What polling reveals about voters and net zero

Summary of What polling reveals about voters and net zero

by ABC News

15m•November 17, 2025
Listen to Episode

Overview of What polling reveals about voters and net zero

This ABC News Daily episode (host Sam Hawley) interviews pollster and former Labor strategist Cos Samaras (director, Redbridge Group) about the political fallout after the Coalition officially dumped a net‑zero emissions target. The discussion focuses on voter sentiment, polling numbers, the messaging used by the Coalition, demographic effects (especially among younger and urban voters), and whether the decision helps or hurts the Coalition electorally.

Key takeaways

  • The Coalition’s decision to abandon a net‑zero target has kept the party room together but left the Coalition electorally weak—polling shows historically low primary support.
  • The policy resonates with a shrinking conservative base (particularly regional voters) but further alienates urban Australians and younger voters, who prioritize climate action.
  • Messaging from the Coalition is inconsistent and confusing (claiming commitment to the Paris Agreement while abandoning net zero; professing “technology‑agnostic” support while signalling taxpayer support for coal).
  • Polling suggests the move is unlikely to win many new voters; it mainly consolidates a smaller base while costing votes among urban, younger, and female electorates.
  • Practical energy experts (AEMO referenced) indicate cheapest new capacity is renewables backed by gas, storage and hydro — not new coal.

Polling and numbers

  • Coalition collective primary vote around 24% (per Cos Samaras and referenced News poll).
  • Removing the Nationals reduces the Coalition to about 20% primary; the Liberals in southern states (NSW, Victoria) are particularly weak.
  • Generation Z (ages ~18–28): coalition support roughly 10% (lower among women).
  • Voters under 50: coalition vote around 20% — showing demographic erosion.
  • Evidence of conservative voters defecting to One Nation amid internal Coalition turmoil.

Voter attitudes and drivers of concern

  • What voters blame for rising electricity bills:
    • First: electricity companies gouging consumers.
    • Second: unreliable energy sources.
    • Third (especially younger Australians): slow transition to renewables.
  • Many Australians want both affordable energy and climate action; they can hold both concerns simultaneously.
  • Private investors are reportedly not backing new coal — voters aware of the economics of energy investment.

Messaging and political framing

  • Coalition messaging emphasized “affordable energy” first and “responsible emissions reduction” second — meant to appeal to cost‑of‑living concerns.
  • Key public lines: “Australians deserve affordable energy and responsible emissions reduction” and “This debate is not one predicated on science. It is one predicated on economics.”
  • Contradictions and confusing signals:
    • Saying commitment to Paris while dumping net zero (Paris requires targets).
    • Claiming a technology‑agnostic approach while signaling potential public support for coal plants.
  • Internal compromise appears designed to protect moderate MPs in inner‑city seats, but those moderates are few.

Political implications and electoral outlook

  • Short term: leadership preserved and Coalition kept intact.
  • Medium/long term:
    • The policy will likely consolidate the Coalition’s base but shrink overall appeal due to demographic shifts (urbanization, younger voters).
    • It risks reinforcing an image of the Coalition as anti‑climate among city and younger voters—a group that has swung away in recent cycles (e.g., “teal” and independent results referenced).
    • The Coalition’s best path to broader appeal remains focusing on core economic issues (housing, cost of living) where they can present credible reform — simply rolling back net‑zero may not rebuild lost support.

Notable quotes

  • Coalition messaging: “Australians deserve affordable energy and responsible emissions reduction.”
  • On decision framing: “This debate is not one predicated on science. It is one predicated on economics.” (as stated in the public rollout)
  • Cos Samaras: the Coalition’s position is “the worst set of numbers they have probably seen since the Federation.”

What it means for the next election

  • The net‑zero rollback is unlikely to be a vote‑winner outside the Coalition’s core constituencies. It may be used as a distinct policy contrast with Labor, but that contrast risks being electorally toxic among urban and younger demographics.
  • To compete with Labor and regain relevance with emerging voters, the Coalition needs credible economic solutions (housing, cost of living) and clearer, consistent climate/energy messaging.

Episode details

  • Guest: Cos Samaras, director of the Redbridge Group.
  • Host: Sam Hawley.
  • Produced by Sydney Peed and Cinnamon Nepal; audio production by Sam Dunn; supervising producer David Coney.

Bottom line

Dumping net zero stabilised the Coalition internally but deepens its electoral vulnerabilities. The decision appeals to a narrowing base while increasing disengagement among urban and young voters who see credible climate action as essential. Clearer policy coherence and a focus on economic priorities are necessary for the Coalition to broaden its appeal before the next election.