s internal discipline – and could determine whether it can present a credible alternative to Labor’s energy transition agenda.
As the Nationals double down on fossil fuels and slower emissions cuts, and the Liberals weigh pragmatism against ideology, Australia’s climate politics once again find themselves at a crossroads – and the Coalition partnership itself faces one of its most consequential stress tests in years.
